Eliot Poems

Rereading T.S. Eliot's Selected Poems tonight. I totally dig on The Hollow Men and Ash Wednesday. From the former:

    Between the conception
    And the creation
    Between the emotion
    And the response
    Falls the Shadow

And from the latter:

    Blessed sister, holy mother, spirit of the fountain,
    Spirit of the garden,
    Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood
    Teach us to care and not to care
    Teach us to sit still.

Brilliant, if somewhat obscure, poetry from a 20th century master.

Creeping Totalitarianism vs. the Open Society

I just had a disturbing encounter with someone whose stated aim in life is to prevent nonbelievers from accidentally blaspheming. He believes he can save unwitting blasphemers from being cast into hell by an angry god. They've been hurting his feelings all their lives by believing and saying the wrong things about him, you see.

I support this individual's right to hold this belief system as an animating principle. I also categorize it right beside the certainty that one is receiving secret messages from aliens.

For those whose worldview is essentially nontheistic, blasphemy is the ultimate victimless crime. Those with the traditional theistic view must consider this reality: a god who lacks a sufficient sense of self to absorb everything from moronic attacks to nuanced critiques needs to evolve in a major way. Think about it: if god is all-powerful (as believers repeatedly state), what defense does he need against criticism from mere mortals?

There's a corollary point, one I haven't heard expressed much, having to do with a huge disconnect regarding nonbelievers and blasphemy. The fact is, it is impossible for a nonbeliever to blaspheme. To commit actual blasphemy, a person must believe in the deity (s)he is defaming; must know (s)he is falsely ascribing attributes to that deity. When the faithless speak against a god, they are making statements about someone who is, to them, a mental construct or fictional character. In accusing nonbelievers of blasphemy, the faithful must abandon all reason and logic (obviously not much of a leap). Those who incite people to violence and murder in response to “blasphemous” statements take advantage of this logical disconnect. They cynically fan the flames of outrage, then use the hatred they've manufactured to further their own political agendas. The notion that the attacks on American embassies in the Middle East were sparked by an obscure, third-rate video is preposterous. Religious extremists just happened to become outraged by this film on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks? Nonsense. Professionals in the art of inciting violence know exactly how to inflame the passions of any given population; in this case, "insults" to religion work very well. By reacting violently on cue, protesters make puppets of themselves.

The United Nations recently embarked on a thoroughly misguided campaign to stamp out speech that may be offensive to religious individuals. While the intent may have been benign--there's nothing wrong with favoring civil discourse over insults--the effect may be the abandonment of the very freedoms on which Western liberal democracies are founded.

In the open society, everyone’s religious or philosophical beliefs are protected, but so is everyone else’s freedom to critique those beliefs. While we all have the right to believe and express ourselves freely; none of us has the right not to be offended by those who disagree with us. That’s a “right” extended only by theocracies in which all citizens share the same religion. The price of living in a liberal democracy is that you will have your most cherished beliefs critiqued by those who do not share them, sometimes vehemently. If your belief system cannot withstand criticism, a free country in which conscientious liberty is the norm may not be your society of choice.

Slate.com just lost considerable credibility (in my view) by publishing an 

Eric Posner article subtitled The Vile Anti-Muslim Film Shows that Americans Overvalue Free Speech. At first, I thought this was meant ironically. As it turns out, not so much. Mr. Posner apparently thinks we need to modulate our freedom of expression because "the world doesn't love the First Amendment." What an astonishingly craven act of capitulation that would be. There's a difference between making measured statements to calm a rioting mob and simply handing the totalitarian-minded our most cherished liberties on a plate. 

If you consider something vile and contemptible (be it a book, a video, or whatever), you should criticize it and demonstrate why you consider it so. Attempting to censor forms of expression is ill-advised and often backfires. The subtitle of the Posner article is itself contemptible in my view; it tramples on what I consider sacred ground. Is it incumbent on Slate to censor itself in the future, to avoid offending me and my fellow First Amendment fundamentalists? No, the onus is on us to strike down the article's argument. 

September 30 is International Blasphemy Rights Day. The Day was not dreamed up by a bunch of radical atheists to shock the religious; it is a challenge to all societies--but to liberal democracies in particular--to protect free speech for all. The true measure of the value any given society places on freedom of expression is whether or not it protects the rights of individuals to say things that may be considered offensive—even blasphemous—to others. The United Nations would do well to consider the likely long-term ramifications of its measures to protect groups from being “offended” by the views of others. The mindset that says, “We must outlaw certain kinds of expression; someone may take offense” represents creeping totalitarianism; it is antithetical to the open, democratic society. 

Happy International Blasphemy Rights Day, everyone. I invite you to join in defending the rights of all human beings to think, believe, speak, read and write according to the dictates of their own consciences; to do so without fear of reprisals from ideologues. Personal liberties, once surrendered, are rarely regained without costly--even bloody--struggle. I trust the majority of Americans, and human rights supporters worldwide, will continue "overvaluing" their freedom of speech.

Copyright 2012 by William K. Ferro
All rights reserved

David J. Loomis (1935-2010)

My First Yoga/Meditation Teacher

By William K. Ferro

A lifetime ago (so it seems), a great guy named Dave Loomis introduced me to yoga and meditation. Those were hard times for me: intractable headaches plagued me daily, depression became chronic; an existential crisis loomed. In his typically intuitive and compassionate way, Dave saw that I was in pain and reached out to help.

He taught me my first mantra—Om Namah Shivaya—and some simple yoga poses. He taught me how to release the muscular, emotional, and spiritual tension that so beset me at the time. In retrospect, I realize that much of what was troubling me was simple grief—sorrow at the sudden loss of a parent at an early age. But the other part of my inner knot was a not-uncommon 20-something crisis of identity and direction. Both manifested in the form of debilitating physical and emotional symptoms.

The first poses Dave showed me were ones he thought would be particularly helpful for persistent head and neck tension. He was dead on! Child Pose, Tree Pose, Mountain Pose, Downward-Facing Dog, and Lord of the Dance were among the postures that helped to relieve a great deal of the great tension that had built in my body, mind and spirit. He was the one who suggested I allow my body to do whatever it chose during meditation; I discovered the great joy of starting meditation in Full Lotus, then gradually collapsing as deep relaxation pervaded my body/mind. I would often spend the last five minutes of my twenty-minute meditation flat on my back in Corpse Pose. It was tremendously liberating, and eventually led to the end of my intractable headaches.

Dave went on to earn a PhD in Human Development and moved to Arizona, where he became affectionately known to the locals as “Doc” Loomis. He worked with severely developmentally disabled individuals; he marveled at their joy in living compared to their able-bodied counterparts, many of whom seemed to be perpetually troubled. He spent a year writing a book on this phenomenon, which he titled Happiness: Use It or Lose It! This account of his experiences among some of the most drastically mentally and physically disabled people in the population is an inspiring story of the triumph of the human spirit.

Dave was diagnosed with cancer in 2009. A year later, he had (in his words), “finished wrestling with the demon of cancer.” In July of that year, the wrestling match came to a final end. Dave left this world on July 12, 2010. I’ll always remember him as a thoroughly unique individual—giving in every way—and the man who introduced me to the joy of yoga and meditation.

Namaste, Dave!

William

Copyright © 2012 by William K. Ferro
All rights reserved

Stuart Chase Quote

Image from philosopedia.com

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."


-- Stuart Chase (1888-1985)

Unbearably Poignant, Deliciously Cathartic

Image from  article.wn.com

"Blood of Eden" from Peter Gabriel's album "Us" represents Gabriel at his most poignant, both as a vocalist and a songwriter. The overt, raw (yet always wry) celebration of sexuality that characterizes such songs as "Sledgehammer," "Kiss that Frog," and "Steam" here gives way to the expression of the unbearable pain of uncoupling.

Eden as referenced in this song represents the mythical perfect bliss of "the man in the woman and the woman in the man." The "blood" of Eden refers to the heartbreak of undoing that bond of bliss.

While biblical imagery is persistent throughout the song, Gabriel also throws in an artful Shakespeare quotation: "Is that a dagger or a crucifix I see?" This nod to Lady Macbeth seems to suggest that "the woman" has done violence to their bond--something that tracks with what supposedly was going on in Gabriel's life around the time the album was recorded.

"At my request, you take me in," he sings in the amorphous, free-flowing bridge. "What a moment is this...A moment of forgetfulness...a moment of bliss..." This is followed by a high-pitched, deeply plaintive cry in Gabriel's unique, broken-voice style. Strongly implicit in that heartrending cry is that both lovers are painfully aware that they have just made love for the last time.

At its most basic, "Blood of Eden" is the ultimate "breakup sex" song. At a deeper level, it is a heartbreaking, deeply affecting work of art, sure to provide the sensitive listener with a delicious catharsis.


Copyright 2012 by William K. Ferro
All rights reserved

Steam

Image from  music.matia.gr

I love "Steam" by Peter Gabriel. The lyrics are dryly satirical and overtly sexual--two persistent characteristics of Gabriel's work. It's seemingly sung to a woman who suddenly imagines herself the world's leading authority on everything:

You know your culture from your trash

You know your plastic from your cash

When I lose sight of the track

You know the way back

But I know you

You know your stripper from your paint

You know the throttle from the brake

You know your straight line from your curve

You've got a lot of nerve

But I know you

Which seems to say, "Yes, I know you know everything now. But there's one thing I know: you.

And then:

You're turning up the heat 

When I start to dream aloud

See you move your hands and feet 

Won't you step into this cloud of steam

This steam

(Give me steam, Lady)

Which seems to suggest, "Now that we've established that you think you know everything (and that I'm onto you) can we please get down to business?"

Cheers,

WKF

Copyright ©  2012   by William K. Ferro
All rights reserved

Rhetorical Flourishes and Delinquent Accounts

Just finished a political speechwriting gig. Rhetorical Flourishes R Us!

Here's a topic near and dear to every freelancer's heart: dealing with delinquent accounts. Ever work your rear end off on a long, time-consuming gig, only to have the client fall off the planet after the final product is delivered and it's time  to settle up? Isn't that just a pile of...fun?

Just happened to me. Did a substantive edit on a hugely long manuscript that needed a great deal of work. Worked overtime to get it to the client as quickly as possible--to the exclusion of other,  potentially remunerative work. As of today, third notice of balance due ignored and counting. Just lovely.

On a happier note, the vast majority of my clients are perfectly punctual, and an absolute pleasure to work with/for. So happy that the current situation is the exception and not the rule!

Cheers,

WKF