|
Post by david on Apr 4, 2011 12:17:35 GMT -5
Jeffrey, its funny you use the Guggenheim as an example, I would have said just the opposite, that she was one of those rare occurrences in history where 'money' was put to the best possible use. However I cant agree that it is because of her patronage that those artists became famous. It sounds as if you think the art is garbage, or that she just chose people at random, no, she chose people who were already recognized by their peers as artists on the 'edge'. She had a lot of help in making those decisions, people like Herbert Read, another rare example of an extraordinary art critic whose work is still relevant today. Then all of her friends were artists etc, people like Cocteau, finally a patron who actually listens to artists advice! The modern day Guggenheim museum however, like all institutions, I would say should be put under care scrutiny, but i would say Peggy was riding a wave, a pre-institutional in a sense...
|
|
|
Post by don on Apr 6, 2011 16:46:49 GMT -5
At any rate, speaking of connecting the dots, I had a few ideas:
--theory/philosophy has become the new 'scripture' of our time.
--until we re-gain a sense of 'being' as the primary and most fundamental organizing principle to all of that which gives life meaning, then it seems to me that we will remain 'divorced' from our natural habitat, in a state of delusion, and confusion, regarding the purpose and meaning of life itself.
And so it doesn't matter who is giving money to who I think, while I agree that there was much good in what Guggenheim did (her galleries are like contemporary monasteries in a sense), and the artists she was dealing with were genuine masters of their art, most of whom were to become prophets of the future, and legacies of their time; but what remains 'wrong' with the whole picture is the fact that our whole society, our global community, is rotten to the core, it politics, culture, society, and so on. While art is about bringing our awareness to such issues, there needs to be a complete change in the understanding of human consciousness, and the end to which that is put, which in most cases is some form of exploitation. People lead their lives out in exploitation, of themselves and others, one reason is that we connect 'value' to 'currency'.
Regarding theory/philsophy, it seems that this has become equated with power, like a form of scripture, people who can navigate through all the important philosophers, and theorists, are always held in high esteem, I notice this, and strangely I also notice that the rhetoric is changing more and more towards a pseudo-mystical language, but without any strategy of how to actual lead a life which leads to deep contemplation, just talk about it, and ever more convoluted and difficult language, does anyone follow me here?
Another ill-formed rant, but the dots are never ending when dealing with discourse, it can go on and on until it just falls in a silence of knowing.
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Apr 6, 2011 18:51:01 GMT -5
Thank-you Don, I think you got the point. We only hear from those who receive patronage. We do not hear from those who do not. Since mystics are typically marginalized in every culture and age, then most likely most mystics were never heard from. If we, as a culture, want enlightened leadership, then we, as a culture, need to learn how to fund enlightened leaders. Enlightened leaders are mystics.
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 7, 2011 17:07:10 GMT -5
Another reason people lead a life of 'being'-exploited (odd phrase that), is ignorance. 'Being' kept and maintained in ignorance by a society as blind and out of control as those they will accuse and marginalize as being-'criminal', being-'insane', being-'out-of-their-mind', being-unable to 'fit' in, and so forth. But how can 'being' be anything but what it is? Other than a pure form of awareness which all living things share in common?
Jeffrey, would you say that while our natural state of 'being' was lost long ago (our divorce from nature?), it was only since the advent of 'civilization' that brought about this demise?
It seems to me that the advent of large scale 'religion' was administered as form of thought control used and exploited by those in power in order to state by non-rational means of authority a dominion over those who did not fit into a narrowly defined description of what constituted an obedient citizen. Or what could be deemed 'important', and what was 'un-important' by the 'grand'-narrative (religion) which people just blindly follow(ed). What started as a form of control by a minority, I'm guessing simply began to run by itself as people grasped at the religious 'authorities' for meaning and purpose in their lives, so much so that, religion becomes almost like a form of psychosis, something that governments no longer could maintain and instead were and are forced to 'follow', in turn passing on power to the religious priesthood.
And has not the mainstreams of science and art always reflected the dominant hegemony of a period of time? That would be the funding issue, coupled with the fear for ones life if they did not 'obey'.
So while I may have been right in one sense about Guggenheim, on another level, this 'relationship' of money and authority subsidizing an art intended to critique the very ground upon which they all stood, was in a sense a hypocrisy, the patron and artist now patting one another on the back for how far they have come since the 'olden' days. The 'freedom' to do what you like, both with your 'millions' and your artistic imagination. A sense of liberation, and finally a period in history where, like Duchamp, you can give the whole royal jack-ass of history the finger with a urinal! (It is interesting where this all lead though...)
What gets me is how corruption is wrapped up in every outlet and expression of life, of human life, how the insidious neurosis of humanity seems to contaminate every facet of our existence, everywhere we turn, we seem confronted with insanity, a margin that is reinforced every time I walk out side, with every person we engage in, I don't know, but it seems to make life like a very raw deal indeed....
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Apr 7, 2011 19:16:48 GMT -5
Jeffrey, would you say that while our natural state of 'being' was lost long ago (our divorce from nature?), it was only since the advent of 'civilization' that brought about this demise? Yes, I would agree that civilization occurred by our divorce from nature, and organized religion was the vehicle for selling civilization.
|
|
|
Post by julia on Apr 11, 2011 20:30:07 GMT -5
Jeffrey, how do you mean organized religion was the vehicle for selling civilization?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Apr 12, 2011 9:25:40 GMT -5
Hello Julia, and thank-you for posting your interesting question. I assume you have had some western civ in your education, so you know how it is delivered from the point of view that western civilization was a social evolutionary process that produced western civilization as its crowning achievement. The great artistic and architectural accomplishments are used as a vehicle to document that "evolution."
Along the way kings rose and fell, and religions rose and fell, and kings and emperors funded the construction of those great artistic and architectural accomplishments, and many of those great artistic and architectural accomplishments were religious in theme.
In fact if you read in between the lines you will find that the kings and emperors who funded the construction of those great artistic and architectural accomplishments were doing so to fuse their "divine right of kings" with religion, so that apposing the king and his demands, such as taxes, was therefore apposing the will of god/gods.
|
|
|
Post by Julia on Apr 13, 2011 6:00:14 GMT -5
Jeffrey, I have only read that the evolutionary model is one of many theories applied in retrospect, but does not necessarily represent how societies actually undergo change, development, and decay. But I see what you mean how institutions were enmeshed in tactics for gaining power and control over the 'people', the 'folk', or 'folk' cultures, and their highly varied and rich traditions of play and collegial exchange; simple practices which involved interdependence, and communities that were adaptive to subtle shifts in 'localized' energies. What is today considered 'sub', of a 'sub-culture', I am speculating was in the past the actual 'mainstream', before 'civilization' (greed, the will for more and more 'power' - control over localized energies into dominant centrally controlled 'centers', and so on) took its place, and like a disease infected everything it came in contact with, contaminating the subtle energies required to pursue a contemplative life.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Apr 13, 2011 9:10:00 GMT -5
Good points Julia, your comment reminded me of the conquest of the native populations of the Americas by various European Nations. Evident in the Native American ethnographies is a completely different world-view enjoyed by Native Americans in contrast to the world-view of the peoples of the European nations. Generally the pre-contact Native American had greater autonomy, and less dependence upon a centralized leadership; whereas the European world-view was the product of 1500 years of centralized government and religion.
|
|
|
Post by nelly on Apr 15, 2011 15:50:49 GMT -5
Jeffrey, an idea came up in relation to what has become quite a hot area of debate, the 'cultural commons', and the issue between public and private 'property'. One 'scholar' I read was saying 'if we take the idea of the Buddhist concept of interdependence seriously, then in fact nothing belongs to anybody', but rather every-'thing' is constituted of other things in series of chains of relations and networks from atoms to the formation of stars and so on. Also I have seen discussed how most of our lives are about the formation of identifications and the attachment of 'rights', copyrights, labels, brands, spending our time creating what we think to be a 'unique' identity, a notion that is often reinforced in ever aspect of culture and community today.
I suppose what comes to mind is how our society seems to be in a way totally reversed, we award doctorates to people who can think deeply about a single topic, we, subjects of a political system which casts us as such, must listen to people, experts, tell us that what we need to do is embrace more of a Buddhist doctrine into our lives and learn how to let go. But first we are born into a system which represses that innate sense of interdependence and values usually associated with mysticism, and instead instills us with false values associated with industrialization and business, while packaging the 'truth' as something we must buy.
Jeffrey, can you explain more about how to create a society/life built around the values of a mystic?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Apr 16, 2011 8:31:37 GMT -5
I agree Nelie, post industrial societies are focused upon the individual at the same time; however, we become just nameless and faceless "cogs in the machine." And, arguably, ownership is part of "civilization" whereas, tribal societies are not at all about ownership. And, the interdependence theory of Mahayana Buddhism (it is not part of Theravada), is certainly a throw back to tribal thinking; however, one must realize that there is nothing in any form of mainstream Buddhism that supports mystics, even though Siddhartha Gautama was a mystic.
What I have been saying all along about how we become mystics is leading a rigorous self-aware and ethical contemplative life. We must also realize that every mainstream religion and most meditation teachers have misled us for thousands of years, so we may very well have to throw out a lot of excess baggage of erroneous belief systems and behaviors.
|
|
|
Post by don on Apr 16, 2011 19:58:53 GMT -5
Jeffrey, three days ago I went into what I think was 3rd Jhana, however I was also hyper aware of a high level of anxiety. It was like static disrupting the clarity of the 3rd Jhana, what I became aware of during that time was how calming the breath seemed the only thing to do to ease the anxiety, as if my whole existence was organized around the breath (where as I may have known that intellectually, I was then experiencing it). Also the anxiety, which always seems like an amorphous term, was very real, and while it always seems like we have to go to a psychotherapist to sort out our 'problems' which we are conditioned to believe are the 'cause' of the anxiety, it seemed to me at that time that it was only the breath, as a tool, which could 'release' that anxiety. I'm trying to recollect more, but the conditioning aspect is something that seemed to me at the time to be what can in fact be the cause of holding onto memories that we in turn believe are something that we need to solve, through analysis. What a horrid mess to be under that belief! And what must be the reason so many contemporary thinkers hold Freud and the whole advent of psychoanalysis in contempt. I could see that that could not possibly be the path to solving ones 'problems' which are all too often 'problems' only on a non-dual state of awareness.
Anyways, I found your essays on mindfulness and was just reading them, and the Buddha's suttas, and finding they suddenly made so much sense!
"Mindfulness (Sati) practice is defined in the Sati suttas as attentive awareness of the breath, body, senses and mind. These are known as the four cornerstones of mindfulness (Sati)."
Yes and of course while my attention was focused on the breath as the vehicle to easing and releasing the anxiety, that involved attention to how the body was relaxing, and how the senses were highly sensitive, and how this all appeared from the mind, awareness of thought of past, present and future events.
However, writing this now, looking back in retrospect, without absorption, focus on the breath in a 'dual' stricken state of mind, isn't going to solve anything, and thus I can see why people despair and run to a therapist or just suffer with their thoughts, friends, and books etc.
|
|
|
Post by don on Apr 16, 2011 20:00:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by don on Apr 16, 2011 20:35:45 GMT -5
Jeffrey, thinking about this further, I would say that anxiety is something that controls my life, but also is an attachment of some kind, that well I dont know how to get rid of, and maybe even perpetuate it as a problem that I have come to identify with in some way. I don't know. But I suffer from chronic muscle pain, insomnia, and the havoc that creates in trying to just live a normal life where one gets tired at night and has energy in the morning and is able to think clearly through the day and plan for the future. I run my life day to day, I can never know how I will feel one day to the next and nothing I have tried seems to help. Massage usually is the only thing that helps.
But the other day I felt as though I was becoming aware of the anxiety as a kind of entity in my awareness, something that I could reduce with attention on the breath and other mindfulness factors. But I am not in 3rd Jhana everyday, and usually only reach 2nd. I may be in that ping-pong region that you have described Jeffrey between 2nd and 3rd. But the anxiety and chronic pain has been going on for maybe 15 years in various manifestations. I am highly irritable, especially to sound, I have never been able to just zone something out, some sounds in the environment including people can drive me up the wall.
I can be dead tired, and I know it is the anxiety that just keeps driving me on, dragging me with it.
So settling into 3rd Jhana seems to be one solution, and just using the usual coping methods until that happens...? I hate being in pain, tormented by an anxiety that has no diagnosis, no solution, no way out. I know people see it in me as well, I know that people see more of it than even I do, I can see their expression, their whole bodily reaction to becoming aware of my presence, I can see it in them , from far away people see it in me I know they see what I try to mask, hide, I truly hate it, and I know it is ugly, and it is very rarely that I escape from it, and that it goes unnoticed, having ones pain reflected in everyone one meets is like looking in the mirror at something that is not even there, I feel like a living ghost, someone that is afraid of my own reflection, I see it in myself when I look in the mirror and I see it in every person I encounter , they mirror my revulsion back to me, they see what I hate, and I know they hate it too.
|
|
|
Post by Nelly on Apr 16, 2011 21:26:35 GMT -5
Sorry to interrupt you there Don, Jeffrey, you say that the interdependence theory is from Mahayana Buddhism, not part of Theravada. I'm still confused about the differences between all the different forms of Buddhism, Tibetan et al, can you give a brief description of the distinctions and is one form more 'pure', or better, than the others? Tibetan Buddhism seems to be so prevalent and I always wonder does 'demarking' oneself as belonging to one form over another a way of giving some kind of secret signal, or code or something? Like a subtle way of pushing people around who wouldn't know the difference anyways?
Thanks Nelly
|
|