Ray Harris on Palestine-Israel

Ray Harris has a new article on the Arab-Israeli conflict on Integralworld. I strongly recommend it. As Ray realizes, wading into those waters is quite dangerous. But he does about a balanced a job as I think is possible.

As in the Lind & Bergen article I linked-commented on, Harris shows that the route of the issue is pride–not economics, poverty, etc. as left leaning analysis tends to. Not that those don’t fuel the fires, they do and often horrifically so, but the fire itself comes from humiliation.

Every one of the religions has a dark side. Christianity’s because of the murder of Jesus is a glorification of suffering/spiritual masochism. Islam’s because it was written during a war is the fear of loss. The idea of returning to the sources, as in the Reformation, vis a vis the Quran brings one back to the context of warfare. For Islam to enter an orange phase, this context will have to be deeply negated. Of course the West isn’t helping by actually creating wars all over the place, but there you go.

In other words, what happens when Muslims are no longer the most powerful? Is it because they abandoned the true faith and must take up jihad and they will be victorious–the mythic fundamentalist response. How will it, how can it admit that mythic Islam, tribal-mythic classical Islam, has been negated by industrialized technology, modern politics & economics and values like human rights (especially for women).

How Islamic countries can achieve modernity (rule of law, rights) true to its own system will require their own Jeffersons, Lockes, etc. It will not come, as the Western tradition did, via individualism. There are precendents that will need to be creatively re-imagined: consultation, Muhammad as Constitution writer, etc. But like all transformational leaps, it will be in large part mysterious.

There is a real “struggle” for what grace means today in Islam—particularly for the Sunnis.

To summarize Ray, he thinks the most integral response, which follows the Prime Directive is support for the state of Israel. He actually favors a one-state solution for both groups, but thinks that is unattainable with the current mutual suspicions, hatreds, and cycles of violence.

But a two state solution is going to fail because Palestine is crumbling and may split up into even more countries.

While Ray does not apologize for Israeli atrocities (and mentions them) as well as Israeli discrimination of Arab Israelis and non-marriage between Israeli and non-Israeli Arabs, he notes that Israel’s economy is the source of most Arabs jobs. Low end and “menial” though they may be. Discrimination there may be, but it is better than the Arab world itself. It’s not good, it’s just the Arab world is that sad right now.

My only question is what Ray thinks are the long term implications of this policy? Can Israel sustain over generations this policy of occupation and (yes I agree with Carter here) ethnic apartheid? How can Israel maintain itself in an increasingly global platform on this basis? It is the same question I have for Europe. Will the enforcements just continue to get worse and worse a la Children of Men? As the Israeli demographics continue to shrink and open-source guerilla warfare (Hezbollah) has been shown to not per se win against Israel but not lose and score psych-ops victories, how can Israel maintain this stance? Will not hardline Likud elements push for an all out conflict?

Published in: on January 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm  Leave a Comment  

non-spiritual spirituality postlude

Joe P has what I think is his best post on his writings yet, here. I just leave it to readers to investigate for themselves. Also, please remember him for prayers/intentions of healing. He’s having some very painful health matters, which he details here.

He’s also challenged me to write more clearly on non-spiritual spirituality.

Published in: on January 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm  Leave a Comment  

Divide and Conquer

Following up on the last post, a more finished version of much the same argument I’m making on the surge’s larger policy: Edward Luttwak in the WallStreetJournal. Er, what it should be.

Here’s Luttwak:

It was the hugely ambitious project of the Bush administration to transform the entire Middle East by remaking Iraq into an irresistible model of prosperous democracy. Having failed in that worthy purpose, another, more prosaic result has inadvertently been achieved: divide and rule, the classic formula for imperial power on the cheap. The ancient antipathy between Sunni and Shiite has become a dynamic conflict, not just within Iraq but across the Middle East, and key protagonists on each side seek the support of American power. Once the Bush administration realizes what it has wrought, it will cease to scramble for more troops that can be sent to Iraq, because it has become pointless to patrol and outpost a civil war, while a mere quarter or less of the troops already there are quite enough to control the outcome. And that is just the start of what can now be achieved across the region with very little force, and some competent diplomacy.

Luttwak goes on to describe how the US currently has alliances with the Sunnis (Saudis and Jordanians) against the Shia alliance–most prominently seen in Lebanon–while at the same time supporting the Shia Arabs of Iraq. One common denominator: Arab over Persian. [Although Hezbollah is also Shia Arab].

As long as the Shia Arabs of Iraq can not stem the insurgency, they will align with the US (and Sadr stay on sideline) while the Sunnis of Levant and Peninsula will need the US against Persian hegemony.

Then the key paragraph (as I see it):

The Sunni-U.S. alignment in Lebanon, which interestingly coexists with the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq, may yet achieve results of strategic importance if Syria is successfully detached from its alliance with Iran. Originally it was a necessary alliance for both countries because Saddam’s Iraq was waging war on Iran, and periodically tried to overthrow the Assad regime of Syria. Now that Iraq is no longer a threat to either country, Iran still needs Syria as a bridge to Hezbollah, but for Syria the alliance is strategically obsolete, as well as inconsistent with the country’s Arab identity. True, Syria is ruled primarily by members of the Alawite sect that is usually classified as a Shiite offshoot. But that extremely heterodox faith (it has Christmas and the transmigration of souls) is far different from the Shiism of Iraq, Lebanon or Iran–where it would be persecuted; and besides, at least 70% of Syrians are Sunnis. That may explain why the Syrian regime has not used its full influence to overthrow Mr. Siniora: His stand against the Shiite Hezbollah resonates with his fellow Sunnis of Syria. But another reason may be the promise of substantial aid and investment from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates for Syria’s needy economy, if the regime diminishes its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah, or better, ends it altogether. The U.S., for its part, is no longer actively driving Syria into the arms of the Iranians by threatening a march on Damascus, while even the unofficial suggestions of negotiations by the Iraq Study Group made an impression, judging by some conciliatory Syrian statements. The U.S.-Sunni alliance, which is a plain fact in Lebanon, is still only tentative over Syria; but it would be greatly energized if Iran were successfully deprived of its only Arab ally.

The one piece Luttwak leaves out is Hamas in Palestine–an Arab ally of Iran. If Syria were pulled out of the Iranian orbit, however, Syrian Hamas which is considered more radical than the Palestinian variety and seems to have some levers over the organization, could theoretically be persuaded to tone down. Maybe not. Don’t know that anyone has argued either way on that point.

It is also unclear what Hezbollah’s status vis a vis Iran would be minus Syria acting as a conduit for Iranian weapons to Lebanon. As Luttwak says Hezbollah appealed to their Arab identity and pan-Islamic anti-Israeli aggressor identity when Saudi Arabia initially opposed their venture. Then the Saudis, after their people at homed embraced Hez., of course relented.

It might take what Mickey Kaus likes to call a triple bank shot on this one, but you pull Syria out of Iran’s orbit, get Hezbollah finally back into the government, use Syrian Hamas (now Syria is on board) to get Fatah and Hamas to get over their struggle, AND satisfy some Russian and Chinese demands…..why do we think China set off a anti-satellite missile this week? Think it unrelated to talk of Israeli/US plans on Iran?

Actually maybe that’s a quintuple bank shot.

Then you have Iran isolated. Good luck Madame Secretary of State. Oh yeah, if you can keep the Likud far-right of Israel from pre-emptively botching the whole thing and/or a well placed terrorist attack (or 2 or 5), and the Europeans won’t want to use military means likely either.

But it all has to start (ala ISG) with pulling Syria out of Iran. Sec. Baker almost did it once, he is the only man who could do it now. That would alter the landscape quite significantly as Luttwak notes. Even if it wasn’t originally in the plan–which was regime change for Damascus for sure.

The desire to isolate Iran, in my mind, could work only if it is lodged to a realization that like it or not they and Hezbollah are there to stay. Isolate them, push on them (A BIT only) to further weaken Ahmadinejad, then back door to Supreme Leader Khamenei and have his men pull the deal off, thereby completely isolating the Iranian President.

Needless to say I am skeptical, but there is always hope, even with this Administration.

Published in: on January 27, 2007 at 10:31 am  Leave a Comment  

Iraq Week Jan20-27

A few things are already shaking out from the surge in Iraq.

1.The Mahdi Army is disappearing, avoiding a confrontation with the US. The Prime Minister of Iraq has told them to back down so as not to put him in a position where he has to choose between them and the Americans.

2. The US is ramping up actions against Iranian agents in Iraq. If the US ends up killing innocent Iranians–e.g. pilgrims, which number in the thousands particularly right now during the Shia high holy days of Ashura (Tuesday is the apex of the celebration), look out.

3. The US has re-entrenched its Arab allies even though most of the outside support for the insurgency comes from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Sunni Syria.

4. The PM security plan for Baghdad is a Shia operation–that is fight the insurgents only plan. Anger was expressed by at least one Sunni lawmaker who the Prime Minister in front of the entire Parliament then accused, of criminal activity. Not the best of starts for sure.

5. The Americans are trying to ally with Sunni Tribal Sheiks to fight al-Qaeda. I hope this works. Story here from WashingtonPost. There is deep worry that they will undermine the Sunni parties in Parliament (who may or may not deserve some undermining honestly) and more importantly be infiltrated by insurgents, just as the Police and Army are infiltrated by Shia death squads.

For all the talk in Washington, should the Senate draft a non-binding resolution, should they not, are they aiding the enemy, should Bush be sending more troops into a civil war, I think the outline of what is to occur is fairly clear.

The American Troops will do a good job in what they can do–kill insurgents. Baghdad will experience more in the way of car and suicide bombings (this week already numerous ones) and less in the way of head to head confrontation. Insurgents will flee to other provinces, e.g. Diyala (where the US plan has not determined to send any), and violence will increase in other areas of the country. Mosul, which had been fairly quiet of late, has experienced a major uptick in violence and bloodshed this week.

Petraeus will showcase the new counterinsurgency manual which is better, from what I understand, than the previous one, and the new reconstruction efforts will I think do some good, but the question is what the President is really after. Bush is like the Catholic Church. Whenever anyone calls for change, his first instinct is to fight them, label them an aider to the enemy (heretic), and then eventually he does change his course and then states that he is not changing course and following the plan he always has. Like the Catholic Church’s idea that it never teaches anything new only what it always has but perhaps forgotten. i.e. Tony Snow saying the President was “never stay the course.”

The reason I bring that up is after watching John McCain on Meet the Press last week, I’m more convinced than ever that the surge is a short term surge for a quick victory in the press and begin a pullout. McCain repeatedly emphasized that this plan should not be seen as a quick victory solution. He was, without saying it, speaking to the Bush White House. The Democrats are all against the plan, so he certainly wasn’t talking to them, nor the Republicans (like Hagel & Co.) who have joined them. So the only other possibility is that he was speaking to Republicans (John Warner types?) who want to oppose the surge without undermining the President and their party–that group might call for a pullout as soon as anything looks decent in Iraq.

McCain of course is for a massive upsurge, long term commitment–i.e. well into his presidency which would start in 09–until there is total victory. You may not like his policy, but at least he’s been consistent. My opinion, along with Ricks, is that the US will have some force presence in Iraq for another 10-15 years. We still have troops in the Balkans for example.

Bush has tried to shoot the difference, seems to me, between the so-called McCain Doctrine and Democrat/ISG begin phased redeployment now. For all the talk of the failure of the ISG from the wonks, it has in an underground way, fundamentally changed the debate. It, with coolly and logically, dismantled the picture the administration wanted to give in Iraq.

Nixon “escalated” while simultaneously beginning talks with the VietCong. The difference here of course is that Bush is surging-escalating while not beginning talks with the VietCong-like Iranians and Syrians. The blowback from the Vietnam pullout was severe–the Khmer Rogue comes to mind.

This blowback will I’m afraid be possibly as brutal, which is why Bush has to get these countries down to the table right now. If he is moving towards withdraw, as I believe he is under the cover of “victory” in a surge or a cut and blame strategy of laying the fault on the Shia-led government, then he has an obligation, in my view, to work towards containing as much of the violence as possible. If we simply pull out with the diplomatic angle worked, the Turks may intervene in Kurdistan, which would be an enormous blow to the US–those are its only two even approaching secular Islamic democratic allies. The Saudis will most definitely be pulled in. King Abdullah of Jordan will be as well, as his regime is very worried about al-Qaeda attacks and blowback into his own country (ditto the Saudis). The Iranians are already there and well placed, far more integrated than the Americans. They can and will attack either themselves and/or through proxies, at will.

Hezbollah which this week continues its attempt to bring down the US and Saudi-backed government of Fouad Sinora, would go from street protests to assassination attempts and open warfare with the government. The Palestinians–Fatah US and Saudi-backed versus Hamas Iranian backed–would renew their open conflict and Rice’s MidEast peace push would go up in flames. Three civil wars as Jordanian King Abdullah rightly predicted.

To be truly Kissingerian, Bush would be lining up this anti-Iranian coalition at then under the table negotiate with them–SCIRI would play that role. AND be stripping Syria from Iranian support by getting the Israelis to give back the Golan Heights and end their at war status.

If Bush does not push for this “diplomatic surge”, then I’m afraid that events will spiral downward, and Dick Cheney will finally get his wish: an attack on Iran. I’m daily more afraid of an aerial attack on Iran occurring by the summer.

The president can initiate attacks for 60 days without Congressional mandate. Bush would not get mandate for war with Iran. If Bush pulled this trigger, a constitutional crisis is looming. Cheney might bring the White House back to its Ford-era nadir. What you meditate on you become. Cheney has meditated on the lack of presidential power for 30 decades. Now he is creating it.

Published in: on January 27, 2007 at 9:30 am  Leave a Comment  

Update on French Race

From Guardian concerning Segolene Royale, socialist candidate for French PM:

Ms Royal, the Socialist presidential candidate, has been accused of a series of blunders by supporters of her centre-right opponent Nicolas Sarkozy. Recently in Beijing, she praised the speed of the Chinese justice system, while avoiding the question of human rights. But yesterday she told reporters she supported “sovereignty and liberty” for Quebec. Her comments followed a meeting with the head of the minority Parti Québécois, which wants Quebec to secede from Canada.

And the retort:

Canada’s prime minister Stephen Harper warned: “Experience teaches that it is highly inappropriate for a foreign leader to interfere in the democratic affairs of another country.”

[This is the best I can do on Canadian politics–kinda sad I know. Not interested in commenting on the Vancouver serial murder case.]

Published in: on January 23, 2007 at 9:35 pm  Leave a Comment  

Anglican-Catholic Union on Gay Adoptions

From the BBC:

The Church of England has backed the Catholic Church in its bid to be exempt from laws on adoption by gay couples.Catholic leaders in England and Wales say its teaching prevented its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will close if bound by the rules. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Rowan Williams and John Sentamu have written to the prime minister. They say “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning”.

I actually favor this policy, and I’m glad Rowan Williams has made this stand. I believe strongly in the rights of conscience, even I do not agree with the policy that some consciences have come up with. Particularly in a pluralistic society. I’m against laws that prevent gay couples from adopting (as in many US States, including my home one of Ohio). In fact as an adoptee and Christian, I am deeply hurt when I see other Christians advocate for banning gay adoption, when I have seen loving gay and lesbian parents take in children. That show me something of God’s love and told that they are sinners. Still, as much as that position hurts me and hurts others I love, I’m equally against governments telling churches what to do–minus of course illegal & criminal activity.

Published in: on January 23, 2007 at 9:25 pm  Leave a Comment  

Continued bad news out of Israel.

It’s president looks headed to indictment on charges of rape.

More importantly, the army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz has resigned over losses in the recent war with Hezbollah.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is facing increased calls for his own resignation, held a conference including hardline Likud leader Bibby Netanyahu, Republican candidates for prez, and neocons–up for possible discussion: a war with Iran?

An important piece of Israel is that the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister (Peretz) are both civilians, with no military past. The Prime Ministers of the past: Barak, Rabin, Sharon, all were defense ministers before taking command.

Peretz in his own Labour party is fighting off an insurgency from within from former PM Ehud Barak on precisely this point.

Israel, as Barnett says, is headed towards its own Cold War moment. The Iranians will have a nuclear weapon; a government that calls for their downfall and extermination. Just like the US &West and the Soviets.

Israel is weakened and faces like many other nations globalization as putting pressure on post-racial post-ethnic post-religious futures. Unfortunately for Israel the groups whom would be entering the land are pre-nationalistic, pre-modernist, many of whom desire the overthrow of the government and the destruction of the state of Israel.

I’m very worried that the Israelis would get to the point that they would launch air strikes against Iran–especially as Olmert needs a victory to shore up political favor–and the US would call them off and do it ourselves.

Published in: on January 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm  Leave a Comment  

Interview of Moqtada al-Sadr

From Italian newspaper La Repubblica, English translation here. (Hat tip: Juan Cole).

First question is to how PM Maliki, who until recently was considered a supporter of Sadr has turned on him and the Mahdi Army.

Moqtada answers:

Between me and Abú Asárá [al-Malikí] there has never been much good will. I have always suspected he was up to something and I never confided in him. We only met a couple of times. The last time he said to me, “You are the backbone of the country,” and then went on to admit to me that he was “obliged” to fight. Obliged, you see?

Sounds a little cagey too me, but the “obliged” reference is to Maliki as stooge of the Americans. Sadr has called consistently since the fall of Saddam for the Americans out. This week Sadr’s politicians who were in protest of the government have returned and his men have melted back into the grounds and have strict orders from Moqtada not to pick a fight with the Americans.

Interestingly Sadr claims he is doing this because it is the Holy Month (Muharram) and fighting during the Pilgrimage month is forbidden in the Qu’ran:

MS: The Qur’án forbids killing in the month of Muharram [21 January through 18 February 2007]. So they’ll do all the killing then. There is no better time for a true believer to die, Paradise is guaranteed. But God is merciful, we are not all going to die. After Muharram, we’ll see.

Sadr then talks about how his is being targeted, has to sleep in a different location every night, has sent his family into hiding for fear of their murder and expects martyrdom anytime soon.

Q8 considers the charge that his men were behind the now infamous (via cellphone video and Youtube) execution of Saddam Hussein where hooded men tell Hussein that Moqtada is behind this.

Moqtada responds (underline in original):

They were people paid to discredit me. To make me look like the person really responsible for that hanging. Listen to the audio again, the proof is that in reciting my prayer they left out some basic passages. Stuff that not even a child in Sadr City would ever have done.

Again that might be some propaganda on his part. I can’t verify or disverify that statement and haven’t seen any who would know tackle the question. It is well known that up to a 1/3 of the Mahdi Army is out of Sadr’s control and now apparently, according to Sadr himself, has been infiltrated just as they have infiltrated the police and army.

The next question, 9 is possibly the most revealing about his war with the Sunnis.


It is true that we are all Muslims and all sons of the same country, but they must first distance themselves from the Saddamites, from the radical groups, from men like Bin Ladin, over and above just repeating their “No” to the Americans. The only thing that will be enough is for their ulema to accept our conditions [and issue a fatwa against killing Shiites]. So far they have not done so.

The Saddamites is code for Baathists (sounds like sodomites translated this way). The radicals are Salafi jihadists from outside of Iraq mostly who are the main purveyors of suicide bombing according to Peter Bergen.

The ulema are the Sunni Muslim scholars and Sadr almost certainly means here the Association of Muslim Scholars. In late 2005/early 2006 Sadr wrote a message to the Association telling to declare a fatwa (religious ruling) on Sunnis killing Shia–Sadr I think wanted to join forces in an anti-American insurgency Shia and Sunni together–but the Association responded that they would be killed by the al-Qaeda in Iraq. [Again echoing Bergen’s statement that al-Qaeda in Iraq might possibly be the largest group in the region–this is not all together clear and whether this al-Qaeda would want to promote attacks on American soil. I think they are more likely to attack neighboring regimes like Jordan, Iran, the Shia Iraq gov’t, the Kurds, the Syrians, who knows]. Either way after the Association turned down Sadr’s request, Sadr told his men to fight the Sunnis, particularly after the Samarra mosque bombing.

But most interesting of all, a charge I had not heard before, that Sadr repeats at least twice in the interview, that the real power behind the throne is Ayad Allawi, the former Prime Minister, currently living in exile, a secular Shia cum Baathist during the Hussein years. [Sadr is against re-entrance of Baathists to the government]. Don’t know if this is just conspiracy thinking on his part or what–but I hadn’t heard anything of this sort before.

Finally I’ll end with a fairly chilling V-like quote from Sadr himself:

But even should I have to die, the Mahdi would continue to exist. Men can be killed, but not faith and ideas.

Published in: on January 23, 2007 at 10:10 am  Leave a Comment  

Lind and Bergen

An excellent piece, via NewAmerica, on pride and humiliation as cause to terrorism.

Lind and Bergen quote politicians and thinkers from both right and left (incl’d the President) that poverty is the root cause of terrorism.

Contrary to that thesis, they assert:

But it is a mistake to treat human beings as profit-maximizing rationalists who can be persuaded to put aside their differences in order to collaborate on a common project of promoting global prosperity. Individuals and communities often have incompatible secular or religious visions of the good society. And, for better or worse, human beings are social animals, deeply concerned about rank and status, both as individuals and as members of communities. Ambition and humiliation, personal and collective, inspire more political conflict than economic deprivation. In short, if our goal is to understand the conditions that give terrorist movements popular appeal and to understand how virulent ideologies spread from madmen and isolated sects to mass movements, our emphasis must be on subjective perceptions of national, religious, and ethnic humiliation, rather than on the humiliation, genuine as it may be, which is associated with poverty.

Terrorists are often from the educated classes.

Looking more broadly, consider the work of former CIA case officer — and now forensic psychiatrist-Marc Sageman. After studying the backgrounds of 172 al Qaeda members and associates for his 2004 book Understanding Terror Networks, he concluded that this was not a group of feckless, unemployed no-hopers. In his sample of jihadist terrorists, two-thirds had gone to college; they were generally professionals; their average age was 26; three-fourths were married; and many had children.

Rather than poverty what is the cause? Their answer: humiliation.

The central role of communal humiliation in inspiring terrorism is the key finding of University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape’s study of suicide bombers, Dying to Win. According to Pape, two factors have linked Tamil, Palestinian, Chechen, and al Qaeda suicide bombers. First, they are members of communities that feel humiliated by genuine or perceived occupation (like the perceived occupation of the sacred territory of Saudi Arabia by virtue of the presence of U.S. bases, in the eyes of bin Laden and his allies). Second, suicide bombers seek to change the policies of democratic occupying powers like Israel and the United States by influencing their public opinion — in a sense making the occupying power suffer the same level of humiliation they have felt.

What then to do?

The first priority, therefore, of an anti-radical strategy must be defending the people, territories, and interests of the United States and other targeted regimes against terrorist attacks…While bin Laden and his allies must simply be defeated, their appeal to potential new recruits can be limited by policies that reduce feelings of collective humiliation in the Arab and Muslim worlds…In addition, major Muslim nations that are sources of jihadist recruits must change too. If there were more open societies in the Muslim world, there might be more political space for Islamists who reject terrorism when out of power and who, if they gained power, would abide by the norms of the international system. This would likely reduce the appeal of al Qaeda as an alternative to conventional political participation.

Then the conclusion:

Reducing poverty in the Middle East and around the world is a laudable goal in itself, for humanitarian reasons. But it would be a mistake to treat prosperity as a universal solvent that can deprive jihadists like bin Laden of allies and sympathizers in populations that feel humiliated by foreign domination or frozen out of politics. Ultimately, both foreign occupation and domestic autocracy are political problems that must find political, not economic, solutions. The campaign against jihadism and the campaign against global poverty are both justified. But they are not the same war.

Published in: on January 21, 2007 at 7:56 pm  Leave a Comment  

non-spiritual spirituality

Following up on the Wilber-Aurobindo mashup, why I don’t write on spiritual issues very much. Even though I’m studying to be a priest.

For one thing, I take really seriously Wilber’s charge that all writings, especially spiritual ones, that do not locate experience via post-metaphysical semiotics is metaphysics. Metaphysics hides egocentric avoidance–it is non-dialogical. Even postmodernism has its own metaphysics, never asking where interpretation, contexts, arise from.

So I write in my own metaphysical form on politics, environment, and the rest because I can give a (hopefully) turquoise-ish response to issues and thinking has developed to where that can be dealt with on a regular basis.

Mystery of Existence writes eloquently, far more eloquently than I ever could, on spiritual experience. If that is what people are looking for, just go to the pros.

Though not a criticism, just an observation, it is still (mostly) individual description of experience–phenomenological modernism. Perception is semiotic—semiotics itself is perspectival. Perspectives are……?

Godwin writes metaphysics, by his own admission, which is beautiful in its way, but is just dumped on the reader. By its non-intersubjective format, it can simply call forth those who for whatever reason who already vibe with that frequency. It requires a spiritual hero to sally forth–hence Godwin’s self-reference as dear leader (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, somewhat not) and the comments section. There are more reach arounds there than a NY swinger’s party.

My buds at Buddhist Geeks dialogue around a topic–for example this really excellent one on concentration. But it is not really a questioning of questioning. It never asks about the ground from which the question itself arises–it assumes its place (a good one for sure) in the universe, assumes its perspective, the backdrop of concentration-Buddhism.

Again none of this is criticism just observation. My own desire is for something else. That something else, which isn’t really explainable, is a product or my own spiritual inquiry with close friends. With experiences of so-called enlightened communication and being a part of a matrix where meaning is created and recognized in real-time.

The blog can not reproduce that, so I don’t know what to say else. Nothing else spiritually is interesting to me. The actual experiences that occur are really un-interesting to me–I come mostly from the John of the Cross-Meister Eckhart school of apophaticism, experiences as such are not delved into very much. The love beneath them, the service in the world, the practice of abnegating oneself is more important in this frame.

And talking about how much and how great I am at abnegating myself would self-destruct the whole thing and be egocentric in being un-egocentric.

What occurred to me this morning is that the space I’m interested in doesn’t have the technological (right-hand) embodiment yet such that it could be imparted in the way I intuit.

As it stands now, we have hyperlinks, which immediately link to the exterior-world of websites, op-eds, statistics, wikis, etc. But what about a inner-link, that wouldn’t just link to an already interpreted, already metaphysically and unilaterally decided upon, but link the actual injunction, worldspace and inner felt sense/meaning/awareness pointed to.

A psychoactive display mechanism. Allusions to The Matrix or the Singularity apply–3rd tier technology to support and help “shine through” 3rd-tier consciousness.

Published in: on January 21, 2007 at 4:55 pm  Comments (2)