In response to this article in the Boston Herald wherein the author criticizes France for its hesitation in sending troops to Lebanon:
"Dear Mr. Crittenden,
I read your article this morning about French troops in Lebanon and wanted to take a moment to respond.
Additional French troops are not immediately forthcoming because it's unclear as to what their mandate would be. Would you, Mr. Crittenden, go charging into a war zone not knowing whether or not you could shoot to protect yourself, would have air support, or would otherwise have the tactical freedom of movement to take appropriate action? Or we could broaden the scope of questioning. You might wonder about the nature of your mission: would it be to disarm Hezbollah (a fool's errand), to protect Israel against attack, to prevent further civilian casualties in southern Lebanon...
In French, the word for 'mandate' is 'mandat' making translation actually quite straightforward... so much for your flip conjecture about a linguistic mix-up. To the contrary, after witnessing the evolution of our Afghan campaign where 'victory' yielded a re-emergent Taliban and 'democracy' and 'justice' in Iraq have yielded torture, slaughter at Haditha and civil war, I think it's safe to say that it's actually the French who have every right to scratch their heads in puzzlement over the meaning and nuance of our easy rhetoric.
I think perhaps it's not diplomacy which is the art of saying one thing and doing another these days, but journalism. For I'm sure you think of yourself as being a journalist, but it appears as though you're failing in your role as a watchdog of the centers of power.
Sincerely,
Patrick"
"Dear Mr. Crittenden,
I read your article this morning about French troops in Lebanon and wanted to take a moment to respond.
Additional French troops are not immediately forthcoming because it's unclear as to what their mandate would be. Would you, Mr. Crittenden, go charging into a war zone not knowing whether or not you could shoot to protect yourself, would have air support, or would otherwise have the tactical freedom of movement to take appropriate action? Or we could broaden the scope of questioning. You might wonder about the nature of your mission: would it be to disarm Hezbollah (a fool's errand), to protect Israel against attack, to prevent further civilian casualties in southern Lebanon...
In French, the word for 'mandate' is 'mandat' making translation actually quite straightforward... so much for your flip conjecture about a linguistic mix-up. To the contrary, after witnessing the evolution of our Afghan campaign where 'victory' yielded a re-emergent Taliban and 'democracy' and 'justice' in Iraq have yielded torture, slaughter at Haditha and civil war, I think it's safe to say that it's actually the French who have every right to scratch their heads in puzzlement over the meaning and nuance of our easy rhetoric.
I think perhaps it's not diplomacy which is the art of saying one thing and doing another these days, but journalism. For I'm sure you think of yourself as being a journalist, but it appears as though you're failing in your role as a watchdog of the centers of power.
Sincerely,
Patrick"
Here's an interesting story from the South Asian Times essentially pointing out what should now otherwise be obvious: our political leaders use the fear of terrorism to acquire and maintain power. This is certainly true in America, but it is also true here in Europe. Many of the perceived divides between the U.S. and Europe, be them in relation to terrorism or otherwise, are highly artificial. People on both continents are routinely manipulated by their respective governments... and to an extent welcome this manipulation because it's a source of comfort in an insecure world. We all indulge in the useless exercise of pointing fingers and blaming each other for the world's problems. We consume too much, to varying degrees, and exploit others to maintain our otherwise unsustainable levels of consumption.
But the term 'leader' is not even appropriate when used in reference to the self-interested individuals who currently control government. Government itself appears more and more to me as an enemy of the people. The war in Iraq, the continued suffering in Afghanistan, the lack of any meaningful environmental regulation, fiscal discipline, unconditional support of Israel and otherwise corrupt policies do more to harm the future security of Americans than any terrorist plotting to blow up a bridge in some dank hideaway. A leader would never direct his or her charge into such potential chaos and destruction. A leader possesses vision, and operate from the fundamental principle that the insight gained from this vision is to be lived as an example to others.
These people, these politicians, corrupted or blinded by the accumulated power of the American empire, aren't able to lead us anywhere, not any longer. They're trapped, and all their rhetoric is an invitation to join them in their cage.
And yet here I am blaming. Every time a person shoves into me in the metro or gives me a hard time for being an American I get angry. If I don't learn how to master that anger, or the greed of my indignant self-righteousness, than why should I expect anyone else to master theirs? And then where does peace come from? If I cannot find a path out of and away from meaningless desires and distractions than how can anyone find a balance in their own life?
So many people in the world right now are suffering. This awareness keeps coming to me.
On September 11th I suffered. I remember watching the two towers fall and feeling such a deep sadness. That sadness has not left me since. And I cherish it, because when I look at all the complete uselessness of what we get up to these days -all the bullshit on TV and online, the countless video games, albums, books and various other crap that we exault as culture and paint importance and meaning all over- when I look at it that sadness makes it seem so empty and insignificant. And thank God for that, because all of those things, in some way or another, are just invitiations too.
There is no more room for hatred on this planet. With all of the empty rhetoric of economic globalization the time has come for a movement of peace, of love, and of a real brotherhood.
War is no longer an acceptable solution to a problem. Violence is no longer an acceptable solution to a problem. Power has again consolidated into the hands of too few and we are so busy with our entertainment, our distractions and the myriad details of our lives that we're gladly sowing the seeds of our own destruction.
Do we Americans have to suffer again, and more greatly, before we learn the collective lesson that whatever we are chasing on the outside is really hidden deep within?
But the term 'leader' is not even appropriate when used in reference to the self-interested individuals who currently control government. Government itself appears more and more to me as an enemy of the people. The war in Iraq, the continued suffering in Afghanistan, the lack of any meaningful environmental regulation, fiscal discipline, unconditional support of Israel and otherwise corrupt policies do more to harm the future security of Americans than any terrorist plotting to blow up a bridge in some dank hideaway. A leader would never direct his or her charge into such potential chaos and destruction. A leader possesses vision, and operate from the fundamental principle that the insight gained from this vision is to be lived as an example to others.
These people, these politicians, corrupted or blinded by the accumulated power of the American empire, aren't able to lead us anywhere, not any longer. They're trapped, and all their rhetoric is an invitation to join them in their cage.
And yet here I am blaming. Every time a person shoves into me in the metro or gives me a hard time for being an American I get angry. If I don't learn how to master that anger, or the greed of my indignant self-righteousness, than why should I expect anyone else to master theirs? And then where does peace come from? If I cannot find a path out of and away from meaningless desires and distractions than how can anyone find a balance in their own life?
So many people in the world right now are suffering. This awareness keeps coming to me.
On September 11th I suffered. I remember watching the two towers fall and feeling such a deep sadness. That sadness has not left me since. And I cherish it, because when I look at all the complete uselessness of what we get up to these days -all the bullshit on TV and online, the countless video games, albums, books and various other crap that we exault as culture and paint importance and meaning all over- when I look at it that sadness makes it seem so empty and insignificant. And thank God for that, because all of those things, in some way or another, are just invitiations too.
There is no more room for hatred on this planet. With all of the empty rhetoric of economic globalization the time has come for a movement of peace, of love, and of a real brotherhood.
War is no longer an acceptable solution to a problem. Violence is no longer an acceptable solution to a problem. Power has again consolidated into the hands of too few and we are so busy with our entertainment, our distractions and the myriad details of our lives that we're gladly sowing the seeds of our own destruction.
Do we Americans have to suffer again, and more greatly, before we learn the collective lesson that whatever we are chasing on the outside is really hidden deep within?
Israel is currently at war with Lebanon. This rhetoric exists, floating out there in the media ether, that Israel is only targeting southern Lebanon. This is absurd.
Al-Qaeda attacked New York and Washington -the eastern United States- so the rest of the country should be indifferent, right?
What's the point of repeating explicitly that only southern Lebanon is targeted? Is the southern Lebanese economy not a part of the overall Lebanese economy? Don't people in the north have have family in the south? If you cut your hand doesn't the rest of your body feel pain?
Southern Lebanon.
Al-Qaeda attacked New York and Washington -the eastern United States- so the rest of the country should be indifferent, right?
What's the point of repeating explicitly that only southern Lebanon is targeted? Is the southern Lebanese economy not a part of the overall Lebanese economy? Don't people in the north have have family in the south? If you cut your hand doesn't the rest of your body feel pain?
Southern Lebanon.
In response to the article 'The Believer' by Francis Collins in Salon.
My own experience has been that true skepticism (forged in the laboratory) leads to a sincere questioning of basic assumptions about reality: science has reached a level of sophistication whereby our most banal assumptions about what is or is not are laid to waste; relativity comes to mind. The solution, however, is not some mystical/social band-aid whose impenetrable mystery lies beyond the realm of discussion. Sadly, many today view religion as being just that: a cop-out, and so dismiss it.
What religion offers to the individual skeptical enough to make the attempt, disciplined enough to shoulder the practice and rational enough not to be led astray is a legitimate means of inquiry into the nature of reality and the self (or lack thereof). It's daily work, input and output, it's productive and the results are tangible. It also just so happens that the insight gained is difficult to express technically and thus finds voice in the stories and mythologies comprising the facades of the world's religions. But it's a thinking person's work to step through those gateways to the richness of experience lying beyond; the mythologies are, in fact, an invitation. Otherwise, you subject yourself to the absolute authority of those metaphors (misused and abused as they so often are) or isolate yourself from your true human potential altogether.
The extent to which we allow popular misconcpetions about religion (on the part of non-practitioners and practitioners alike) to influence investigation into our relationship with ultimate reality represents the worst kind of intellectual laziness. We box ourselves in and are content to splash around in the tidepools of conventional wisdom when there is an open ocean of personal discovery that awaits. And today it is not simply a curiosity or a yearning which should compel us to set sail, but an urgent responsibility felt when observing the elevating consequences of human folly in the world around us.
"For the mythological hero is the champion not of things become but of things becoming; the dragon to be slain by him is precisely the monster of the status quo: Holdfast, the keeper of the past. From obscurity the hero emerges, but the enemy is great and conspicuous in the seat of power; he is enemy, dragon, tyrant, because he turns to his own advantage the authority of his position. He is Holdfast not because he keeps the past but because he keeps.
The tyrant is proud, and therein resides his doom. He is proud because he thinks of his strength as his own; thus he is in the clown role, as a mistaker of shadow for substance; it is his destiny to be tricked. The mythological hero, reappearing from the darkness that is the source of the shapes of the day, brings knowledge of the secret of the tyrant's doom. With a gesture as simple as the pressing of a button, he annihilates the impressive configuration. The hero-deed is a continuous shattering of the crystallizations of the moment. The cycle rolls: mythology focuses on the growing-point. Transformation, fluidity, not stubborn ponderosity, is the characteristic of the living God. The great figure of the moment exists only to be broken, cut into chunks, and scattered abroad. Briefly: the ogre-tyrant is the champion of the prodigious fact, the hero the champion of creative life."
"Such a crisis is described in the Zoroasterian Persian legend of the Emperor of the Golden Age, Jemshid.
All looked upon the throne, and heard and saw
Nothing but Jemshid, he alone was King,
Absorbing every thought; and in their praise
And adoration of that mortal man,
Forgot the worship of the great Creator.
Then proudly he to his nobles spoke,
Intoxicated with their loud applause,
'I am unequalled, for to me the earth
Owes all its science, never did exist
A sovereignty like mine, beneficent
And glorious, driving from the populous land
Disease and want. Domestic joy and rest
Proceed from me, all that is good and great
Waits my behest; the universal voice
Declares the splendor of my government,
Beyond whatever human heart conceived,
And me the only monarch of the world.'
-Soon as these words had parted from his lips
Words impious, and insulting to high heaven,
His earthly grandeur faded-then all tongues
Grew clamorous and bold. The day of Jemshid
Passed into gloom, his brightness all obscured.
What said the Moralist? 'When thou wert a king
The subjects were obedient, but whoever
Proudly neglects the worship of his God
Brings desolation on his house and home.'
-And when he marked the insolence of his people,
He knew the wrath of heaven had been provoked,
And terror overcame him."
- Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces
The tyrant is proud, and therein resides his doom. He is proud because he thinks of his strength as his own; thus he is in the clown role, as a mistaker of shadow for substance; it is his destiny to be tricked. The mythological hero, reappearing from the darkness that is the source of the shapes of the day, brings knowledge of the secret of the tyrant's doom. With a gesture as simple as the pressing of a button, he annihilates the impressive configuration. The hero-deed is a continuous shattering of the crystallizations of the moment. The cycle rolls: mythology focuses on the growing-point. Transformation, fluidity, not stubborn ponderosity, is the characteristic of the living God. The great figure of the moment exists only to be broken, cut into chunks, and scattered abroad. Briefly: the ogre-tyrant is the champion of the prodigious fact, the hero the champion of creative life."
"Such a crisis is described in the Zoroasterian Persian legend of the Emperor of the Golden Age, Jemshid.
All looked upon the throne, and heard and saw
Nothing but Jemshid, he alone was King,
Absorbing every thought; and in their praise
And adoration of that mortal man,
Forgot the worship of the great Creator.
Then proudly he to his nobles spoke,
Intoxicated with their loud applause,
'I am unequalled, for to me the earth
Owes all its science, never did exist
A sovereignty like mine, beneficent
And glorious, driving from the populous land
Disease and want. Domestic joy and rest
Proceed from me, all that is good and great
Waits my behest; the universal voice
Declares the splendor of my government,
Beyond whatever human heart conceived,
And me the only monarch of the world.'
-Soon as these words had parted from his lips
Words impious, and insulting to high heaven,
His earthly grandeur faded-then all tongues
Grew clamorous and bold. The day of Jemshid
Passed into gloom, his brightness all obscured.
What said the Moralist? 'When thou wert a king
The subjects were obedient, but whoever
Proudly neglects the worship of his God
Brings desolation on his house and home.'
-And when he marked the insolence of his people,
He knew the wrath of heaven had been provoked,
And terror overcame him."
- Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces
Google Image Search Results, August 4th, 6:00 pm, Paris
How long will it take until all the image links are broken?
Love:
Hate:
God:
How long will it take until all the image links are broken?
Love:
Hate:
God:
I was away for two weeks in Portugal. My impressions on the country are still crystallizing and I'll certainly write about it in the days to come.
Listened to an interesting dharma talk from Thich Nhat Hanh today. He talked about the concepts of mindfulness and inter-being along with various practices meant to help the individual live fully in the present. The dichotomy of self-non-self was particularly intriguing.
I also listened to half an interview between Bill Moyers and Salman Rushdie. Among myriad interesting snippets, there was one Rushdie quote that was particularly striking. To paraphrase: a nation is a group of people living together, through time, working to improve the world they live in. In light of the breakdown of group cultural, religious or otherwise social identities due to the intermixing of ethinicities and cultures in the modern world, I thought this a very interesting way of thinking about what it means to be a nation. It also underlines our many failures, as such, in being a truly modern nation.
The news from Lebanon is worse today. Why wouldn’t this lead to a World War? Is it justifiable to kill another human being?
Listened to an interesting dharma talk from Thich Nhat Hanh today. He talked about the concepts of mindfulness and inter-being along with various practices meant to help the individual live fully in the present. The dichotomy of self-non-self was particularly intriguing.
I also listened to half an interview between Bill Moyers and Salman Rushdie. Among myriad interesting snippets, there was one Rushdie quote that was particularly striking. To paraphrase: a nation is a group of people living together, through time, working to improve the world they live in. In light of the breakdown of group cultural, religious or otherwise social identities due to the intermixing of ethinicities and cultures in the modern world, I thought this a very interesting way of thinking about what it means to be a nation. It also underlines our many failures, as such, in being a truly modern nation.
The news from Lebanon is worse today. Why wouldn’t this lead to a World War? Is it justifiable to kill another human being?