Latest LCWR newsletter
As lithely envisioned
“A problem cannot be solved within the sameconsciousness that created it.” –Albert Einstein
Thirty-five LCWR members and justice and peace
coordinators gathered at Bethany Center near
Tampa from March 5 to 8 to explore “Consciousness
and Campaigns: Spirituality and Politics beyond
Dualism.”
In a society and church increasingly characterized
by polarization and misunderstanding, how can
people of good will find common ground? Where can
people of faith find communion?
Dr Trelawny, Divination Professor at Hogwarts
With the guidance of executive director of NETWORK,
Simone Campbell, SSS, and composer and retreat director
Jan Novotka, the group journeyed from contemplative
silence and meditative song, to analysis of systems
that divide, to an awakening to the essential unity of all.
Sleeeeepy...you are getting veeeeery sleeeeeepy...
Saving the best for last...
Participants were challenged to dive deep into the mystical
unitive consciousness and to cross the false boundaries
and categories which divide and limit efforts to
effect systemic change.
Or...how do we nuns get everyone to vote Democrat????
As cetateanly eventuated
7 comments:
Pace Einstein, but actually one can solve a problem within the same consciousness that created it -- simply by foregetting or de-shirking the problem.
For instance, the mystery of the unity of the divine and human natures in the Christ. Simply declare this shirk and every other shirk to be forebidden by the religion of pace, and voilà: problem solved without jumping to another consciousness or level of consciousness!
... Plus, you have to admit that turning America into a Democrat-only one-party state would dissolve two-party dualistic politics. ... Then there could be an "Enabling Act" to abolish the separation of powers. ...
On the other hand, "analysis [dividing up] of systems that divide" uses a dangerous method that could turn on the analysts.
I suppose a "system" is a unity composed by artifice upon disparate stuff re-work'd into a functioning unity.
Anti-dualisms maybe turn out to be similarly artificial systems in their ostensible concern for unity -- for instance, if anti-dualist unity activists cut off and disown essential "haters" who thus become the Shadow, and this not the groovy, "dark" creative deeply insightful shadow that proves one is superior to white middle-class Christian Republican Americans who are pharisaically Christian in foursquare splitting off of their shadow because they are afraid to experience "change" and "transformation."
What if progressive nuns' analytical anti-dualist hostility to haters only increases the hate and thus the dualism in America? What's the solution to that sort of "change"? Increasing to 11 the volume of progressives' hatred for haters?
I would have added just there that the ostensible solution would have to include also intensifying the hatred of haters for progressives -- but in fact 'haters' seem much more able to accept dividedness and dualisms in American reality. Too much conflict results in institutional breakdown or even civil war, but basically various groups of people don't particularly have to 'get along' let alone like and affirm each other. Catholics should pray via images, and Calvinists should deem that no different from worshipping idols, and Catholics should reply that Calvinists show no real understanding of what an "idol" is. Strong cultures even promote such dissensions for the purposes of revaluation of life. Weak cultures need to give up on such differences, or rather reduce them to 'diversity.' ... Freud accepted that the ascendancy of "Jewish psychoanalysis" over the Gentile psyche in the West meant accepting a certain amount of anti-semitism. Psychoanalysis couldn't even have had any ascendancy if Gentiles had simply shrug'd at the reality that Jews' dominated their psyches, or used Darwinian interpretations to conceal or shirk psyche in chatter about genetic memes.
When Abrahammock religion was young there was strong though also 'non-violent' hatred (Genesis 14:22-4).
BTW, the LCWR poster evinces serious ageist, lookist, thin-ist, etc dualism -- the three young womengirls or the one young womangirl shown thrice. Libidinous 'narcissistic' longing for the value of being beautiful can't be destroy'd without reducing womengirls to the "Musselmänner" of the death camps. Even lesbians among the nuns accept this reality, and use the image of a beautiful young womangirl in their advertisements to evoke longing for the mystery of the evolutionary now.
I wonder what the results would be if the nuns started to use desublimational "50 shades of grey" imagery.
For our desublimation aion, letting it all hang out, polymorphous perversity e.g. 50 hades shades of grey is light: and sublimation (middle-class values, Christian belief, etc) is shadow.
Bacchanalia is light, and work ethic is shadow. ... Critical-theory academic activists are light, and Calvin and the Founders are the following shadow. ...
Counter-culture is light and thus culture or civilization is shadow. ... But how is this functional? One can say that any founding is 'shadow' inasmuch as 'horizons of meaning' etc have been, hitherto, by a narrowing of perspective: but the narrowing has been an illumination, whereas the whole truth arrives by completion or perfection as 'shadow' - what was foundationally deem'd darkness or put into darkness turns out to be illumination in a certain way.
But now with all the high class institutions, from NPR to the RCC, would be first of all activist institutions of protest, resistance, critique, change, etc. The word "perpetuation" is disfavourable, as though every establish'd arrangement, every 'routinization' must be done away with.
"The perpetuation of hope" -- if anyone were to call for this -- would sound an offense against hope. Maybe some good things ought to be continued, although no one says this, but "perpetuation" implies badness and indeed an unnecessary badness that ought to be ended.
Presumably it is along this line that everyone has agreed that "liberal" is a term of opprobrium: if it means anything at all in presentday journalism or academe, liberalism is only the ideology of the military-industrial complex, and as such indistinguishable from the neo-liberal or neo-conservative war activists associated with Strauss in the state department.
This semi-Marxist interpretation of liberalism isn't an impossible interpretation of liberalism. But then what agenda replaces liberalism? A dictatorship of the proletariat that will impose a totalitarian hatred of counter-revolutionary tendencies in us? hammering us with re-education by forced labour in liberation theology base-community self-critique collective farms?
No, apparently "progress" and "change." And change or progress toward what? implicitly still the agenda of liberalism -- lifestyle freedoms with or without some economic freedom and all of it supported by the New Deal (government programmes and subsidies -- for welfare families and for farmers and for the oil and gas industries and for ministries and departments of education and for "culture and tourism" etc). Plus diversity in communities and population groups, and among the nations at the UN etc.
But this (liberalism) is now defined as resistance and protest and critique, as though the founders and instituters of the polirtical economy are 'haters.' ... This isn't an impossible interpretation: foundings are in partial views or perspectives that 'hate' or close out the entire truth; so that the negators arrive as lovers in a way of the entire truth. The Prodigal son or ego negates or hates the fakeness in the father's ousia as bios in order to make eternal zôê of the father possible.
But this is not the (liberals') interpretation of the haters. The haters hate the (liberals) who resist and critique and do activism against them. So our aiôn isn't a harmony of love and hate, or light and dark, but a high-class darkness (proud creative insightful 'shadow' speaking truth to hatred as power) against a low-class darkness. Which means a crypto-hatred or activist critique vs a direct hatred (low-class resenters are direct haters according to the high-class narrative). Resistance vs resistance (of fairness). Those who are excluders of haters would be deem'd essentially inclusivist vis-a-vis haters who complain that they are excluded from the good as interpreted by the high-class inclusivists.
Whereas Freud said that an ongoing detour into sublimation and repression are necessary because of the impossibility of initially living in accord with Nature as is; Marcuse implies that Nature occurs by an in the beginning was desublimation and de-repression. But obviously de-sublimation and de-repression depend upon a previous, prior to the beginning, repression or denial of some sort. ... Marcuse indicates this when he refers to 'repressive desublimation' (again blaming repression on the bad other, the other other; not the good other, the other for us because we're for the other).
... You know, Tibetan Buddhism makes a lot of demands on Maya in its insistence that non-attachment and world-rejection be driven by Sartrean traditionalist nausea at the touchable.
It's an unworkable version of the slave revolt in moral valuation -- today's higher man is only a protester or resister against the culture done by the lower man, who is only a 'hater' of the higher man for his critical-theory critiques of lower man -- cf if Luther encounter'd in higher-man Erasmus merely a critique of low-class man, or even a speaking truth to low-class power, and not a positive humanitas or teleological doctrine of man and his fulfilment.
One may suppose that within Anglo-Saxony's lower man is a doctrine of traditionalist humanitas, since America's lower man — e.g. Patrick Buchanan and similars in Europe — continue to speak as favourably of America or the West and its unspecify'd 'traditions.' But the main book summarizing traditionalism is "Against the Modern World": traditionalism too is only a resistance movement, a protest, a critique, an essentially negative programme -- in contrast to the value tables or we may say "traditions" set forth by Zarathustra in 1001 Goals. (The reverence-worthiness of Greek competition and friendship is not merely a critical theory against lack of competition and lack of friendship.)
Just as Buddhism and, ultimately, Buddhist-influenced Hinduism, is only a critique of attachment, cathexis, bonding, passion. Sartre: touching otherness is nauseating, cathexis is nauseating. ... So according to critical theory the racism, sexism and elitism or classism imposed on culture by lower man are a school unto nirvana? A culture determined by 'hate' is the best matrix for nekkhamma? ...
Marx wanted 'religion' (for preparing the obedient ruling Ego [sum] in obedient will-to-power) negative, a "protest against suffering" etc: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions" (Contribution to the Critique System).
If Greek tragedy isn't a sigh of this sort, it must have no future but be forcibly relegated to the dustbin of History. So also Abraham's faith, which as Kierkegaard takes pains to emphasize wasn't a drama of Stoic renunciation or Buddhist nekkhamma.
Why the Vatican just doesn't publish these women's works and let them hang themselves with their own rope is beyond me. And even doing nothing would have been better-over 60% of these women are over 55 anyway. Wait 10-15 years and they'll all be in wheelchairs.
Post a Comment