Archive for the ‘non-dual’ Category
[ by Charles Cameron — theology and espionage, non-dual — how could i possibly resist? ]
Thank you, dear friends.
[ by Charles Cameron — didn’t i post this? okay, it’s a few days old, but i’ll post it ]
Pres. Trump on Charlottesville: "There's blame on both sides…you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." pic.twitter.com/ayX9eHABsN
— ABC News (@ABC) August 15, 2017
"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion…" pic.twitter.com/InZ58zkoAm
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 13, 2017
Both forms of both / and:
What interests me here is that Trump’s tweet and Obama’s both represent “both / and” positions.
Obama sees our common humanity cutting across whatever borders of skin color or whatever might be thought to separate us.
Trump shares the blame equally between the alt-right folk and the folk who were protesting them, when at least arguably the protesters came with (largely) peaceable intent, while the alt-right folk were trying for provocation:
No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.
— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) August 16, 2017
Note, however, that Trump sees things in exactly the reverse manner — another enantiodromia? From Amy Davidson Sorkin in the New Yorker — Donald Trump, from His Tower, Rages at “the Other Side” in Charlottesville:
You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that. But I’ll say that right now.” The bad group was the white nationalists; the “very violent” group was those who had come to object. In case anyone missed his point, he continued, “You had a group on the other side that came charging in—without a permit—and they were very, very violent.” Trump wasn’t putting the two sides on the same level; he was saying that the counter-protesters were worse.
There’s a very different feel to the two kinds of “both / and” IMO — Trump’s actually favoring one side in a conflict and protecting it by shifting some of the blame away from it, while Obama’s is neutral as to sides (though in the case of racists vs non-racists, he’d presumably favor the non-racists.
My head buzzes: an interesting little logical knot, I think.
[ by Charles Cameron — in which Gartenstein-Ross reminds me of Albrecht Dürer ]
New at @ForeignAffairs: "The Coming Islamic Culture War."
IMO the most consequential piece I've written in years.https://t.co/k2IqX2YI7X
— Gartenstein-Ross (@DaveedGR) March 4, 2017
Daveed is worth reading and heeding, especially when he says he’s written something of particular consequence — so read his Foreign Affairs piece.
My topic is triggered by a single sentence in Daveed’s piece, and is orthogonal to his. Daveed writes:
These spaces included both literal ungoverned territory and discursive spaces
In the overall flow of Daveed’s piece that’s a simple introductory remark, an observation of fact. From my point of view, though, there’s more to it than that — it’s a disjunction & conjunction of the two realms of geography and cognition, matter and mind, or “outer and inner space” if you will. And that’s something always worth noting.
In fact, Daveed’s comment reminds me of Albrecht Dürer and his illustrations of Saint Michael Fighting the Dragon, from The Apocalypse:
Here, the supernatural sits comfortably above (Latin: super) the natural.
The physical-metaphysical (body-mind; outer-inner; objective-subjective) disjunction & conjunction is recognizable in Descartes, and takes contemporary form as the so-called hard problem in consciousness. It’s significant that the “war in heaven” of Durer’s vision no longer fills the skies in our contemporary images of war, though heaven and hell are no less with us than before..
And so I note that, en passant, Daveed has alluded to what is perhaps the great schism of our time, that between visionary and factual truths.
Kathleen Raine, poet — and mentor of my youthful self:
Fact is not the truth of myth; myth is the truth of fact.
Witness her distress as we abandon truth of myth shining “above” truth of fact, for truth of fact alone:
Chemistry dissolves the goddess in the alembic,
Venus the white queen, the universal matrix,
Down to molecular hexagons and carbon-chains,
John of Patmos, the alchemists, Durer, Blake, Jung, Raine, have the richer vision.
[ by Charles Cameron — from a burial to Buddhism, just a skip and a jump away ]
A sweet visual DoubleQuote I ran across today —
— Ticia Verveer (@ticiaverveer) February 25, 2017
— shows on the right, the Lovers of Valdaro — a matched pair of skeletons of which Time wrote in 2011:
For 6,000 years, two young lovers have been locked in an eternal embrace, hidden from the eyes of the world. This past weekend, the Lovers of Valdaro — named for the little village near Mantua, in northern Italy, where they were first discovered — were seen by the public for the first time.
On the left, you have an artist’s representation of how they might have been embraced in death.
All of which reminds me of Buddhist meditation on death, and of the dancing skeleton couple known collectively as Citipati:
By Wonderlane – https://www.flickr.com/photos/wonderlane/3172647615/in/photostream/, CC BY 2.0, Link
Wiki tells us:
Citipati is a protector deity or supernatural being in Tibetan Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism of India. It is formed of two skeletal deities, one male and the other female, both dancing wildly with their limbs intertwined inside a halo of flames representing change. The Citipati is said to be one of the seventy-five forms of Mahakala. Their symbol is meant to represent both the eternal dance of death as well as perfect awareness. They are invoked as ‘wrathful deities’, benevolent protectors or fierce beings of demonic appearance. The dance of the Citipati is commemorated twice annually in Tibet.
Considering two together as one is a recurring interest of mine, see also my posts on duel and duet — themselves a great pairing or dual — in Duel in slow time and more prosaically, Numbers by the numbers: two.