Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tavis on Ghandi
*Chuckle"
Ghandi, MLK & Crowley.
"Love is the Law."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/archive/201104/20110412.html
Specifically:
Joseph Lelyveld interviewed about Ghandi by Tavis Smiley.
Interesting comments on the centrality of "love" in public discourse and not only the lack of it in recent times but the tendency to dismiss it, often with prejudice. And that as much by self identified followers of he who gave them a new commandment to "love one another."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/archive/201104/20110412_lelyveld.html?vid=1881382312#video
So, while i hadn't thought to coupled ALL these names in one sentence before, nevertheless, the central. core and 'official' teachings of Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Aleister Crowley is "Love is the Law."
:)
--
JL
M. JL Esq. wrote an expansion on his thoughts after watching the t.v. show his previous post was based on:)
> Joseph Lelyveld interviewed about Ghandi by Tavis Smiley.
>
> Interesting comments on the centrality of "love" in public discourse and not only the lack of it in recent times but the tendency to dismiss it, often with prejudice. And that as much by self identified followers of he who gave them a new commandment to "love one another."
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/archive/201104/20110412_lelyveld.html?vid=1881382312#video
>
> So, while i hadn't thought to couple ALL these names in one sentence before, nevertheless, the central. core and 'official' teachings of Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Aleister Crowley is "Love is the Law."
>
> :)
> --
> JL
>
And what we have by way of "public discourse" is what we have made of the old teachings.
Of course, by 'public discourse' i don't mean our little chats here, though technically this does fall under the definition, but rather i was suggesting the existence of bodies of opinions, generally circulating in the world to day. I think most people, with a few historical exceptions, believed peace and plenty were better than war and want. And various cultures express various virtues in various ways, given the peace and plenty to do so.
One can make an argument that we don't have enough people practising the old teachings that tell us to love one another, from those ancient or modern teachers who were followers of more ancient philosophies.
That Great Beast himself (humanity) cant seem to live up to the ideal, much less Crowley:)
Some going so far as to convince them selves they can impose a better or greater peace and plenty by war and want. Which has carried us to the extremes of the present moment in history.
Where "Love" as a debating point or rational for behaviour among those elements of those societies that can and do talk about these things has been dismissed as little more than an antique superstition. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
If one were to suggest Christ like love or Ghandian compassion and passive resistance in the war rooms or board rooms of the modern world one would be laughed out of the room, if not worse.
Even in the lecture hall the very idea is constrained to the religion departments of any particular school and in the philosophy and psychology departments it is seen in its propagandistic aspect of moral compulsion as nothing more than an antique superstition, popular meme only lip service is generally given to.
One must fight. For the president of the united states to suggest a foreign policy based on Ghandian or Christ like values of loving, compassionate, self sacrificing passive resistance would be to betray his very inaugural oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend..."
And people being animals, innately, primal, irrational beasts, capable of choosing selfishness rather than selflessness it is foolish to think that some wont, or that we can ever correct the tendency, in fact, whether we should, and if so to what degree?
The best society could very easily produce the worst villain:)
The moral evolution of the species while undeniable, is, demonstrably, weak. It resorts to a primal bestial animalistic state very easily, both individually and collectively, nation states as the proverbial "junk yard dogs" for all the teachings and messiahs and priest and prophets we are no better, morally than we were 2,000 years ago. If anything slightly worse in that we know better now:)
We now know the earth is not at the centre of the universe, physically or philosophically any more.
When the human animal had some reason to think the universe moved around it and that it were the crown of creation, a special being of God to dwell in the world he had created, when it seemed self evident, it is easy to excuse.
But now .... and for the last 500 years or more (discounting ancient speculation that got it right) we know the earth is orbiting a small star in one arm of a single galaxy containing billions of stars, in a universe containing billions times billions of galaxies in an infinite space.
How special can any one planet or species on it be?
Certainly not an excuse for war, or territoriality, "In Hoc Signo Vinces" when it seemed the human animal was singular and special in the universe extreme rationalizations of thought and actions were understandable, now we know we exist in a much larger universe where we are insignificant at best. Ephemeral, we only have about another 5 billion years or so to colonize other planets before our local stellar unit expires, consuming the planet earth with it. We should do it all better as we aren't part of something special and as a random, meaningless accident, we can stumble along in a half hearted attempt to be compassionate or commit ourselves to it merely because we can.
One is given a chance to do good or bad, with either having no bareing on the individuals ultimate fate or destiny.
The human animal is placed in a position in nature where choices are demanded of it by nature that nature does not impose on any other animal.
As an accident, it can have no bearing on any pre-existent plan for its existence or its cessation of existence.
Those aspects of animal life that elevate the human animal above the rest of the animal kingdom are but refinements and elaboration's of similar compulsions in the rest of the animal kingdom. Many animals are more territorial than humans, they have their politics and economics, mateing rituals, taboos, and other similar behaviour.
But "Man" understands & seeks out understanding as almost an primal compulsion.
Given my probly hypnogogic experience of Deity, i wouldn't put it past "Him" to have "Magically" expanded the universe as "Man" observed it.
In a Jack Nicholson voice, God says to man: "You want something to look at? ill give you an infinite universe to look at!"
Micro as well as macroscopic:)
--
J(3.145...:)L
Ghandi, MLK & Crowley.
"Love is the Law."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/archive/201104/20110412.html
Specifically:
Joseph Lelyveld interviewed about Ghandi by Tavis Smiley.
Interesting comments on the centrality of "love" in public discourse and not only the lack of it in recent times but the tendency to dismiss it, often with prejudice. And that as much by self identified followers of he who gave them a new commandment to "love one another."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/archive/201104/20110412_lelyveld.html?vid=1881382312#video
So, while i hadn't thought to coupled ALL these names in one sentence before, nevertheless, the central. core and 'official' teachings of Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Aleister Crowley is "Love is the Law."
:)
--
JL
M. JL Esq. wrote an expansion on his thoughts after watching the t.v. show his previous post was based on:)
> Joseph Lelyveld interviewed about Ghandi by Tavis Smiley.
>
> Interesting comments on the centrality of "love" in public discourse and not only the lack of it in recent times but the tendency to dismiss it, often with prejudice. And that as much by self identified followers of he who gave them a new commandment to "love one another."
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/archive/201104/20110412_lelyveld.html?vid=1881382312#video
>
> So, while i hadn't thought to couple ALL these names in one sentence before, nevertheless, the central. core and 'official' teachings of Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Aleister Crowley is "Love is the Law."
>
> :)
> --
> JL
>
And what we have by way of "public discourse" is what we have made of the old teachings.
Of course, by 'public discourse' i don't mean our little chats here, though technically this does fall under the definition, but rather i was suggesting the existence of bodies of opinions, generally circulating in the world to day. I think most people, with a few historical exceptions, believed peace and plenty were better than war and want. And various cultures express various virtues in various ways, given the peace and plenty to do so.
One can make an argument that we don't have enough people practising the old teachings that tell us to love one another, from those ancient or modern teachers who were followers of more ancient philosophies.
That Great Beast himself (humanity) cant seem to live up to the ideal, much less Crowley:)
Some going so far as to convince them selves they can impose a better or greater peace and plenty by war and want. Which has carried us to the extremes of the present moment in history.
Where "Love" as a debating point or rational for behaviour among those elements of those societies that can and do talk about these things has been dismissed as little more than an antique superstition. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
If one were to suggest Christ like love or Ghandian compassion and passive resistance in the war rooms or board rooms of the modern world one would be laughed out of the room, if not worse.
Even in the lecture hall the very idea is constrained to the religion departments of any particular school and in the philosophy and psychology departments it is seen in its propagandistic aspect of moral compulsion as nothing more than an antique superstition, popular meme only lip service is generally given to.
One must fight. For the president of the united states to suggest a foreign policy based on Ghandian or Christ like values of loving, compassionate, self sacrificing passive resistance would be to betray his very inaugural oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend..."
And people being animals, innately, primal, irrational beasts, capable of choosing selfishness rather than selflessness it is foolish to think that some wont, or that we can ever correct the tendency, in fact, whether we should, and if so to what degree?
The best society could very easily produce the worst villain:)
The moral evolution of the species while undeniable, is, demonstrably, weak. It resorts to a primal bestial animalistic state very easily, both individually and collectively, nation states as the proverbial "junk yard dogs" for all the teachings and messiahs and priest and prophets we are no better, morally than we were 2,000 years ago. If anything slightly worse in that we know better now:)
We now know the earth is not at the centre of the universe, physically or philosophically any more.
When the human animal had some reason to think the universe moved around it and that it were the crown of creation, a special being of God to dwell in the world he had created, when it seemed self evident, it is easy to excuse.
But now .... and for the last 500 years or more (discounting ancient speculation that got it right) we know the earth is orbiting a small star in one arm of a single galaxy containing billions of stars, in a universe containing billions times billions of galaxies in an infinite space.
How special can any one planet or species on it be?
Certainly not an excuse for war, or territoriality, "In Hoc Signo Vinces" when it seemed the human animal was singular and special in the universe extreme rationalizations of thought and actions were understandable, now we know we exist in a much larger universe where we are insignificant at best. Ephemeral, we only have about another 5 billion years or so to colonize other planets before our local stellar unit expires, consuming the planet earth with it. We should do it all better as we aren't part of something special and as a random, meaningless accident, we can stumble along in a half hearted attempt to be compassionate or commit ourselves to it merely because we can.
One is given a chance to do good or bad, with either having no bareing on the individuals ultimate fate or destiny.
The human animal is placed in a position in nature where choices are demanded of it by nature that nature does not impose on any other animal.
As an accident, it can have no bearing on any pre-existent plan for its existence or its cessation of existence.
Those aspects of animal life that elevate the human animal above the rest of the animal kingdom are but refinements and elaboration's of similar compulsions in the rest of the animal kingdom. Many animals are more territorial than humans, they have their politics and economics, mateing rituals, taboos, and other similar behaviour.
But "Man" understands & seeks out understanding as almost an primal compulsion.
Given my probly hypnogogic experience of Deity, i wouldn't put it past "Him" to have "Magically" expanded the universe as "Man" observed it.
In a Jack Nicholson voice, God says to man: "You want something to look at? ill give you an infinite universe to look at!"
Micro as well as macroscopic:)
--
J(3.145...:)L
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
