Showing posts with label Problematique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Problematique. Show all posts

Sunday, 28 August 2011

Fé.

Good for nothing? or Inescapable? or Both? or Not.
Up, Down.

¡Ya basta!"O governo falseia a realidade", afirma dom Erwin Kräutler (see here).

Eu também.

Disobey.It has been long & difficult & fruitless meditation (tagged problematique) on 'worthless existence'. What could they have meant? What could they mean?

Arriving at a dim memory of my complete misunderstanding of In Watermelon Sugar - it was 1968, I liked thinking of sex with Pauline. Just now discovering the dark & hopeless story of what happens when the salt really does lose its savour - an exemplar, a paradigm (see Matthew, & the complete text of In Watermelon Sugar here).

A comprehensive website around Richard Brautigan gives me, "[He] reminds us that a worse thing than violence and death could be a life without pity or joy."

Disliking Derrick Jensen - but accepting the signs & blazes in his premiss on Hope if not agreeing with all of his points. Hobbits and Muggles oh my! One Ring to find them and in the darkness bind them.

Mideo Cruz - Christ.Mideo Cruz, a Filipino artist, and his colleague Racquel De Loyola. And a Brazilian cartoonist, a gaúcho, Allan Sieber, who writes, "Fé em Jesus é um beijo no apêndice."

Erwin Kräutler.Erwin Kräutler.Erwin Kräutler.The 'teu sonho' / 'your dream' in the photograph at the right refers to Sister Dorothy. That Erwin Kräutler fellow is no slouch now, is he? Look at the smile on 'im. And again, below with one arm around Tuíra Kayapó. Look carefully at these smiles. Somehow he has threaded the needle. Not one of those wily Jesuits but a missionary of the precious blood (whatever that is).

Does anyone doubt for a moment that the government has falsified reality? That they do little else? Could anyone possibly be so lost & twisted as not to see light shining in this man? (Light y'unnerstan' ... not 'the' light or any such tosh.)

Erwin Kräutler with Tuíra Kayapó & friends.Disliking Bill McKibben and the milquetoast k-k-Canadian activists ... but ... (still) (maybe) ... getting on a bus early Tuesday morning to go to Washington and join the protest (if I get there & if they'll have me). And later on, next month (maybe), in Ottawa.

Or not.
If my health allows. If my fears allow. If I feel like it. If my feet allow or even in spite of my feet. If ...

She says, "pity or joy" you see, not faith & hope, not 'Faith Hope & Charity and the greatest of these ...'

(not, as our Jack's ghost squeaks & gibbers at us from beyond the grave in his perfected & sentimental suicide note, adjuring us: "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." Precious stuff. Sententious stuff. Stuff & nonsense. ... More like: Be afraid. Be terrified. Be angry. Despair. Grasp at love if you will but abandon hope. Grieve. But do not die. Though you will change nothing, go and strengthen what you can find of what remains.)

Typically when we say 'contingent' we mean: Liable to happen or not; of uncertain occurrence or incidence; by chance; not determined by necessity in regard to action or existence; free. (Free?) But in a literal sense, from the meaning of the Latin contingere it is: Touching each other, in contact - and a host of related, even geometric (tangential) allusions.

Here we are again. :-)Bringing me full circle (as it were) (yet again) to the good samaritan being touched in his guts.

Be well gentle reader.

Two stories / Dois contos:
Herbert de Souza, O Betinho: O Beija-flor / The Hummingbird

 Houve um incêndio na floresta e enquanto todos os bichos corriam apavorados, um pequeno beija-flor ia do rio para o incêndio levando gotinhas de água em seu bico. O leão, vendo aquilo, perguntou para o beija-flor: "Ó beija-flor, você acha que vai conseguir apagar o incêndio sozinho?" E o beija-flor respondeu: "Eu não sei se vou conseguir, mas estou fazendo a minha parte". There was a fire in the forest and while all the animals ran in fear, a little hummingbird went from the river to the fire carrying drops of water in her beak. The lion, seeing this, asked the hummingbird, "O Hummingbird, do you think you will succeed in putting out the fire all by yourself?" And the hummingbird replied, "O Lion, I do not know if I will succeed or not, but I am doing my part."
 
 
Amos Oz: The Order of the Teaspoon / A Ordem da Colher de Chá

 Let us conclude with my story of the Order of the Teaspoon. I believe that if one person is watching a huge calamity - let's say a conflagration - there are always three principal options. Option 1: Run away, as far away and as fast as you can, and let those who cannot run burn. Option 2: Write a very angry letter to the editor of your paper demanding that the responsible people be removed from office in disgrace. Or for that matter, launch a demonstration. Option 3: Bring a bucket of water and throw it on the fire, and if you don't have a bucket, bring a glass, and if you don't have a glass, use a teaspoon - everyone has a teaspoon. And yes, I know a teaspoon is little and the fire is huge, but there are millions of us and each one of us has a teaspoon. Now I would like to establish the Order of the Teaspoon. People who share my attitude - not the run-away attitude, or the letter attitude, but the teaspoon attitude - I would like them to walk around wearing a little teaspoon on the lapel of their jackets, so that we know we are in the same movement, in the same brotherhood, in the same order, the Order of the Teaspoon. This is my philosophy in a nutshell - or in a teaspoon, if you wish. Vamos concluir com a minha história de Ordem da Colher de Chá. Eu creio que se uma pessoa está olhando uma grand calamidade - quer dizer uma conflagração - estão sempre três opções principais. Opção 1: Fugir, tanto longe e tanto rapido possível, e deixa eles que não podem correr para queimar. Opção 2: Escreve uma carta bem zangada para o editor de seu jornal mandando que as pessoas responsiveis sejam despedidos no defavor. Ou seja montar uma demonstração. Opção 3: Traz um balde de agua e joga no fogo, e se você não tem balde, traze um copo, e se você não tem copo, usa uma colher de chá - todo mundo tem uma colher de chá. E sim, eu sei que uma colher de chá é pequena e o fogo é imenso, mas nos somos milhões e cada um de nos tem colher de chá. Então eu gostaria estabelecer a Ordem da Colher de Chá. A gente que participam a minha atitude - não a atitude de fugir, nem a atitude da carta, mas a atitude de colher de chá - eu gostaria que eles usar uma pequena colher de chá na lapela de seus casacos, ate que sabemos que estamos no mesmo movimento, no mesmo fraternidade, na mesma irmandade, na mesma ordem, a Ordem da Colher de Chá. Isso é a minha filosofia resumidamente - ou mesmo numa colher de chá.
 
 
Betinho.Betinho & Maria Nakano.Betinho.Betinho.Betinho & Daniel.Betinho.Betinho.Betinho.If you don't know of these guys, it probably wouldn't hurt to find out a bit about 'em.

Betinho said of himself, "Eu nasci para o desastre, porém com sorte." / "I was born to disaster - but with luck." Just look at the way he smiles beside his son Daniel. And - he was a dancin' man, yeah. It took more than haemophilia, tuberculosis, AIDS, to get this guy down. There is an album of photographs here.

Amos Oz.Amos Oz.Amos Oz.Amos Oz.Amos Oz.Amos Oz & Nily.Amos Oz & Nily.Amos Oz.There is lots of stuff on the Internet and in the library.

Amos Oz fought in the Six Day War and was a founder of Peace Now. In particular I recommend his little book How to Cure a Fanatic.


Down.

Sunday, 14 August 2011

"Falling into a state of worthless existence."

What could it possibly mean?
Up, Down, Appendices, Postscript.

Chet Baker & Diane Vavra.Music this week from Chet Baker Almost Blue ...

... a sordid and ambiguous tale.

Human flourishing: I knew it's one of the eu-words, and eventually found 'eudaimonia' at Wikipedia. Here's a strange thing though - it appears not to be in the OED (?), instead they show eudemony/eudaemony; no -ia endings at all in this zone. Curious. Unlike euphoria/euphory; euphonia/euphony; eutrapelia/eutrapely (new one on me) with both - I wish I had the full 24 volume hard-copy at hand (!).

Alexander King 1909-2007.Aurelio Peccei 1908-1984."The last thought we wish to offer is that man must explore himself - his goals and values - as much as the world he seeks to change. The dedication to both tasks must be unending. The crux of the matter is not only whether the human species will survive, but even more whether it can survive without falling into a state of worthless existence."

The last few sentences of Limits to Growth, the final two words, written in 1972 by the Executive Committee of The Club of Rome: Alexander King, Saburo Okita, Aurelio Peccei, Eduard Pestel, Hugo Thiemann, & Carroll Wilson.

The complete & original text can be found here.

What could they have meant by it, this 'worthless existence'? No idea. Not much in the potted bios and few pictures I can find of them - except that they seem to have had good lives. I imagined the opposite of human flourishing would be some disaster, some physical Armageddon or Apocalypse (or even just an apocalypse), but a spiritual death?

Is that it?

I fetched up on this phrase once before. This week I have just been standing in front of it, facing it perhaps but finding no clue ...

Voltaire, Candide & CunégondeThe last time I was in Newfoundland I imagined writing a book called Strip Mining the Human Soul. Today I am imagining another - Butting Heads with Liebniz. Iknowiknowiknow, Voltaire already did that (Candide) ... this would be a sort-of update, starting with the Metcalfe councillor who said to me one day, "You can't stand in the way of progress," and ending (hopefully) in a garden with Candide & Cunégonde.

Man walking in Liverpool, August 9 2011.Man walking in Liverpool, August 9 2011.Waltzing Matilda ... somewhere I read that 'Waltzing Matilda' was the staggering towards death of men chained to a rock in the Botany Bay (Sydney) harbour during the early days of the penal colony.

Voting with your feet ...

Hannah Arendt Sonning Prize acceptance speech, 1975: "This falling of dusk, the darkening of the public scene, however, did not take place in silence by any means. On the contrary, never was the public scene so filled with public announcements, usually quite optimistic, and the noise that moved the air was composed not only of the propaganda slogans of the two antagonistic ideologies, each promising a different wave of the future, but also by the down-to-earth statements of respectable politicians and statements from left-of-center, right-of-center, and center, all of which together had the net effect of desubstantializing every issue they touched, in addition to confusing utterly the minds of their audiences."

The lost generations which Arendt goes on to talk about are also mentioned by Isak Dinesen in Out of Africa which I am now reading ... what a gracious story! What a gracious woman! Oh, a bit condescending at times, maybe, lets her aristocratic dog off its leash too often maybe ... but delightful. This may not be true in her other writing; so I have asked the library for a few more (Anecdotes of Destiny & Seven Gothic Tales).

Economic Growth by Polyp.Economic Growth by Polyp.
I got my first look at Obama during a Democratic debate with Ms. Rodham in 2007. And my reaction was, "Right, Lucy holds the football for Steve Urkel."

Hillary Clinton aka Lucy.Barack Obama aka Steve Urkel.You can watch him rallying the consumer troops last week here (pay close attention to the pauses and stumbles). "We’ve always been and always will be a AAA country," he says. What's that? AAA? Avaricious, Astigmatic, & Arrogant? Asthmatic, Amoral, & Afogago? And later, "The values that bind us together as a nation," (values?) ditto.

Drew Westen asks, What Happened to Obama? I think he exaggerates - I watched the Inaugural Address and thought I was hearing a new narrative - it was in the months following that I stopped paying close enough attention. Hell! He got the goddam Peace Prize! Those guys know what they're doing, don't they?

The alternate headline on it is "What happened to Obama's passion?" which is telling too in a way. But yeah, what happened to him? Since he is (as he should be) the epitome of his nation.

You can see it clearly in this NYT editorial - a spectacular display of ostrich-ism and clichés.

Alek Wek in brass.As I read the comments on this editorial, it came to me that the rich may be thinking they will just dispense with the rest of the population of the planet (except of course the ones with nice tits and a winning smile) and hide - voting with their feet so to speak, in their own inimitable way, but on the other side of the street. If that's the plan they had better get a move on quick - because once the tip really hits, gated communities are not gonna be nearly enough - oh, keep out the hoi polloi, alright, no problem, but keep out the wind?

Meanwhile Stephen Harper courts the likes of Honduras' Porfirio Lobo Sosa & Columbia's Juan Manuel Santos Calderón as he busily establishes more free-trade zones. There was a hint of a hitch in the gitalong with Dilma Rouseff, but it doesn't matter - same crap-o-la different page.

And instructs his trusty sidekick Peter Kent to OK another coal-fired generating plant in Grande Cache Alberta just in time to beat his very own (lame) 'emissions regulations'. More on this later because as it turns out there is a personal angle.

A-and a new kid on the endocrine disruptor front: Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), a component of fire-fighting foam, active at Parts Per Billion.

Shell OilA-and Shell Oil / Royal Dutch Shell - What can you say about them? Past: They fucked over Nigeria, big time, repeatedly & violently in every orifice, over five decades and more - first well came in 1956 (Guardian: Shell has admitted liability but has a long way to go to make amends). Present: Are fucking up the North Sea as we speak (BBC: Shell fights spill near North Sea oil platform) not a blowout mind you, just bad piping, but they can't seem to either find or fix it. ... Poor wee babies! Future: Better give 'em the Beaufort Sea to fuck with then, (Shell Gets Tentative Approval to Drill in Arctic). Yeah. Right.

YEEHAW !
Two ways outa this: A. massive human die-off engineered or otherwise; or B. economic collapse (with a measure of A. depending on how fast we can get the binders on bust); pick one. Either way it's gotta be well under way by 2015.

There is also a political solution, C. - but I can't see any sign of it (but WTF do I know?). Nada. Zip. Zipp-o-la!

Not gonna be pretty. Not pretty now.

Somehow from Chet Baker to the end of Isaiah 1: "For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden that hath no water. And the strong shall be as tow, and the maker of it as a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them."

on Johhny Cash's show sometime in the 60's,(The 'they shall both burn' in there is all of us AND whatever passes for an omnipotent diety - that's my reading of it.)

And on through "every junkie's like a setting sun" Neil's been singing early and late ...

Nafissatou Diallo.I have been running into phrases like this all week: "You do not understand, you will never understand." Reading Julian Barnes' The Sense of an Ending and he keeps on with, "You just don't get it, do you? But then you never did," in various formulations as a refrain at the ends of his sections.

and in 2009."You know something's happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?" Oh well ... OK. It's true then - I don't, never did, never will. And Dylan's other great judgement applies as well: "He not busy being born is busy dying."

STFU with those silly smilies! This is NOT a laughing matter. :-)And so on. Sorry about that.

Thanks to Altino Machado for putting this into motion.

Did I forget to mention that the 'darkening of the public scene' our Hannah talks about is the humus from which springs ... who knows what wierdness?

"O come, turtles, come; and eat the bastarding jellyfish." (Euan Ferguson)

Be well.

Postscript:

I wanted to throw in Gwynne Dyer's latest - here it is at Georgia Strait, with a headline - "Food crisis looms as a result of cutbacks in irrigation" - that seems to imply it is a matter of choice (?). But OK, by the time that link dies it will probably be up at his own site.

Oops - he's catching up! - it is there already: The Food Bubble.

Opa! Esqueci que hoje é Dia dos Pais. Mas o meu anjo da guarda não esqueceu de mim, não - ela enviou 'um grande beijo do tamanho do céu.' E já chegou também, um milagre - quem iria imaginar? Dentro da chuva Perseidas, entre as estrelas cadentes desta temporada foi um beijo pra mim - uma bênção de verdade. Ai ai ai. Que bom mesmo! Obrigado querida.


Appendices:

1. Britain fears its ‘rebels without a cause’, Olivia Ward, August 9 2011.

 

2. Where Will Growth Come From?, NYT Editorial, August 10 2011.

 

3. What Happened to Obama?, Drew Westen, August 6 2011.

 


Britain fears its ‘rebels without a cause’, Olivia Ward, August 9 2011.

Some came for the candy. Others carried off flat-screen TVs and smart phones. And still others heaved bricks through windows and set fire to cars in an ecstasy of violence that has terrified British onlookers.

This is not the Britain of stiff upper lips and “carry on regardless,” the country that won its reputation for pulling together during two world wars.

The riots that have smashed their way from north London to the southern and eastern suburbs, Liverpool and beyond are all the more frightening, experts say, because they have no clear cause. But they bubble up from dangerous undercurrents in society.

“This is not Britain’s Tahrir Square,” said Dan Leighton, an associate of the London political think-tank Demos. “But its very lack of political motivation makes it even more worrying — and even more political.”

The divisions of British society have widened in past decades and inequality is still growing. And with the ongoing financial crisis, and a massive media phone-hacking scandal that involves bribery of police, the British body politic has been buffeted from all sides. With the riots, it is a perfect storm.

“In Britain you have the top 1 per cent who continue to earn unimaginable money in the midst of austerity, then the squeezed middle class, and then the ‘stakelessness’ of young people who are excluded and have no respect for the norms of society,” said Leighton. “It’s a situation that has been brewing for 20 years.”

Leighton organizes for Compass, a new public interest group that created an online petition to restore the public interest, declaring that “something is unravelling before our eyes. From bankers to media-barons, private interests have bankrupted and corrupted the public realm.”

But social purpose seems irrelevant to the rioters and looters who have destroyed small businesses, homes and cars in their own neighbourhoods, also joining mobile “flash mobs” called up on BlackBerrys and social media.

“Riots are about power, and they are about catharsis,” writes 24-year-old London blogger Laura Penny. “People riot because it makes them feel powerful, even if only for a night. People riot because they have spent their whole lives being told that they are good for nothing and they realize that together they can do anything — literally anything at all.”

The volatile mix of anger, opportunism and hopelessness appears to have produced a nihilism that’s different from earlier generation riots, which focused on racial tension, police brutality or tax protests.

It is fuelled by the amorality of the “feral elites” who helped to wreck the economy, while on an endless spending spree of London’s outrageously priced luxury goods and real estate. Big-ticket items the unemployed and working poor can only view through polished windows.

“It’s trickle-down morality,” says Stephen Whitehead, a researcher with the New Economics Foundation in London. “The looters wouldn’t say they were redressing the wealth gap in a progressive political agenda. But they don’t see why they should care about doing damage when the wealthiest are rewarded for it.”

London has tried to plug the gap between rich and poor by placing public housing next door to multi-million-dollar homes. But cuts to housing benefits will soon force the poorest out to the perimeters.

“Rich and poor may be living side by side but it only makes the everyday inequality more obvious,” says philosophy lecturer Nina Power of Roehampton University a campaigner for students’ rights. “The New Labour government pushed personal debt, credit cards and student loans to keep the economy going. But the 2008 (meltdown) ended all that.

“Now there are no positive programs, and no big ideas of what society should be like. If people are stealing it’s not just mindless theft. They have got the consumerist thing, but without any money. They can get things they want, and sell them to make money. But it’s not just the ‘I want’ mentality. Some believe there’s no other way.”


Where Will Growth Come From?, NYT Editorial, August 10 2011.

Never has the world economy depended so much on the success of developing nations. A misguided focus on budget cutting has plunged the European Union and the United States down paths that will prolong their economic stagnation and perhaps tip them into another recession. The International Monetary Fund was forecasting 2 percent growth in the euro zone before the financial crisis spread to Italy. The Japanese economy is shrinking. Some top economists put the odds of a double-dip recession in the United States at 1 in 2.

These dire prospects, along with the realization that economic policy is blocked by political gridlock in the United States and complacency in Europe, have sent spasms through financial markets, which could further sap growth. Fortunately, developing countries, which account for almost half the globe’s economic output, are growing faster than the industrialized world: in June the I.M.F. forecast that they would grow some 6.5 percent this year and next. Their growth spares the world utter economic stagnation.

Yet developing countries are not robust enough to keep the global economy from sinking in a morass for long. Their economies remain vulnerable to financial turbulence and economic weakness in wealthy nations.

Even a flood of money moving to developing nations, as investors react to the lack of growth in the industrial world, would create new challenges. It would stoke inflation and asset bubbles in developing economies: annual inflation in Brazil is running at 6.85 percent. And it would push up the value of their currencies, hindering exports.

China, the biggest developing economy, is still more a caboose than a growth engine, dependent on rich countries to buy more than 40 percent of its exports. In 2009, China led efforts to help the global recovery, investing heavily in infrastructure and boosting consumer spending, but today it is taking the opposite tack and trying to combat inflation, which is running at 6.4 percent.

To keep its goods cheap, it has allowed its currency to rise only about 6 percent against the dollar since June 2010, even as the dollar has plunged against other currencies. Last month, the I.M.F. called on China to help global growth by letting the currency appreciate more rapidly, which would make Chinese goods more expensive around the world and give a break to competing manufacturers.

China has so far resisted that advice. It lashed out at economic mismanagement in Washington after the Standard & Poor’s downgrade, which could potentially reduce the value of its $1.1 trillion stash of American Treasury bonds. Rather than berate Washington, it should abandon its currency manipulation. China’s leaders have said they want to put more money in the hands of consumers through social programs and higher wages, and to rely less on exports. They can do this without stoking inflation by allowing the renminbi to rise significantly.

The burden of global growth cannot be placed on China alone. Germany has the third-largest trade surplus in the world, after China and Japan, sapping growth in its European neighbors. The United States and the European Union must focus more on spurring economic growth. They should have all along.


What Happened to Obama?, Drew Westen, August 6 2011.

Drew Westen is a professor of psychology at Emory University.

Atlanta

IT was a blustery day in Washington on Jan. 20, 2009, as it often seems to be on the day of a presidential inauguration. As I stood with my 8-year-old daughter, watching the president deliver his inaugural address, I had a feeling of unease. It wasn’t just that the man who could be so eloquent had seemingly chosen not to be on this auspicious occasion, although that turned out to be a troubling harbinger of things to come. It was that there was a story the American people were waiting to hear — and needed to hear — but he didn’t tell it. And in the ensuing months he continued not to tell it, no matter how outrageous the slings and arrows his opponents threw at him.

The stories our leaders tell us matter, probably almost as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is, what could be, and what should be; to the worldviews they hold and to the values they hold sacred. Our brains evolved to “expect” stories with a particular structure, with protagonists and villains, a hill to be climbed or a battle to be fought. Our species existed for more than 100,000 years before the earliest signs of literacy, and another 5,000 years would pass before the majority of humans would know how to read and write.

Stories were the primary way our ancestors transmitted knowledge and values. Today we seek movies, novels and “news stories” that put the events of the day in a form that our brains evolved to find compelling and memorable. Children crave bedtime stories; the holy books of the three great monotheistic religions are written in parables; and as research in cognitive science has shown, lawyers whose closing arguments tell a story win jury trials against their legal adversaries who just lay out “the facts of the case.”

When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment, with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.

In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:

“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out. And it didn’t work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can’t promise that we won’t make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again.” A story isn’t a policy. But that simple narrative — and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it — would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement. It would have made clear that the problem wasn’t tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit — a deficit that didn’t exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.

[2]

And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.

But there was no story — and there has been none since.

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power in the wealthy. That’s what we saw in 1928, and that’s what we see today. At some point that power is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform ensues — and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation’s food supply, and protect America’s land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.

Those were the shoes — that was the historic role — that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill. The president is fond of referring to “the arc of history,” paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time — he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.

When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.

IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

[3]

The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy. That, in turn, led the White House to feel rightly unappreciated for having saved the country from another Great Depression but in the unenviable position of having to argue a counterfactual — that something terrible might have happened had it not half-acted.

To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.” Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would “bend the cost curve”), or why “credit card reform” had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they’re still unemployed, they’re still worried about how they’re going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can’t get a job. And now the Republicans are chipping away at unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent verbal exhortations after bargaining it away.

What makes the “deficit debate” we just experienced seem so surreal is how divorced the conversation in Washington has been from conversations around the kitchen table everywhere else in America. Although I am a scientist by training, over the last several years, as a messaging consultant to nonprofit groups and Democratic leaders, I have studied the way voters think and feel, talking to them in plain language. At this point, I have interacted in person or virtually with more than 50,000 Americans on a range of issues, from taxes and deficits to abortion and immigration.

The average voter is far more worried about jobs than about the deficit, which few were talking about while Bush and the Republican Congress were running it up. The conventional wisdom is that Americans hate government, and if you ask the question in the abstract, people will certainly give you an earful about what government does wrong. But if you give them the choice between cutting the deficit and putting Americans back to work, it isn’t even close. But it’s not just jobs. Americans don’t share the priorities of either party on taxes, budgets or any of the things Congress and the president have just agreed to slash — or failed to slash, like subsidies to oil companies. When it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy, Americans are united across the political spectrum, supporting a message that says, “In times like these, millionaires ought to be giving to charity, not getting it.”

When pitted against a tough budget-cutting message straight from the mouth of its strongest advocates, swing voters vastly preferred a message that began, “The best way to reduce the deficit is to put Americans back to work.” This statement is far more consistent with what many economists are saying publicly — and what investors apparently believe, as evident in the nosedive the stock market took after the president and Congress “saved” the economy.

So where does that leave us?

[4]

Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts). But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling. He announces in a speech on energy and climate change that we need to expand offshore oil drilling and coal production — two methods of obtaining fuels that contribute to the extreme weather Americans are now seeing. He supports a health care law that will use Medicaid to insure about 15 million more Americans and then endorses a budget plan that, through cuts to state budgets, will most likely decimate Medicaid and other essential programs for children, senior citizens and people who are vulnerable by virtue of disabilities or an economy that is getting weaker by the day. He gives a major speech on immigration reform after deporting around 800,000 immigrants in two years, a pace faster than nearly any other period in American history.

THE real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won’t realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes — but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right.

As a practicing psychologist with more than 25 years of experience, I will resist the temptation to diagnose at a distance, but as a scientist and strategic consultant I will venture some hypotheses.

The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

A somewhat less charitable explanation is that we are a nation that is being held hostage not just by an extremist Republican Party but also by a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election. Perhaps those of us who were so enthralled with the magnificent story he told in “Dreams From My Father” appended a chapter at the end that wasn’t there — the chapter in which he resolves his identity and comes to know who he is and what he believes in.

Or perhaps, like so many politicians who come to Washington, he has already been consciously or unconsciously corrupted by a system that tests the souls even of people of tremendous integrity, by forcing them to dial for dollars — in the case of the modern presidency, for hundreds of millions of dollars. When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability. Whether that reflects his aversion to conflict, an aversion to conflict with potential campaign donors that today cripples both parties’ ability to govern and threatens our democracy, or both, is unclear.

A final explanation is that he ran for president on two contradictory platforms: as a reformer who would clean up the system, and as a unity candidate who would transcend the lines of red and blue. He has pursued the one with which he is most comfortable given the constraints of his character, consistently choosing the message of bipartisanship over the message of confrontation.

But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.


Down.

Monday, 18 July 2011

She's dead, of course.

Up, Down, Appendices, Postscript.

There was an old woman who swallowed a fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old woman who swallowed a spider.
It wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old woman who swallowed a bird;
How absurd, to swallow a bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old woman who swallowed a cat.
Imagine that, she swallowed a cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old woman who swallowed a dog.
What a hog! She swallowed a dog!
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat ...
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old woman who swallowed a goat.
Just opened her throat and swallowed a goat!
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog ...
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat ...
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old woman who swallowed a cow.
I don't know how she swallowed a cow.
She swallowed the cow to catch the goat ...
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog ...
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat ...
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird ...
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.

There was an old woman who swallowed a horse.

She's dead, of course.



I have told the story of the spruce bud worm and the shrews and the snakes elsewhere in the blog ... it is probably apocryphal, an 'urban myth' or rural as the case may be - I had it from Harold Ryan of Great Paradise, Placentia Bay sometime around 1969 who told me about the shrews 'moving like a blanket' over the ground.

Or wood-coal-oil-gas-nuclear ... whatever.

From Vias de Fato comes this news:

 ARROMBAMENTO NA COMISSÃO PASTORAL DA TERRA DE PINHEIRO, Sexta-feira, 15 de Julho de 2011.

A Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT), de Pinheiro foi arrombada na madrugada desta sexta-feira (15). Essa é mais uma violência praticada contra escritórios da CPT no Maranhão. No último final de semana a CPT esteve reunida junto com o Movimento Quilombola da Baixada Maranhense –MOQUIBOM, com mais de 55 comunidades quilombolas, no município de Mangabeira. “É muito suspeito tudo isso, toda vez que realizamos um importante encontro com os quilombolas, alguma sede da CPT aparece arrombada. Dessa vez, fizeram diferente, além de revirarem algumas coisas, levaram o computador, quando arrombaram a de São Luís, reviraram tudo mais não levaram nenhum objeto de valor.” Disse por telefone, Fábio Costa, agente da CPT de Pinheiro.

O arrombamento só foi percebido pela manhã por um porteiro do colégio Pinheirense, localizado em frente ao escritório da entidade na Avenida Presidente Dutra, em Pinheiro. Por volta das 7h da manhã, o porteiro percebeu que as portas estavam abertas e não tinha nenhum agente da CPT no local. O porteiro então, entrou em contato com a diretora da escola que ligou para Fábio que se encontrava no município de Bequimão, retornando de imediato. Não foi possível contactar o Padre Inaldo Serejo, coordenador da CPT, pois o mesmo encontra-se em um encontro de Dioceses que está sendo realizado em Caxias.
 CPT OFFICE IN PINHEIRO TRASHED, Friday July 15 2011.

The Pastoral Land Commission's office in Pinheiro was trashed in the early morning of Friday the 15th. This is yet another violent action against the offices of the CPT in Maranhão (state). Last weekend the CPT joined with the Maranhão Lowlands Ex-slaves Movement (MOQUIBOM), comprising more than 55 communities in Mangabeira municipality. “This is all very suspicious, every time we achieve an important meeting with the ex-slaves, one of our offices gets trashed. This time they did it differently - as well as turning things upside down they took the computer. When they broke up the office in São Luis they did not take anything of value." This by telephone with Fábio Costa, CPT agent in Pinheiro.

The destruction was discovered about 7AM by the doorman of the Pinheiro College, across the street from the CPT office on Avenida Presidente Dutra, in Pinheiro. About 7AM the doorman noticed that the doors were open with no one from the CPT present. So he got in contact with the director of the school who managed to find Fábio in Bequimão municipality. It was not possible to contact Father Inaldo Serejo, the CPT coordinator, because he was at a meeting of the Diocese in Caxias.
Here's a map with the places in the story marked. Interesting that you can zoom right into the streets of Pinheiro. Avenida Presidente Dutra doesn't seem to be there which is maybe par for Google, but some of the streets are probably approximately so ... there is an Avenida Eurico Dutra showing, maybe that's it.

The good news (good?) is that they now have three suspects in the murders of Ze Claudio & Maria: José Rodrigues Moreira (the landowner who ordered it), Lindon Jonson Silva Rocha (his brother) and Alberto Lopes Teixeira (an accomplice). Now they have to catch 'em. (source)

The ugly question remains: Did one landowner act alone? How many others were complicit?

Khalil Bendib.Khalil Bendib.Khalil Bendib, cartoonist from Berkeley, available here & here.

What I am musing on these days is often this: "What will it take for the muggles to figgure it out?" Not much of a nevermind that it'll be too late by then.

Seri.Seri.Seri: I take one step. I take another. I take a fifth step ... How did I ever live without Twitter?

You can find Seri here. Rudy Park uses a big conglomerate site with irritating popups so I will not publish the link - easy enough to find if you want to see more.

Maybe that last step will look something like this:
Rudy Park.Rudy Park.There are so many tipping points, collective, several & individual ...

Here's a story: There was a heat wave in Toronto last week - 38°! The horror! Highest temperature reading ever! Or maybe close. Warnings in the newspaper for those over 65. But this apartment has windows on two sides, south & east, and there has always seemed to be a breeze to keep things comfortable ... until the day before yesterday when it ... stopped.

Tom Toles.Ygreck.Who knows why? Some tiny effect somewhere among all of the baffles between here and the lake has tipped. So now there is a small fan dragging air in under my garden. The Home Depot was just about out of fans. Selling like hotcakes. A situation redeeemed only by the lovely young woman taking the money.

I see Tom Toles via the NYT & Ygreck here.

We can only hope that whichever bureaucratic maggot will be the one to put the last straw on the camel's back gets around to it soon.

I read this thing once, a year or so ago. I found it artificial, stereotyped, cloying, impossible in its details ... and sent it back to the library. Forgot about it. Then some recent noise made me remember it - but I couldn't quite remember why I had disliked it so, so I read it again.

Chanda's Secrets by Allan Stratton: at the library, his blog, the blurb at Annick Press with a long list of honours & hyperbolic mini-reviews by the likes of Stephen Lewis ... a cute little Aids ribbon instead of an apostrophe in the title ... and all ...

I wanted to scan the entire thing, shred it sentence by phoney sentence ... no steam for that as it turns out, but here is Chapter 1.

Hell, colleagues of mine, good friends some of them, have died of Aids - so why does the entire phenomenon of this book and its author's success and the subsequent movie fill me with such revulsion?

I'm gonna just leave it to you ... eventually I will see the movie Life, Above All ... here's the trailer.

Clever of him to pose & pitch it as an 'adolescent' novel - saves wear and tear on the thinking machine. Or m-maybe the m-mercury & low-level radioactivity is kicking in faster than anticipated and double-digit IQs are already the standard for tops.

Or explain to me how there can be such dreck as Republic of Doyle? I was there a few years ago - this looks like a sitcom but it is nothing but the truth. The place is gone. Sold.

The environmental whiners are calling out the petition troops over proposed cuts to Toronto's environmental programs - nevermind that the so called programs are entirely ineffective except as a trough for the entitled.

And Margaret Atwood is doing the same around threatened cuts to the Toronto Public Library. Well, the library does matter - but our clever Wile-e-coyote Rob Ford is just sending them up, a distraction - he's not going to close the libraries.

Here's Robert Preston and Shirley Jones in 1962.

A few 'factoids' from CUPE/TPLWU:
2,400 members

Pages: There are 699 Pages who perform various front line library tasks. All are part-time workers. Current hourly rate varies from $11.33 to $14.95.

Public Service Assistants: There are 533 PSAs who assist patrons in many ways. 50 per cent work part-time. The current top PSA wage rate is $26.63.

Librarians: There are 242 Librarians. The current top Librarian wage rate is $39.01, which is comparable to a college instructor.


which comes to about 1,400 - so how much do the other 1,000 make?
And a few from the 2011 Library Budget (read it yourself).

Jane Pyper, TPL Librarian.Jane Pyper, TPL Librarian.Jane Pyper, TPL Librarian.Jane Pyper, TPL Librarian.Here's the lady on the front line, Jane Pyper. And here she is speaking.

Here's her recent proposal to save 500,000 a year.

Keep in mind that the Toronto Public Library is about the only thing in this entire city that actually works.

Whatever.

Crisis this and crisis that ... Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Eurozone, Debt Ceiling, TPL closures ... all bogus. The powers that be and their PHD bureaucrat sleveens can't let it go because they would lose their salaries & perks, so they cobble up ineffective compromises & half measures, all the while taking whatever advantage accrues from the Shock & Awe of it for themselves. And all the while ignoring the elephant in the room - which is the broken environment.

Of course it is not only the environment that is broken. I have been re-reading The Limits to Growth, the library only holds a few copies in the reference section, not for circulation, but I have my own copy. The last sentence is:
The crux of the matter is not only whether the human species will survive, but even more whether it can survive without falling into a state of worthless existence.
So ... worthless existence ... One wonders, or, I do at least, if they were agnostics or athiests or believers?

I sometimes turn to Northrop Frye's Double Vision. Other times I turn to Hannah Arendt's Men in Dark Times. The title comes from a poem by Bertolt Brecht, An die Nachgeborenen, not so unlike Auden's September 1, 1939, written about the same time.

I like the way she talks about official lies. It's an old tradition, going back at least to the 'mouth, lips, and fat' imagery in the Psalms: here in #17, "They are inclosed in their own fat: with their mouth they speak proudly," and particularly in #73, "Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish," which Martin Buber wrote so eloquently about.

Dadaab, Kenya.Ali Addeh, Djibouti.Dollo Ado, Ethiopia.Dollo Ado, Ethiopia.See how the dimwit dilettante is driven to shameless name dropping? And even beyond that. (Wait for it, here it comes.) Because I look at these words (of Brecht & Auden), which were, after all, coming out of mere world wars and holocaust genocides ...

OK, picture Dadaab in your mind, or Dollo Ado, or Ali Addeh, and what is going on there, and in a dozen and a hundred and a thousand other such camps. Here's a map. A-and worse - what is going on just outside these camps.

Joe Hall & the Continental Drift with Here Comes Da 3rd World ... and maybe a chorous of Eva B.

Aporrinhando as almofadinhas.

Be well.

Postscript:

From the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation comes an open-ended Request for Proposals (RFP), the Reinvent the Toilet Challenge: Invent a toilet, with no sewage, water or electrical connection, which renders waste in approximately 24 hours for 5 cents a day per user.

Watch the video (above right, 1½ minutes) & read the RFP (9 pages).

Yu-Ling Cheng.UofT has snagged one of the contracts (read about it in the Star or Globe) headed by professor Yu-Ling Cheng. You can watch and listen to her in this 4 minute video.

She doesn't smile much - but she does smile.

There are strong reasons to stop flushing. The phosphorus cycle & peak phosphorus; thermodynamics; whatever ... I can't remember it all now ... They have been obvious since the 60's, just like the rest of the broken environment.

The public utility bureaucrats will soon figgure out that this notion seriously undermines their positions and condemn it accordingly - because if it works in 'developing countries' it will work here too. I hereby christen the inevitable controversy, 'ShitGate'.

Check this out: Rodrigo Chaves:
Num futuro não muito distante ... / In a not-too-distant future ...Num futuro não muito distante ... / In a not-too-distant future ... In the future, people will no longer leave the house, because everything will be done at a computer screen.

But Joe was an adventurous spirit, and one day he decided to go to the corner.

Arriving there he saw something he had never seen before in his life.

"Got any spare change buddy?"

Then Joe ran back to the house to tell about what had happened:

"I saw a living woman! And she talked to me! Does this mean we had sex? I think I'm in love ...""

Appendices:

1. Chanda's Secrets Part One, 1, Allan Stratton, 2004.

2. An die Nachgeborenen / To Those Who Follow in Our Wake, Bertolt Brecht, 1939(?).

3. Men in Dark Times Preface, Hannah Arendt, 1968.

4. The Heart Determines: Psalm 73 Martin Buber, 1968.



Chanda's Secrets Part One, 1, Allan Stratton, 2004.

PART ONE
I'M ALONE IN THE OFFICE of Bateman's Eternal Light Funeral Services. It's early Monday morning and Mr. Bateman is busy with a new shipment of coffins.
       "I'll get to you as soon as I can," he told me. "Meanwhile, you can go into my office and look at my fish. They're in an aquarium on the far wall. If you get bored, there're magazines on the coffee table. By the way, I'm sorry about your sister."
       I don't want to look at Mr. Bateman's fish. And I certainly don't want to read. I just want to get this meeting over with before I cry and make a fool of myself.
       Mr. Bateman's office is huge. It's also dark. The blinds are closed and half the fluorescent lights are burned out. Aside from the lamp on his desk, most of the light in the room comes from the aquarium. That's fine, I guess. The darkness hides the junk piled in the corners: hammers, boards, paint cans, saws, boxes of nails, and a stepladder. Mr. Bateman renovated the place six months ago, but he hasn't tidied up yet.
       Before the renovations, Bateman's Eternal Light didn't do funerals. It was a building supply center. That's why it's located between a lumber yard and a place that rents cement mixers. Mr. Bateman opened it when he arrived from England eight years ago. It was always busy, but these days, despite the building boom, there's more money in death than construction.
       The day of the grand reopening, Mr. Bateman announced plans to have a chain of Eternal Lights across the country within two years. When reporters asked if he had any training in embalming, he said no, but he was completing a correspondence course from some college in the States. He also promised to hire the best hair stylists in town, and to offer discount rates. "No matter how poor, there's a place for everyone at Bateman's."
       That's why I'm here.
       When Mr. Bateman finally comes in, I don't notice. Somehow I've ended up on a folding chair in front of his aquarium staring at an angelfish. It's staring back. I wonder what it's thinking. I wonder if it knows it's trapped in a tank for the rest of its life. Or maybe it's happy swimming back and forth between the plastic grasses, nibbling algae from the turquoise pebbles and investigating the little pirate chest with the lid that blows air bubbles. I've loved angelfish ever since I saw pictures of them in a collection of National Geographies some missionaries donated to my school.
       "So sorry to have kept you," Mr. Bateman says.
       I leap to my feet.
       "Sit, sit. Please," he smiles.
       We shake hands and I sink back into the folding chair. He sits opposite me in an old leather recliner. There's a tear on the armrest with gray stuffing poking out. Mr. Bateman picks at it.
       "Are we expecting your papa?"
       "No," I say. "My step-papa's working." That's a lie. My step-papa is dead drunk at the neighborhood shebeen.
       "Are we waiting for your mama, then?"
       "She can't come either. She's very sick." This part is almost true. Mama is curled up on the floor, rocking my sister. When I told her we had to find a mortuary she just kept rocking. "You go," she whispered. "You're sixteen. I know you'll do what needs doing. I have to stay with my Sara."
       Mr. Bateman clears his throat. "Might there be an auntie coming, then? Or an uncle?"
       "No."
       "Ah." His mouth bobs open and shut. His skin is pale and scaly. He reminds me of one of his fish. "Ah," he says again. "So you've been sent to make the arrangements by yourself."
       I nod and stare at the small cigarette burn on his lapel. "I'm sixteen."
       "Ah." He pauses. "How old was your sister?"
       "Sara's one and a half," I say. "Was one and a half."
       "One and a half. My, my." Mr. Bateman clucks his tongue. "It's always a shock when they're infants."
       A shock? Sara was alive two hours ago. She was cranky all night because of her rash. Mama rocked her through dawn, till she stopped whining. At first we thought she'd just fallen asleep. (God, please forgive me for being angry with her last night. I didn't mean what I prayed. Please let this not be my fault.)
       I lower my eyes.
       Mr. Bateman breaks the silence. "You'll be glad you chose Eternal Light," he confides. "It's more than a mortuary. We provide embalming, a hearse, two wreaths, a small chapel, funeral programs and a mention in the local paper."
       I guess this is supposed to make me feel better. It doesn't. "How much will it cost?" I ask.
       "That depends," Mr. Bateman says. "What sort of funeral would you like?"
       My hands flop on my lap. "Something simple, I guess."
       "A good choice."
       I nod. It's obvious I can't pay much. I got my dress from a ragpicker at the bazaar, and I'm dusty and sweaty from my bicycle ride here.
       "Would you like to start by selecting a coffin?" he asks.
       "Yes, please."
       Mr. Bateman leads me to his showroom. The most expensive coffins are up front, but he doesn't want to insult me by whisking me to the back. Instead I get the full tour. "We stock a full line of products," he says. "Models come in pine and mahogany, and can be fitted with a variety of brass handles and bars. We have beveled edges, or plain. As for the linings, we offer silk, satin, and polyester in a range of colors. Plain pillowcases for the head rest are standard, but we can sew on a lace ribbon for free."
       The more Mr. Bateman talks, the more excited he gets, giving each model a little rub with his handkerchief. He explains the difference between coffins and caskets: "Coffins have flat lids. Caskets have round lids." Not that it makes a difference. In the end, they're all boxes.
       I'm a little frightened. We're getting to the back of the show-room and the price tags on the coffins are still an average year's wages. My step-papa does odd jobs, my mama keeps a few chickens and a vegetable garden, my sister is five and a half, my brother is four, and I'm in high school. Where is the money going to come from?
Mr. Bateman sees the look on my face. "For children's funerals, we have a less costly alternative," he says. He leads me behind a curtain into a back room and flicks on a light bulb. All around me, stacked to the ceiling, are tiny whitewashed coffins, dusted with yellow, pink, and blue spray paint.
       Mr. Bateman opens one up. It's made of pressboards, held together with a handful of finishing nails. The lining is a plastic sheet, stapled in place. Tin handles are glued to the outside; if you tried to use them, they'd fall off.
       I look away.
       Mr. Bateman tries to comfort. "We wrap the children in a beautiful white shroud. Then we fluff the material over the sides of the box. All you see is the little face. Sara will look lovely."
       I'm numb as he takes me back to the morgue, where she'll be kept till she's ready. He points at a row of oversized filing cabinets. "They're clean as a whistle, and fully refrigerated," he assures me. "Sara will have her own compartment, unless other children are brought in, of course, in which case she'll have to share."
       We return to the office and Mr. Bateman hands me a contract. "If you've got the money handy, I'll drive by for the body at one. Sara will be ready for pickup Wednesday afternoon. I'll schedule the burial for Thursday morning."
       I swallow hard. "Mama would like to hold off until the weekend. Our relatives need time to come in from the country."
       "I'm afraid there's no discount on weekends," Mr. Bateman says, lighting a cigarette.
       "Then maybe next Monday, a week today?"
       "Not possible. I'll be up to my ears in new customers. I'm sorry. There're so many deaths these days. It's not me. It's the market."


An die Nachgeborenen / To Those Who Follow in Our Wake, Bertolt Brecht, 1939 (?).

[Follow the link to the source for the original German.]

I

Truly, I live in dark times!
An artless word is foolish. A smooth forehead
Points to insensitivity. He who laughs
Has not yet received
The terrible news.

What times are these, in which
A conversation about trees is almost a crime
For in doing so we maintain our silence about so much wrongdoing!
And he who walks quietly across the street,
Passes out of the reach of his friends
Who are in danger?

It is true: I work for a living
But, believe me, that is a coincidence. Nothing
That I do gives me the right to eat my fill.
By chance I have been spared. (If my luck does not hold, I am lost.)

They tell me: eat and drink. Be glad to be among the haves!
But how can I eat and drink
When I take what I eat from the starving
And those who thirst do not have my glass of water?
And yet I eat and drink.

I would happily be wise.
The old books teach us what wisdom is:
To retreat from the strife of the world
To live out the brief time that is your lot
Without fear
To make your way without violence
To repay evil with good –
The wise do not seek to satisfy their desires,
But to forget them.
But I cannot heed this:
Truly I live in dark times!

II

I came into the cities in a time of disorder
As hunger reigned.
I came among men in a time of turmoil
And I rose up with them.
And so passed
The time given to me on earth.

I ate my food between slaughters.
I laid down to sleep among murderers.
I tended to love with abandon.
I looked upon nature with impatience.
And so passed
The time given to me on earth.

In my time streets led into a swamp.
My language betrayed me to the slaughterer.
There was little I could do. But without me
The rulers sat more securely, or so I hoped.
And so passed
The time given to me on earth.

The powers were so limited. The goal
Lay far in the distance
It could clearly be seen although even I
Could hardly hope to reach it.
And so passed
The time given to me on earth.

III

You, who shall resurface following the flood
In which we have perished,
Contemplate –
When you speak of our weaknesses,
Also the dark time
That you have escaped.

For we went forth, changing our country more frequently than our shoes
Through the class warfare, despairing
That there was only injustice and no outrage.

And yet we knew:
Even the hatred of squalor
Distorts one’s features.
Even anger against injustice
Makes the voice grow hoarse. We
Who wished to lay the foundation for gentleness
Could not ourselves be gentle.

But you, when at last the time comes
That man can aid his fellow man,
Should think upon us
With leniency.


Men in Dark Times Preface, Hannah Arendt, 1968.

PREFACE

WRITTEN over a period of twelve years on the spur of occasion or opportunity, this collection of essays and articles is primarily concerned with persons — how they lived their lives, how they moved in the world, and how they were affected by historical time. The people assembled here could hardly be more unlike each other, and it is not difficult to imagine how they might have protested, had they been given a voice in the matter, against being gathered into a common room, as it were. For they have in common neither gifts nor convictions, neither profession nor milieu; with one exception, they hardly knew of each other. But they were contemporaries, though belonging to different generations — except, of course, for Lessing, who, however, in the introductory essay is treated as though he were a contemporary. Thus they share with each other the age in which their life span fell, die world during the first half of the twentieth century with its political catastrophes, its moral disasters, and its astonishing development of the arts and sciences. And while this age killed some of them and determined the life and work of others, there are a few who were hardly affected and none who could be said to be conditioned by it Those who are on the lookout for representatives of an era, for mouthpieces of the Zeitgeist, for exponents of History (spelled with a capital H) will look here in vain.
       Still, the historical time, the "dark times" mentioned in the title, is, I think, visible everywhere in this book. I borrow the term from Brecht's famous poem "To Posterity," which mentions the disorder and the hunger, the massacres and the slaughterers, the outrage over injustice and the despair "when there was only wrong and no outrage," the legitimate hatred that makes you ugly nevertheless, the well-founded wrath that makes the voice grow hoarse. All this was real enough as it took place in public; there was nothing secret or mysterious about it. And still, it was by no means visible to all, nor was it at all easy to perceive it; for, until the very moment when catastrophe overtook everything and everybody, it was covered up not by realities but by the highly efficient talk and double-talk of nearly all official representatives who, without interruption and in many ingenious variations, explained away unpleasant facts and justified concerns. When we think of dark times and of people living and moving in diem, we have to take this camouflage, emanating from and spread by "the establishment" — or "the system," as it was then called — also into account. If it is the function of the public realm to throw light on the affairs of men by providing a space of appearances in which they can show in deed and word, for better and worse, who they are and what they can do, then darkness has come when this light is extinguished by "credibility gaps" and "invisible government," by speech that does not disclose what is but sweeps it under the carpet, by exhortations, moral and otherwise, that, under the pretext of upholding old truths, degrade all truth to meaningless triviality.
       Nothing of this is new. These are the conditions which, thirty years ago, were described by Sartre in La Nausée (which I think is still his best book) in terms of bad faith and l'esprit de sérieux, a world in which everybody who is publicly recognized belongs among the salauds, and everything that is exists in an opaque, meaningless thereness which spreads obfuscation and causes disgust. And these are the same conditions which, forty years ago (though for altogether different purposes), Heidegger described with uncanny precision in those paragraphs of Being and Time that deal with "the they," their "mere talk," and, generally, with everything that, unhidden and unprotected by the privacy of the self, appears in public. In his description of human existence, everything that is real or authentic is assaulted by the overwhelming power of "mere talk" that irresistibly arises out of the public realm, determining every aspect of everyday existence, anticipating and annihilating the sense or the nonsense of everything the future may bring. There is no escape, according to Heidegger, from the "incomprehensible triviality" of this common everyday world except by withdrawal from it into that solitude which philosophers since Parmenides and Plato have opposed to the political realm. We are here not concerned with the philosophical relevance of Heidegger's analyses (which, in my opinion, is undeniable) nor with the tradition of philosophic thought that stands behind them, but exclusively with certain underlying experiences of the time and their conceptual description. In our context, the point is that the sarcastic, perverse-sounding statement, Das Licht der Öffentlichkeit verdunkelt alles ("The light of the public obscures everything"), went to the very heart of the matter and actually was no more than the most succinct summing-up of existing conditions.
       "Dark times," in the broader sense I propose here, are as such not identical with the monstrosities of this century which indeed are of a horrible novelty. Dark times, in contrast, are not only not new, they are no rarity in history, although they were perhaps unknown in American history, which otherwise has its fair share, past and present, of crime and disaster. That even in the darkest of times we have the right to expect some illumination, and that such illumination may well come less from theories and concepts than from the uncertain, flickering, and often weak light that some men and women, in their lives and their works, will kindle under almost all circumstances and shed over the time span that was given them on earth — this conviction is the inarticulate background against which these profiles were drawn. Eyes so used to darkness as ours will hardly be able to tell whether their light was the light of a candle or that of a blazing sun. But such objective evaluation seems to me a matter of secondary importance which can be safely left to posterity.

January 1968


The Heart Determines: Psalm 73 Martin Buber, 1968.

MARTIN BUBER
The Heart Determines:
Psalm 73
What is remarkable about this poem — composed of descriptions, of a story, and of confessions — is that a man tells how he reached the true meaning of his experience of life, and that this meaning borders directly on the eternal. For the most part we understand only gradually the decisive experiences we have in our relation with the world. First we accept what they seem to offer us, we express it, we weave it into a "view," and then think we are aware of our world. But we come to see that what we look on in this view is only an appearance. Not that our experiences have deceived us. But we had turned them to our use, without penetrating to their heart. What is it that teaches us to penetrate to their heart? Deeper experience.
       The man who speaks in this psalm tells us how he penetrated to the heart of a weighty group of experiences — those experiences that show that the wicked prosper.
       Apparently, then, the question is not what was the real question for Job — why the good do not prosper — but rather its obverse, as we find it most precisely, and probably for the first time, expressed in Jeremiah (12:1): "Why does the way of the wicked prosper?"
       Nevertheless, the psalm begins with a prefatory sentence in which, rightly considered, Job's question may he found hidden.
       This sentence, the foreword to the psalm, is

       Surely, God is good to Israel:
       To the pure in heart.

       It is true that the Psalmist is here concerned not with the happiness or unhappiness of the person, but with the happiness or unhappiness of Israel. But the experience behind the speeches of Job, as is evident in many of them, is itself not merely personal, but is the experience of Israel's suffermi!; both in the catastrophe that led to the Babylonian exile and in the beginning of the exile itself. Certainly only one who had plumbed the depths of personal suffering could speak in this way. But the speaker is a man of Israel in Israel's bitter hour of need, and in his personal suffering the suffering of Israel has been concentrated, so that what he now has to suffer he suffers as Israel. In the destiny of an authentic person the destiny of his people is gathered up, and only nnow becomes truly manifest.
       Thus the Psalmist, whose theme is the fate of the person, also begins with the fate of Israel. Behind his opening sentence lies the question "Why do things go badly with Israel?" And first he answers, "Surely, God is good to Israel," and then he adds, by way of explanation, "to the pure in heart."
       On first glance this seems to mean that it is only to the impure in Israel that God is not good. He is good to the pure in Israel; they are the "holy remnant," the true Israel, to whom He is good. But that would lead to the assertion that things go well with this remnant, and the questioner had taken as his starting point the experience that things went ill with Israel, not excepting indeed this part of it. The answer, understood in this way, would be no answer.
       We must go deeper in this sentence. The questioner had drawn from the fact that things go ill with Israel the conclusion that therefore God is not good to Israel. But only one who is not pure in heart draws such a conclusion. One who is pure in heart, one who becomes pure in heart, cannot draw any such conclusion. For he experiences that God is good to him. But this does not mean that God rewards him with his goodness. It means, rather, that God's goodness is revealed to him who is pure in heart: he experiences this goodness. Insofar as Israel is pure in heart, becomes pure in heart, it experiences God's goodness.
       Thus the essential dividing line is not between men who sin and men who do not sin, but between those who are pure in Heart and those who are impure in heart. Even the sinner whose heart becomes pure experiences God's goodness as it is revealed to him. As Israel purifies its heart, it experiences that God is good to it.
       It is from this standpoint that everything that is said in the psalm about "the wicked" is to be understood. The "wicked" are those who deliberately persist in impurity of heart.
       The state of the heart determines whether a man lives in the truth, in which God's goodness is experienced, or in the semblance of truth, where the fact that it "goes ill" with him is confused with the illusion that God is not good to him.
       The state of the heart determines. That is why "heart" is the dominant key word in this psalm, and recurs six times.
       And now, after this basic theme has been stated, the speaker begins to tell of the false ways in his experience of life.
       Seeing the prosperity of "the wicked" daily and hearing their braggart speech has brought him very near to the abyss of despairing unbelief, of the inability to believe any more in a living God active in life. "But I, a little more and my feet had turned aside, a mere nothing and my steps had stumbled." He goes so far as to be jealous of "the wicked" for their privileged position.
       It is not envy that he feels, it is jealousy, that it is they who are manifestly preferred by God. That it is Indeed they is proved to him by their being sheltered from destiny. For them there are not1, as for all the others, those constraining and confining "bands" of destiny; "they are never in the trouble of man." And so they deem themselves superior to all, and stalk around with their "sound and fat bellies," and when one looks in their eyes, which protrude from the fatness of their faces, one sees "the paintings of the heart," the wish-images of their pride and their cruelty, flitting across. Their relation to the world of their fellow men is arrogance and cunning, craftiness and exploitation. "They speak oppression from above" and "set their mouth to the heavens." From what is uttered by this mouth set to the heavens, the Psalmist quotes two characteristic sayings which were supposed to be familiar. In the one (introduced by "therefore," meaning "therefore they say") they make merry over God's relation to "His people." Those who speak are apparently in Palestine as owners of great farms, and scoff at the prospective return of the landless people from exile, in accordance with the prophecies: the prophet of the Exile has promised them water (Isa. 41:l7f.), and "they may drink their fill of water," they will certainly not find much more here unless they become subject to the speakers. In the second saying they are apparently replying to the reproaches leveled against them: they were warned that God sees and knows the wrongs they have done, hut the God of heaven has other things to do than to concern Himself with such earthly matters: "How does God know? Is there knowledge in the Most High?" And God's attitude confirms them, those men living in comfortable security: "they have reached power," theirs is the power.
       That was the first section of the psalm, in which the speaker depicted his grievous experience, the prosperity of the wicked. But now he goes on to explain how his understanding of this experience has undergone a fundamental change.
       Since he had again and again to endure, side by side, his own suffering and their "grinning" well-being, he is overcome: "It is not fitting that I should make such comparisons, as my own heart is not pure." And he proceeded to purify it. In vain. Even when he succeeded in being able "to wash his hands in innocence" (which does not mean an action or feeling of self-righteousness, but the genuine, second and higher purity that is won by a great struggle of the soul), the torment continued, and now it was like a leprosy to him; and as leprosy is understood in the Bible as a punishment for the disturbed relation between heaven and earth, so each morning, after each pain-torn night, it came over the Psalmist — "It is a chastisement — why am I chastised?" And once again there arose the contrast between the horrible enigma of the happiness of the wicked and his suffering.
       At this point he was tempted to accuse God as Job did. He felt himself urged to "tell how it is." But he fought and conquered the temptation. The story of this conquest follows in the most vigorous form that the speaker has at his disposal, as an appeal to God. He interrupts his objectivized account and addresses God. If I had followed my inner impulse, he says to Him, "I should have betrayed the generation of Thy sons." The generation of the sons of God! Then he did not know that the pure in heart are the children of God; now he does know. He would have betrayed them if he had arisen and accused God! For they continue in suffering and do not complain. The words sound to us as though the speaker contrasted these "children of God" with Job, the complaining "servant of God."
       He, the Psalmist, was silent even in the hours when the conflict of the human world burned into his purified heart. But now he summoned every energy of thought in order to "know" the meaning of this conflict. He strained the eyes of the spirit in order to penetrate the darkness that hid the meaning from him. But he always percceived only the same conflict evere anew, and this perception itself seemed to him now to be a part of that "trouble" which lies on all save those "wicked" men—even on the pure in heart. He had become one of these, yet he still did not recognize that "God is good to Israel."
       "Until I came into the sanctuaries of God. "Here the real turning point in this exemplary life is reached.
       The man who is pure in heart, I said, experiences that God is good to him. He does not experience it as a consequence of the purification of his heart, but because only as one who is pure in heart is he ahle to come to the sanctuaries. This does not mean the Temple precincts in Jerusalem, but the sphere of God's holiness, the holy mysteries of God. Only to him who draws near to these is the true meaning of the conflict revealed.
       But the true meaning of the conflict, which the Psalmist expresses here only for the other side, the "wicked," as he expressed it in the opening words for the right side, for the "pure in heart," is not — as the reader of the following words is only too easily misled into thinking — that the present state of affairs is replaced by a future state of affairs of a quite different kind, in which "in the end" things go well with the good and badly with the had; in the language of modern thought the meaning is that the bad do not truly exist, and their "end" brings about only this change, that they now inescapably experience their nonexistence, the suspicion of which they had again and again succeeded in dispelling. Their life was "set in slippery places"; it was so arranged as to slide into the knowledge of their own nothingness; and when this finally happens, "in a moment," the great terror falls upon them and they are consumed with terror. Their life has been a shadow structure in a dream of God's. God awakes, shakes off the dream, and disdainfully watches the dissolving shadow image.
       This insight of the Psalmist, which he obtained as he drew near to the holy mysteries of God, where the conflict is resolved, is not expressed in the context of his story, but in an address to "his Lord." And in the same address he confesses, with harsh self-criticism, that at the same time the state of error in which he had lived until then and from which he had suffered so much was revealed to him: "When my heart rose up in me, and I was pricked in my reins, brutish was I and ignorant, I have been as a beast before Thee."
       With this "before Thee" the middle section of the psalm significantly concludes, and at the end of the first line of the last section (after the description and the story comes the confession) the words are significantly taken up. The words "And I am" at the beginning of the verse are to he understood emphatically: "Nevertheless I am," "Nevertheless I am continually with Thee." God does not count it against the heart that has become pure that it was earlier accustomed "to rise up." Certainly even the erring and struggling man was "with Him," for the man who struggles for God is near Him even when he imagines that he is driven far from God. That is the reality we learn from the revelation to Job out of the storm, in the hour of Job's utter despair (30:20-22) and utter readiness (31:35-39). But what the Psalmist wishes to teach us, in contrast to the Book of Job, is that the fact of his being with God is revealed to the struggling man in the hour when — not led astray by doubt and despair into treason, and become pure In heart — "he comes to the sanctuaries of God." Here he receives the revelation of the "continually." He who draws near with a pure heart to the divine mystery learns that he is continually with God.
       It is a revelation. It would be a misunderstanding of the whole situation to look on this as a pious feeling. From man's side there is no continuity, only from God's side. The Psalmist has learned that God and he are continually with one another. But he cannot express his experience as a word of God. The teller of the primitive stories made God say to the fathers and to the first leaders of the people: "I am with thee," and the word "continually" was unmistakably heard as well. Thereafter, this was no longer reported, and we hear it again only in rare prophecies. A Psalmist (23:5) is still able to say to God: "Thou art with me." But when Job (29: 5) speaks of God's having been with him in his youth, the fundamental word, the "continually," has disappeared. The speaker in our psalm is the first and only one to insert it expressly. He no longer says: "Thou art with me," but "I am continually with Thee." It is not, however, from his own consciousness and feeling that he can say this, for no man is able to be continually turned to the presence of God: he can say it only in the strength of the revelation that God is continually with him.
       The Psalmist no longer dares to express the central experience as a word of God; but he expresses it by a gesture of God. God has taken his right hand—as a father, so we may add, in harmony with that expression "the generation of Thy children," takes his little son by the hand in order to lead him. More precisely, as in the dark a father takes his little son by the hand, certainly in order to lead him, but primarily in order to make present to him, in the warm touch of coursing blood, the fact that he, the father, is continually with him.
       It is true that immediately after this the leading itself is expressed: "Thou dost guide me with Thy counsel." But ought this to be understood as meaning that the speaker expects God to recommend to him in the changing situations of his life what he should do and what he should refrain from doing? That would mean that the Psalmist believes that he now possesses a constant oracle, who would exonerate him from the duty of weighing up and deciding what he must do. Just because I take this man so seriously I cannot understand the matter in this way. The guiding counsel of God seems to me to he simply the divine Presence communicating itself direct to the pure in heart. He who is aware of this Presence acts in the changing situations of his life differently from him who does not perceive this Presence. The Presence acts as counsel: God counsels by making known that He is present. He has led His son out of darkness into the light, and now he can walk in the light. He is not relieved of taking and directing his own steps.
       The revealing insight has changed life itself, as well as the meaning of the experience of life. It also changes the perspective of death. For the "oppressed" man death was only the mouth toward which the sluggish stream of suffering and truble flows. But now it has become the event in which God — the continually Present One, the One who grasps the man's hand, the Good One — "takes" a man.
       The tellers of the legends had described the translation of the living Enoch and the living Elijah to heaven as "a being taken," a being taken away by God Himself. The Psalmists transferred the description from the realm of miracle to that of personal piety and its most personal expression. In a psalm that is related to our psalm not only in language and style but also in content and feeling, the forty-ninth, there are these words: "But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, when He takes me." There is nothing left here of the mythical idea of a translation. But not only that — there is nothing left of heaven either. There is nothing here about being able to go after death into heaven. And, so far as I see, there is nowhere in the "Old Testament" anything about this.
       It is true that the sentence in our psalm that follows the words "Thou shall guide me with Thy counsel" seems to contradict this. It once seemed to me to be indeed so, when I translated it as "And afterwards Thou dost Cake me up to glory." But 1 can no longer maintain this interpretation. In the original text there are three words. The first, "afterwards," is unambiguous — "After Thou hast guided me with Thy counsel through the remainder of my life," that is, "at the end of my life." The second word needs more careful examination. For us who have grown up in the conceptual world of a later doctrine of immortality, it is almost self-evident that we should understand "Thou shah take me" as "Thou shalt take me up." The hearer or reader of that time understood simply, "Thou shalt take me away." But does the third word, kabod, not contradict this interpretation? Does it not say whither I shall be taken, namely, to "honor" or "glory"? No, it does not say this. We are led astray into this reading by understanding "taking up" instead of "taking."
       This is not the only passage in the Scriptures where death and kabod meet. In the song of Isaiah on the dead king of Babylon, who once wanted to ascend into heaven like the day Star, there are these words (14:18): "All the kings of the nations, all of them, lie in kabod, in glory, every one in his own house, but thou wert cast forth away from thy sepulcher." He is refused an honorable grave because he has destroyed his land and slain his people. Kabod in death is granted to the others, because they have uprightly fulfilled the task of their life. Kabod, whose root meaning is the radiation of the inner "weight" of a person, belongs to the earthly side of death. When I have lived my life, says our Psalmist to God, I shall die in kabod, in the fulfillment of my existence. In my death the coils of Sheol will not embrace me, but Thy hand will grasp me. "For," as is said in another psalm related in kind to this one, the sixteenth, "Thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol."
       Sheol, the realm of nothingness, in which, as a later test explains (Eccles. 9:10), there is neither activity nor consciousness, is not contrasted with a kingdom of heavenly bliss. But over against the realm of nothing there is God. The "wicked" have in the end a direct experience of their non-being; the "pure in heart" have in the end a direct experience of the Being of God.
       This sense of being taken is now expressed by the Psalmist in the unsurpassably clear cry, "Whom have I in heaven!" He does not aspire to enter heaven after death, fur God's home is not in heaven, so that heaven is empty. But he knows that in death he will cherish no desire to remain on earth, for now he will soon be wholly "with Thee" — here the word recurs for the third time — with Him who "has taken" him. But he does not mean by this what we are accustomed to call personal immortality, that is, continuation in the dimension of time so familiar to us in this our mortal life. He knows that after death "being with Him" will no longer mean, as it does in this life, "being separated from Him." 'I'he Psalmist now says with the strictest clarity what must now be said: it is not merely his flesh that vanishes in death, but also his heart, that inmost personal organ of the soul, which formerly "rose up" in rebellion against the human fate and which he then "purified" till he became pure in heart — this personal soul also vanishes. But He who was the true part and true fate of this person, the "rock" of this heart, God, is eternal. It is into His eternity that he who is pure in heart moves in death, and this eternity is something absolutely different from any kind of time.
       Once again the Psalmist looks back at the "wicked," the thought of whom had once so stirred him. Now he does not call them the wicked, but "they that are far from Thee."
       In the simplest manner he expresses what he has learned: since they are far from God, from Being, they are lost. And once more the positive follows the negative, once more, for the third and last time, that "and I," "and for me," which here means "nevertheless for me." "Nevertheless for me the good is to draw near to God." Here, in this conception of the good, the circle is closed. To him who may draw near to God, the good is given. To an Israel that is pure in heart the good is given, because it may draw near to God. Surely, God is good to Israel.
       The speaker here ends his confession. But he does not yet break off. He gathers everything together. He has made his refuge, his "safety," "in his Lord" — he is sheltered in Him. And now, still turned to God, he speaks his last word about the task which is joined to all this, and which he has set himself, which God has set him — "To tell of all Thy works." Formerly he was provoked to tell of the appearance, and he resisted. Now he knows, he has the reality to tell of: the works of God. The first of his telling, the tale of the work that God has performed with him, is this psalm.
       In this psalm two kinds of men seem to be contrasted with each other, the "pure in heart" and "the wicked." But that is not so. The "wicked," it is true, are clearly one kind of men, but the others are not. A man is as a "beast" and purifies his heart, and behold, God holds him by the hand. That is not a kind of men. Purity of heart is a state of being. A man is not pure in kind, but he is able to be or become pure—rather he is only essentially pure when he has become pure, and even then he does not thereby belong to a kind of men. The "wicked," that is, the bad, are not contrasted with good men. The good, says the Psalmist, is "to draw near to God." He does not say that those near to God are good. But he does call the bad "those who are far from God." In the language of modern thought that means that there are men who have no share in existence, but there are no men who possess existence. Existence cannot be possessed, but only shared in. One does not rest in the lap of existence, but one draws near to it. "Nearness" is nothing but such a drawing and coming near continually and as long as the human person lives.
       The dynamic of farness and nearness is broken by death when it breaks the life of the person. With death there vanishes the heart, that inwardness of man, out of which arise the "pictures" of the imagination, and which rises up in defiance, but which can also be purified.
       Separate souls vanish, separation vanishes. Time that has been lived by the soul vanishes with the soul; we know of no duration in time. Only die "rock" in which the heart is concealed, only the rock of human hearts, does not vanish. For it does not stand in time. The time of the world disappears before eternity, but existing man dies into eternity as into the perfect existence.

NOTE
1. In what follows I read, as is almost universally accepted, lama tam instead of lemotam.


Down