Ishmael Community Guestbook

Jewish author chiam potock says that the religious community seems static in a world of rapid change not because it doesnt change, it does change, but much more slowly.

And if you just look at attitudes toward sexual openness or single pregnancy or divorce...twenty years makes a ton of difference. Womens roles! And now the powerful engines of culture are grasping the buddhist reverence for life across christian realms, and changing their myth from dominance to custody and maybe eventually to unity with nature. The sixties, veitnam and now this peace movement and the antidote effect of our fear-driven leader to cause the flocks to abandon in droves...

Who are seeing fear is jsut a tool to strengthen the strong father paradigm which depends on enemies and danger, to justify central concentration of power...And our best defense is to not be afraid...to embrace these 'terrorists' as possible. Meet them everywhere and make friends...

And to prove that another myth, the safe-world vision based on trust and the unity of life has another power.

Lots of different stories out there that make a big difference. Original intent?? Hmmm that would be the intent before self interested power structures began manipulating these images, like Cain and Abel as dan has interepreted so interestingly. And also Stienbeck in East of Eden...Enough from me!

Read Lopez, Hawkin and these others...

has anyone read Rebecca Solnit, "Hope in the dark?"

Sounds perfect! Like Hawkins "Blessed Unrest" and so many titles.

Hi Aaron--How so?

Ishmael has changed my life forever.

Demography is becoming a major factor of war and violence in this day and age.

This is a New Cohen collaborative poem with a new writer, It is saying, if I understand it at all, when will we forget our stupid attempts at control through Cains club that killed Abel, through the farmers cart, the wheel and the scientific mind, all just filling graves and blessed by priests...And yes, Hartmann is right on with this. And he points out rian eisler who speaks of economics rooted in true productivity measuring the value of natural systems including family work such as caring for children and the aged. A central part of any traditional culture, honored and supported. Eisler writes where Hartmann leaves off, with her Sacred Pleasure and her new Economics, well recieved and implemented in european- especially scandanavian countries.

The poem is called Faith.

The sea so deep and blind The sun, the wild regret The club, the wheel, the mind, O love, aren’t you tired yet? The club, the wheel, the mind O love, aren’t you tired yet? The blood, the soil, the faith These words you can’t forget Your vow, your holy place O love, aren’t you tired yet? The blood, the soil, the faith O love, aren’t you tired yet? A cross on every hill A star, a minaret So many graves to fill O love, aren’t you tired yet? So many graves to fill O love, aren’t you tired yet?

The sea so deep and blind Where still the sun must set And time itself unwind O love, aren’t you tired yet? And time itself unwind O love, aren’t you tired yet?

Its a prodigal call, I suppose. And yes, I think we are all very tired. Of all of this.

And Id like to note a linguist who studied under Chomsky, George Lakhoff, has a series of books on the metaphors that shape our thinking, very informative regarding how myth and images and stories shape value, choices and social interactions...

the strong father/dangerous world myth which depends on fear and enemies to justify its investment in might...versus the nurturing family myth of more leaver cultures, one which justifies stong social investment and minimizes fear. This then reduces the need for central power...based on a safer world with its own natural balances built in.

Exciting and refreshing clarity! sorry for the jumbled post..glad people are reading hartmann, and btway, DQ never applies his ideas either, he always passes the baton.

Here you need to look to Hawkin and David Corten and the progressive leaders and innovators, business and science and behavior...if I get your point in my scan of thoughts.

I am torn about Quinn's treatment of religion. On one hand, his exegesis of the Christian Bible is very creative and insightful, though this is not to say it accurately reflects the "original intent" (so to speak) of its various authors and editors. On the other hand, he can be very reductionistic, both in his dismissal of "Taker" religions and embrace of "animism."

Religion is obviously not just one thing, despite the attempts of Freud, Marx, etc. to treat it this way. Moreover, particular religions such as Christianity are not just one thing, either. Does Hutterite belief play the same role in that culture as Haitian Voodoo or Utah Mormonism (all forms of Christianity) play in theirs? Surely not, and the same is true of "mystical" elements such as Sufism (which someone brought up). Sufism is at once a literary tradition, a family of political movements, and a dozen other things. Many Sufi groups are opposed to other Sufi groups (e.g., the Naqshbandis are known for being anti-Shi'a). In other words, the label of "mysticism" suffers from the same problems as "religion." You can't generalize about whether it is likely to be helpful or not, in the face of real-world problems. Each local group is different.

One difficulty with "animism" is that there are no groups to go to, unless we count the neo-pagans and shamanic subculture (which Quinn does not). But being part of a group is one of the most helpful features of religion.

Anyway, that's enough preaching from me. Peace out.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_6_127/ai_61764149

This is a url for a great Barry Lopez interview. Ive had an ongoing deep dissagreement with DQ's presentation of animism as non-christian and his rejection of christian tradition which is better stated as rejection of christian practice since the romanization of the teaching, its reduction to law, like Wahabi Islam. As opposed to mystical islam which is not militant, but spiritual. Sufi branches for example.

You get nowhere by rejecting and resisting anything. Its an energy that is on the level of the problem, struggle and just swings the pendulum.

The only way forward is forward. Like Leonard Cohen, lopez has a contemplative grasp of the tradition that is not dogmatic but centered in the cells, in embrace and renewal and awe, not dominance or dogma. These guys do not speak for god but simply witness to what powerful cycles and energies animate the world, from star to molecule.

What Lopez says is that each form of life in its own way is praying and this somehow holds the universe together, and yes, everything is alive. All is sacred, no hierarchy. Although yes, energy flows in the directions it does, from central to diverse, and then its gathered back again to the source...and no, equality does not mean homogeneity but often stark contrasts...powerful differences between levels.

Lopez, Cohen, Riane Eisler, Elaine Pagels...Paul Hawkin, these voices are the clear ones.

Quinn seems to have Iconoclasted himself right out of business...

Thank you Nathan and Hummer for your comments ('William' please, I've never related to 'Bill'). Thank you also, Webmistress' for your private response.

I read that this guest book is simply an oasis, and so I shan't stake out a territory and camp. But I would appreciate catching my breath and my thoughts here from time to time. Do let me know if I overstay my welcome.

I'm in overdrive at the moment, and have been for the past 18 months, ever since I first learned about Peak Oil. It has led me on a journey through many inter-related fields (geopolitics, religion, history, psychology . . .) but the main thing for me is that it has reawakened my interest in examining the nature of existence. Daniel Quinn's books and ideas (and this site) have become home base for me, I'm pleased to say.

And yes, I have a meme or set of ideas that I and would be prepared to share with gentle people. I think that they, the ideas, can make a difference. My problem, though, is that in terms of writing and/or communicating that I feel that I'm restricted. I feel like someone who is paralysed and can only tap out words one painstaking letter at a time. Rather ingenuously, I had hoped that Daniel would take up that burden on my behalf, but I now realise that it isn't really any easier for him. I need to be prepared to take 12 years to put out what I want to say, I've been told. Well yes, I'm prepared to. But do we have that much time?

In Daniel's 'The New Renaissance', he speaks for the need for a revolutionary new way for humans to perceive reality (I'm paraphrasing loosely). I've just read Thom Hartmann's 'The Greatest Spiritual Secret of the Century'. Said secret is for us to see ourselves as one. Neale Donald Walsch has alluded to the same, and so, I'm sure have many others. But they haven't taken it any further. They've left it at that. And I don't think that anyone has truly grokked both the notion and what follows on.

What I've managed to do is to use several mind experiments to come up with a mind-blowing new world view. It's still barely able to stand on its dodgy pins - as they say, every new idea is born drowning - so I hesitate to expose it to the world . . . and yet we've less than 12 years, I am certain.

So . . . I've had a crack at putting the idea into words. This is only the first draft, and I haven't yet tackled the implications. It's a start.

http://will-i-am-i-am-will.blogspot.com/

The you in me salutes the me in you

Will? I am!

Hummer, my readings on language, labeling, etc. have been from http://www.organelle.org/organelle/staffRodSphereSpiral.html; but the author of the essays presented there was influenced by Korzybyski, so you were right about having an air of general semantics. The explanation of "tokenization" is at http://www.organelle.org/organelle/faq/faq16.html. "Lexical representation" is actually a word combination that I invented, because it seemed to (relatively) accurately represent the concept I was trying to express.

Sam, I've heard of Chomsky, but I haven't had time or opportunity to read any of his work yet. I'll have to make that a priority. Stefano isn't actually an expert in linguistics, he is, instead, (like Quinn actually) a layperson who has some pretty interesting perspectives to offer - not just on language, though he does have a lot to say about language.

I'm going to be away from computers for ten days - I'm volunteering for a program that gets kids with drug problems to do a four day solo in the wilderness, to try to teach them body management and prevent relapses after going through detox. It's a very new and innovative program, but there have already been some success stories, see http://wycp.org/

RE: Nathan and Hummer. For linguistics, check out Noam Chomsky. I don't know anyone who is more expert.

Sam

Nathan, I am really curious about "lexical representation" and "tokenization". They seem to have an "air" of general semantics. My attempts at googling were somewhat useless so I'm wondering if you can suggest websites and/or books which might throw some light on the subject.

I just watched a programme on tv last night called the Web of Life by David Suzuki...you may have seen him feature on Leo DiCaprio's doco "The 11th Hour", it showed how our culture continually leads us to believe that we are separate from nature and each other...a fundamental myth that allows humans to do such horrible things to the planet etc thinking that it will not affect us. A really interesting guy who has some similar ideas to what are seen in Ishmael.

Hi, I recently finished reading "The Holy." A quite unusual book! The part that struck me the most was the part about "On the day when you can look at this cactus without thinking 'This is a cactus', it will speak to you" (I'm not sure if that's accurate, I'm quoting from memory). It reminded me of some stuff I've recently been learning about how we use language. Whatever a cactus is, it can never be a cactus. This is because "cactus" is nothing more than a way of referring to something (a noun, or a label). "Cactus" is purely imaginary (because it takes imagination to create a word), but what it refers to is real. Habitually, however, most of us don't distinguish between the real thing, and its lexical representation. We believe, in effect, that the real thing has no properties not directly implied by the word, noun, label, we use to reference it. So a word can come to replace, and obscure the nature, properties, and characteristics of the thing it refers to, in our minds, and in the stories we enact. Stefano calls this process 'tokenization'. Quinn probably wasn't thinking about 'tokenization' when he wrote that passage, but the correspondence between that passage and stefano's description of tokenization was so striking for me.

William, I, too, would like to hear your thoughts.

William Lucas (Bill?)

Speaking for myself alone, I say give it a shot, tell the guestbook readers your ideas and perhaps Daniel will pick up the thread--there's a first time for everything :-) Sometimes Daniel does respond via our webmistress :-)