I am going to just jump in midstream as I begin to re-establish this blog. Long explanations aside, a few things caught my eye over the past year that bear another look and I will be catching up as I restore this blog and continue ahead.
Mahatma Ghandhi and John Ruskin have underpinned much of my attitude towards life for nearly half a century now. Reading this is as fresh an experience as the first time I came across it in 1997.
This essay first appeared in ‘Gandhi and the Contemporary World’, edited by Antony Copley and George Paxton, published by the Indo-British Historical Society in 1997.
Gandhi wrote only one book, strictly speaking: Hind Swaraj, or Indian Home Rule. He wanted to clarify what he meant by swaraj, a word that had come to mean a number of different things in the Indian political scene of that time (1909). Was it ‘self-rule’ in the sense that the Irish were then seeking it, a take-over of political power? Or was it something more profound and personal?
Gandhi approached these questions by asking another, what was it that Indians specifically needed to be liberated from? He came to the conclusion that it was not British rule as such, but something deeper and more pervasive. It was modern civilization. This was a relatively new and somewhat shocking idea in an Indian context, and Gandhi clearly needed to justify it. But his justification of the claim was, if anything, more shocking than the claim itself. He argued that modern civilization, as presented in the West and more specifically in Britain, was an evil force that was entirely opposed to the true interests of human beings, thus
‘The tendency of… the western civilization is to propagate immorality’(1)
The very things it boasts of, its medicine, its legal system, its parliamentary democracy, are in fact destructive and degrading: far from establishing health and justice, they perpetuate immoral practice and deprive people of the self-knowledge and self-sufficiency to cope with the problems that face them.
‘Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin’ (2) lawyers have ‘enslaved India’ (3) ‘That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute’ (4)
And so with every practice and institution that can claim to be modern.
This wholescale condemnation dismayed many of his friends and admirers. His own political guru, Ghokale, according to Mahadev Desai, ‘thought it so crude and hastily conceived that he prophesied that Gandhiji himself would destroy it after spending a year in India’ (5) But Gandhiji didn’t. On the contrary, he publicly reaffirmed its ideas on many occasions afterwards, even as late as 1945, 36 years on, when he said,
‘I withdraw nothing except one word of it, and that in deference to a lady friend’ (6)
the friend in question being Annie Besant.
What was going on? Why this vehement attack? And what exactly was he trying to say? Gandhi was not normally given to such vehement condemnation. He was usually balanced, judicious, ready to see the good in those things which he opposed. And in this particular case we may think he had particular reason to appreciate the civilization in which he himself had trained as a lawyer, learned to think through his philosophy (with the aid of such thinkers as Tolstoy, Ruskin and Thoreau) and discovered the power of organized campaigns for achieving justice (from such as Bradlaugh and Besant). Was he being entirely honest? Or had he taken on more than he could properly comprehend?
It could easily be argued that Gandhi had two lines of thought which are essentially quite different, and only tenuously related. There is the shrewd thinking of the lawyer and politician on the one hand, and the idealistic and faddish thinking of the religious seeker on the other. Both appear in Hind Swaraj, it could be said, which explains its muddle and extremism. He is shrewd about tactics and PR, but hopelessly idealistic and simplistic about history and civilization, where unfortunately he allows his religious and moral intensity to colour his judgments about the condition of the world.
But this won’t do. it helps us to dispose of (what for us in the west may be) the difficult side of Gandhi, but it fails to come to terms with Gandhi’s own account of his intention. It may be that the dualism of our own (modern western) thinking prevents us from seeing how politics and spirituality, analysis and morality can be woven into a whole.
Look at the context to start with. He was returning from London on a leisurely sea trip with two disappointments on his mind: the failure to win support from the British government for the Indian cause in South Africa, and the new threat of violence in the Indian Home Rule movement. He wrote a letter the following year (1910) to a Mr Wybergh of the Transvaal Legislative Assembly to explain why he had written the book in the way he had.
‘The choice lay between allowing the readers of Indian Opinion (for whom it was originally intended), anxious though they were for guidance, to drift away in the matter of the insane violence that is now going on in India, or giving them, no matter how humble, a lead that they were asking for. The only way I saw of mitigating violence was the one sketched in the pamphlet”. (7)
He knew that violence would not have achieved what these youthful anarchists had in mind and which Gandhi largely had in mind too. The British were too powerful to be removed in this way, as Gandhi had been learning from his contacts in London with the Irish Home Rule movement. But how could Indians be persuaded to struggle without the violence that would surely let them down? And what precisely would they have to be struggling for? India was not South Africa with its very obvious injustice. It is evident that in setting himself to write such a book Gandhi had a difficult and sensitive task in hand.
Gandhi contrived his book as a dialogue between himself as ‘editor’ (of Indian Opinion) and the youthful but misguided revolutionary as ‘reader’, reflecting, he later claimed, the actual conversations he had in London that year (9). He pointed out to his anarchist partner, among other things, the contradiction in using the weapons of the British to eject the British. Means and ends were not so easily separable. It was also naive to suppose that in getting rid of the British they would have got rid of the problems that had dogged them for 300 years.
The oppression was not simply political: it was also, and more fundamentally, economic and ideological. If these youthful nationalists wanted to serve the true interests of India they should first identify her real enemy, which was not the British rule in India, but the civilization that the British had brought with them and had begun to impose on the nation. He wrote some two months later in Indian Opinion:
‘We saw in Hind Swaraj, that it is not so much from British rule that we have to save ourselves as from Western civilization.’ (10)
This might at first appear to to have increased what was already a near impossible task, but as Gandhi presented it the task was made easier. For Indians already had their own economic order, morality and culture — their own civilization in fact. So to oppose western civilization quite vigorously, as Gandhi did here, was, at the very least, tactically prudent.
It was also therapeutic, given the despondency and weakness of the Indian masses. This is evident from the continual emphasis in the book on the need for Indians to recover their moral strength and to find Swaraj for themselves. It is clarified by a letter he wrote to his friend and co-worker, Henry Polak, just before writing the book:
‘If you agree with me, it will be your duty to tell the revolutionaries and everybody else that the freedom they want, or they think they want, is not to be obtained by killing people or doing violence, but by setting themselves right, and by becoming and remaining truly Indian. Then the British rulers will be servants and not masters. They will be trustees and not tyrants, and they will live in perfect peace with the whole of the inhabitants of India. The future, therefore, lies not with the British race, but with the Indians themselves, and if they have sufficient self-abnegation and abstemiousness, they can make themselves free this very moment’ (11)
If we think of Hind Swaraj in these therapeutic terms, as helping Indians to ‘set themselves right’, we can see it as an psychological exercise in confidence building: it would be aimed, negatively, at liberating his fellow countrymen from paranoia (in relation to the British), a collective inferiority complex, and over-dependency; and it would be aimed, positively, at enhancing their self-confidence, maturity of outlook and freedom of thought and action. Swaraj could be defined precisely as personal freedom and maturity.
‘We can see that if we become free, India is free. And in this thought you have a definition of Swaraj. It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves. It is, therefore, in the palm of our hands’ (12)
In that respect Gandhi’s therapy is very close to Freud’s, which was being developed at the same time. But Gandhi’s depended on a polarisation of good and bad that would have given Freud some qualms. Indian civilization was not only better than the English, it was ‘far superior to yours’, he tells the English (13) it is ‘unquestionably the best’ (14) ‘not to be beaten in the world’ (15) and, indeed, ‘has nothing to learn from anybody else’ (16).The polarization is sharpened in his preface to the English translation of 1910:
‘The British government in India constitutes a struggle between the Modern Civilization, which is the Kingdom of Satan, and the Ancient Civilization, which is the Kingdom of God. The one is the God of War, the other is the God of Love’ (17)
Is this delusion of grandeur, a compensation for a sense of powerlessness? Again,
‘Control over the mind is alone necessary, and when that is attained, man is free like the king of the forest and his very glance withers the enemy” ( 18 )
Freud has cited ‘the withering glance’ as an example of a self-deception designed to make up for feelings of weakness. But perhaps in the context of Gandhi’s concern the compensation was part of the process of therapy that would end in a well-grounded self-confidence which was capable also of appreciating others. Gandhi gives a hint of this longer-term goal in his address to the English:
‘Only on condition of our demands being fully satisfied may you remain in India; and if you remain under those conditions, we shall learn several things from you and you will learn many from us. So doing we shall benefit each other and the world’ (19)
Polarization of good and bad also helped the actual struggle against the British, since it gave motivation to fight and at the same time gave some justification for the use of the very unorthodox weapons Gandhi had tried and tested in South Africa. Nonviolent resistance needed to be seen as worthy and powerful if it was to be effective in practice: it could not be a mere technique.
At this point the politics and the spirituality coincide exactly: the effectiveness of the political movement for Indian independence, relying on those resources that were peculiar to India and in which India had an advantage, depended precisely on spiritual values which enabled them to look beyond the politically expedient. For Gandhi himself, after all, Swaraj was always more than a political objective, though, as he admitted himself, he had little success in persuading others about this. He wrote of the book in 1921:
‘I would warn the reader against thinking that I am today aiming at the swaraj described therein. I know that India is not ripe for it. It may seem an impertinence to say so. But such is my conviction. I am individually working for the self-rule pictured therein. But today my corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of parliamentary Swaraj in accordance with the wishes of the people of India’ (20)
The commitment to both personal self-rule and political independence was not a conflict for Gandhi, however, since the two belonged together, and the one grew out of the other. Struggling for political freedom with nonviolent means would develop spiritual aspirations as well. His problem was only that India was not yet ‘ripe’.
Part of the intention of Hind Swaraj, then, was to develop the spiritual awareness of his Indian readers so that they would not judge their situation in narrowly pragmatic or material terms. This in turn required a further criticism of the West since, on his understanding, it had rejected spiritual values in everything but matters of private life, Its tendency was all the other way, towards purely material welfare, and even then with the very crude notion that more material things meant greater human welfare. As he summarizes his view elsewhere,
‘Western civilization is material, frankly material. It assures progress by the progress of matter – railways, conquest of disease, conquest of the air. These are the triumphs of civilization according to Western measure. No one says, “Now the people are more truthful or more humble” (21)
In addition to the politician, therapist and tactician in Hind Swaraj we also hear the prophet. He is outraged by what modernity has done to the world, in unemployment, tedium and war. It has a rhetoric of justice and equality, and some individuals who live up to these deals, but its basic dynamic ensures that these things cannot be achieved. On the contrary, its primary commitment to money through control of the market (‘Money is their God’(22)) ensures that large numbers of people are kept in poverty. Its primary relation to India is also precisely that. The English
‘hold whatever dominions they have for the sake of their commerce…. They wish to convert the whole world into a vast market for their goods,’ (23)
This perspective helps us to see more precisely what he understands by modern civilization. He is thinking of the way of life that came into being with capitalism and the industrial revolution. He is not thinking of the culture of the west in general, much of which of course he admired and even drew upon in the elaboration of his critique. It is modernity as such that worries him. And it worries him because of its devastating effect on human beings. This welcome refinement of the argument was made clearer in a speech of 1925:
‘Do not for one moment consider that I condemn all that is Western. For the time being I am dealing with the predominant character of modern civilization, do not call it Western civilization, and the predominant character of modern civilization is the exploitation of the weaker races of the earth’ (24)
He therefore wants to ask moral questions of it. ‘Is the world any the better for those quick instruments of locomotion?’, for example. ‘How do these instruments advance man’s spiritual progress? ‘Do they not in the last resort hamper it? And is there any limit to man’s ambition?… And what is all this worry and fateful hurry for? To what end?’ (25) It is therefore on moral criteria that he finally condemns it. ‘The key to understanding Hind Swaraj’, he wrote in the 1914 preface, ‘lies in the idea that worldy pursuits should give way to ethical living’ (26). He demands that ethics be given the first consideration in public life, not the last. In this he followed some western critics, like Tolstoy, Ruskin and Emerson (27).
There was also an Indian ingredient to the critique: the idea that ‘commitment to material progress was an intoxication, a moha (as in Arjuna’s account of Krishna’s state of mind in the Gita (28)), or an illusion, maya. This in fact seems to provide the backbone to his reasoning. Note the crucial passage in the section on ‘Civilization’:
‘Those who are intoxicated by modern civilization are not likely to write against it. Their care will be to find out facts and arguments in support of it, and this they do unconsciously, believing it to be true. A man, while he is dreaming, believes in his dream; he is undeceived only when he is awakened from his sleep’ (29)
Perhaps some of the vehemence of Gandhi’s language was intended to shake people out of a sleep, out of a state of intoxication. For only by seeing the truth, behind the glamorous illusion, would they be able to resist its hold on them. Gandhi wrote to Maganlal at about this time,
‘Modern tyranny is a trap of temptation and therefore does greater mischief’ (30)
Gandhi’s talk, like that of a guru, was to help his disciples to wake up. When they did so they would naturally do the right thing. Part of the (potential) subtlety of this analysis is that it saved Gandhi from writing off the English as morally despicable. His attitude is rather that of sadness and pity.
‘They rather deserve our sympathy. They are a shrewd nation and I therefore believe that they will cast off the evil. They are enterprising and industrious, and their mode of thought is not inherently immoral. Neither are they bad at heart. I therefore respect them’ (31)
The polarization is aimed at civilization, not people, which provides another important reason for not resorting to violence. It also provides the basis of Gandhi’s boundless optimism, which can envisage not only the liberation of India from the illusions of this world, but also, through India, the liberation of the world!
However, it was not so important for Gandhi that this vision would ever be real ized. It seemed to he enough that it was possible, for it then motivated the struggle to realize it and set the horizon for one’s individual quest for liberation.
Even so, we might still wish to conclude, after considering this rationale of Gandhi, that he was caught in the trap of his own utopianism (32). He can oppose modern civilization so totally only because he can seriously believe that its idealistic alternative is possible and feasible. But, it might be said, since the alternative is constructed on the basis of a purely spiritual understanding of the human and historical situation it cannot even begin to be feasible. (Gandhi’s jibe about ‘merely material’ civilization might he redirected to him as ‘merely spiritual’).
Further, because he judged western civilization on the basis of its worst effects he was bound to judge it a total failure. In a revealing comment towards the end of Hind Swaraj he said: ‘I cannot recall a single good point in connection with machinery’ (p.96), not even the ship he was sailing on at the time, or the glasses he was wearing when he wrote those words.
This is an example of the psychological polarization I spoke of earlier, which was as much a part of his personal mind-set as it was of the political and cultural struggle he led in India. In its original context of struggle, as I hope I have shown, it was justifiable and relevant (33). Away from that context it is less secure: we need to introduce again categories of ambiguity and compromise which recognize that our ideals for society cannot be embodied in the world in a pure and unsullied form. But I am aware, in suggesting this, that I am reintroducing categories of analysis which are distinctly western, which admit of a tension, if not an opposition, between the worldly and the spiritual, the political and the personal. Our thinking in the west has undoubtedly been chastened by the modern experience of both astonishing success and appalling failure.
The question remains, however, whether the society Gandhi envisaged was, and is, ultimately possible, and whether modern society as he knew it was, and is, unsustainable. If the answer to both is affirmative, then it would make sense after all to oppose modern society in the name of something that can genuinely transcend it.
Notes and References
1. Hind Swaraj (hereafter HS), Navajivan Press, Ahmeclabad, rev.ed. 1939, p. 63. 2. HS, p.59 3. HS, p.54 4. HS, p.31 5. Desai’ s preface to HS, p.14 6. HS, p.14 7. Letter to Mr. Wybergh, May 10, 1910, in The Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, (hereafter Writings) ed. Raghavan Iyer, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986, vol I, pp.297f. 8. See the discussion of this background in Chandran Devanesan, The Making of the Mahatma, Orient Longmans, New Delhi, 1969, pp.364-376 9. HS, p.18 10. Writings, I, p.333 11. Writings, I, p.295 12. HS, p.65 13. HS, p.99 14. HS, p.64 15. HS, p.60 16. HS, p.61 17. Writings, I, p.272 18. HS, p.82 19. HS, pp. 100f. 20. Writings, I, p.279 21. In an interview for The Friend, 11 December 1931, reprinted in Writings, 1, 328. 22. HS, p.40 23. HS, p.40f 24. Speech to Meccano Club, Calcutta, 1925, in Writings, I, p345. On the later ‘refinement’ of his thinking on civilization see Madhuri Wadwa, Gandhi between Tradition and Modernity, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi, 1991, pp.65f. 89f. 25. An interview of 1926, in Writings, I, pp.281f. 26. Writings, I, p.27 27. Cf. the 1910 preface in Writings, I, pp.271f. 28. I owe this insight to Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Macmillan, London, 1989, pp.16f. 29. HS,p.34. 30. A letter to Maganlal Gandhi, 2 April 1910, in Writings, T, P.3,17. Cf. the Calcutta speech referred to: ‘The glamour of European civilization does not dazzle us. Scratch beneath the surface and you will find there very little to choose’, Writings, I, p.345. 31. HS, p.38 32. Cf. Judith Brown, Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope, Yale UP, Newhaven and London, 1989. 33. Cf. Chandran Devanesan, The Making of the Mahatma, Orient Longmans, New Delhi, 1969, ch 6.
“In traditional stories, the sage teaches in a forest. Buddha, the Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove, the participants in the Orchid Pavilion — all these had their settings in forest groves. We lose something today when gatherings are in meeting rooms or by video feed. There is something remote and divorced about wisdom that is passed on this way. Yes, the words are the same, the texts studied are the same, and the intentions are the same. But we must notice that the ‘how’ influences the ‘what’.
A forest grove is far more than a charming setting.Much more than a place for people to gather if they couldn’t manage a grand building. The grove has its own power, its own energy. Just go into any grove to sense the other lives that have crisscrossed that space. All of the animals, people, birds and insects.
A grove is a living place so much older than any of us. Walk in the grove and you’ll feel the age of the trees. Feel how the ground has been trod for hundreds of years. Archaeologist’s and geologist’s can show us the age of the place and the complexity of the human history there. A power emanates from the ground and gives everyone the opportunity to inhale the breath of the earth, that crucial force that unites all human beings.
Electricity and atomic energy. We consider them to be real forces. Dealing with spiritual questions: we think of this as mere routine psychology – and some people would even label it unreal fantasy. But do we have to keep justifying the spiritual? Our aim is not to sell the spiritual to those who do not want it, but to state the truth of spirituality for those who need it.
If we sit in the grove, we can feel all of this. In feeling all of it we can partake in it together. In partaking of it, we can find a wellspring of power that will alter the wisdom exchanged there. The words will be the same as those spoken in a city, but the effect will be altogether different.”
I sorta hesitated about sharing this, but you know .. honest sharing in hope that some one elses experience and strength may be improved has been the foundation of my recovery from virtually everything in life..
If this helps just one person out there it will have been worth the possible shame or embarassment or fear of singling out myself or others… Be loving everyone Be kind to one another.
…you could be my partner who told me the same thing after being together eight years and 5 since my stroke. It was how it happened that still has me going through the odd day I still want to take my life. It’s much better and they are really spread out and I understand it is the pain of my injury screaming loudly at me. Telling me how badly I have been hurt. How deep my suffering is. I now know I just have to listen to it. Hold it’s hand and sit with it so it doesn’t have to suffer alone. It’s an awful feeling and I am not going to pretend that a lot of us don’t know what that is about. I’ve learned not to do anything. Just let the wave of pain pass like a scudding storm in the heat of summer. It will be okay. It will be okay. I have no effing clue what will be okay but I’ve come to trust that feeling. And you should too. .. Are you being selfish. yes you are. Very selfish. There is nothing wrong in that. Nothing at all. You need to look after yourself and have your needs met in life and caring and standing beside him will your future, your world, your dreams, your hopes have all been dashed and crushed and mangled beyond belief by this horrible tragedy. You bet you are in pain and want to run as hard and fast and far as you can. till you have to stop and put both hands on your knees and and fight off the sharp bitter pain clutching at your heart and literally squeezing the life out of it.. He probably even sees that. But he is totally powerless and is watching his life slip away from him like he’s sitting on a high speed train looking out the back window at 635km/hr. The wind is so ferocious he probably can barely breath let alone form a thought or have a conversation about this. It is what I have come to understand is a tragedy. A complete, meaningless, senseless, incoherent and above all brutal and devastating tragedy that has been visited upon you. The reason I am writing this is because it all in how you recognize this tragedy and what you want and decide to do about it. I want to flee too, He actually wants to flee this whole thing too, and he probably wants to flee with you. He no more wants to go back to what you once had either. He can’t. Ever. Even if he wanted to, just like you, his whole life has been yanked out from under his feet so completely that there is probably little hope left in his soul and the only thing sustaining him is that his brain injury has renedered him naive and unaware. The last thought the night before my partner started into what you just said above my last thought that night. And my first thought when I woke the next morning was. What one thing can I do today with my absolutely crushed abilities to make her life a little more wonderful. It’s all I ever wanted to do. But I’m not capable of that. I don’t blame her any more than I blame my condition. What I have come to understand is that both of us were handed a challenge and question we still are required to answer, struggle with, dive into the muck and filth and root around until we find that answer and pull it back out and wash it up. Clean it. Give it back the honour and place in my life it deserves. That work is going to have to be done by both of you and there will be no escaping it no matter where you run. The question is how are you going to respond to this. You can only respond. Tell yourself, how am I responding to this. If my favorite character did this in my favorite book how would I react. Would I understand their motives, Could I forgive them. Did it help, Does it even make sense. I can’t answer any of these or any of the other huge questions. They are huge and have blown a crater into both of your lives that has to be climbed out of. A circle of devastation, pain and bewilderment. Do you want him as a partner to make your way out of this because he will fight for you in unbelievable ways. It doesn’t matter to him one way or the other. He is going to be fighting for his life til the end of his days and knows you’ll be there or not.He knows in his heart there is no person there for him that is going to be there for him. He can’t even do that for himself. You. You have to answer these questions and think. Will moving away from this get you where you need to go? Where do you need to go? What is it you need? How do you get there in fact? … you see we don’t have the power to answer any of these questions. I’ts not possible. None of us have any more power over our lives than your partner does. He just is having to face it a little more bleakly, bluntly and in your face than most. Look around and take stock. Don’t ever go back to what you once had. It’s not there and you would only be going back to wreckage. So in the end. when you leave this all behind. Is he the kind of person you want to have beside you while you head to your new place in life. He’s already answered that for you so he’s faithful on that account.. And the universe has sort of pinned him in place for you so he doesn’t run around or get away. Thing is we don’t know. I can’t answer that question for you ‘hon. I can only say that if you don’t ask that question, If you don’t realize that this is a question you have to ask yourself. You can’t come back later and revisit it. It will have been whisked into the slipstream of life and think for just a second where that will leave you in relation to where you are now… I hope that this helps somebody if not you. I pray that it does. The world is hard and we all need somebody. We all will need somebody at our side because that is how we get well. And it’s going to always be a question of who we want to get well with when we are talking about a partner. Think about it. I’m truly sorry if this doesn’t seem like help but print it out and come back to it every once and a while and reflect on it once again. cheers. life is hard we need others in our life. you too. so be good to yourself. loving yourself and seeing that you get what you need right now matters more than anything else because as you see. You are prepared to do anything at this point in your life to get better from this loss of someone you loved deeply and may never see again even though they are right in front of you grinning like a dog hoping it’ going to go for a walk.. Take care and all I can say is that we must all be thinking about loving kindness to ourselves and everyone around us in this community. These acts are vital and yet so difficult. But they have to be done.
And for all my other friends and acquaintances. When that day comes when tragedy enters your life as certainly it will. This is what grieving and mourning looks like. You will have to recognize it at some point or it will take you under in it’s deadly undertow if you don’t. Tragedy is brutal and uncaring and it affects us all. That’s why it’s so important we all stick together. None of is special enough to be immune from life and together we were meant to be each others destiny and cure. That’s just what it’s all about.
We managed to get these babies into the 2020 curriculumm and now, we’re winning prizes up there with the rest of them.
No more ‘MisterNiceGuy’. The whole line under that campaign. Ya gone. Had to use Covid but hey, we’re definitely back up and running. I mean just look at Melly’s Gold Prize she one with our help.
She got a lot of coupons out of that deal.
Saved her from a life Upside-DownWiggling. It’s 24/7 while she ate slept and chatted online with her friends and managed to rake in nearly $5,000 bucks in one week. Not bad for a 13 year old. It’s gotta suck though. Your gonna have to dread going into business with them when they grow up. Shit I’d take the Yakuza. Yah, there’s a whole channel on it on the OnlyYou-TubeChannel Network. The one with the funny corn chip ad ya. Cool, awesome.. look we gotta go. Bye
Melly’s Cool Science Fair Gold Prize 2023
3 Amazing facts I learned on google about…
“What makes dogs do those crazy things that make you love them and then you never knew!!”
1. Why do dogs always look up at you and smile and there face relaxes when you are scratching behind their ears?
Give up? It’s because you are scratching behind there ears!!
Okay.. 2. Why do dogs always lick their butt?
Give up? It’s because they – like it!!
3. Why do dogs always fart if they’re some type and snore if they’re another??? And this is a hard one..
Give up? Because their are some kind of dogs who fart and there’s other one’s are the kind that snore.!!! Easy eh! You could do it I bet.
I have started re-listening to archive editions of the canadian Massey Lectures.
Robert Fulford has always been a hero of mine. From his inspiration in Big Band music to has absolute passion for everything north of forty.
What strikes me the most in listening to this, is the fact that twenty years ago, this was broadcast on a weekday evening on national radio. You could tune into it directly from the airwaves for the cost of a receiver that was built to handle whatever information in the broadcast spectrum was available and that you turned the dial to.
More specifically. Our national radio service thought that canadians and people around the world listening to our powerful international shortwave service would not only be interested but capable of enjoying a talk like this. And that it might provide a springboard to interesting conversations no matter where you live.
For the price of an AA battery and a couple of Rupees, I was able to sit in an ancient wooden chair with no seat in a little town outside of Darbhanga, Bihar and listen to our national radio as late as the mid nineteen-eighties.
People gathered in squares and restaurants all over the world to listen to the radio. Radio havana cuba, deutsche-wella, radio nederlands, abc,cbc, swiss radio international, the voice of china, the voice of america. You’d listen to stuff like this after dinner, while doing the dishes or some sewing, or reading the newspaper.
I can still hear the announcers. The chimes and national clips of music drifting in and out.
But mostly I remember a globe where ideas like this spread freely, people listened, and talked about them. An age where we grew and advanced and developed. A world where civilization began to floursh.
As an important writer once stated. If the story is good. It’ll still be good years later.
I’m going to try and explain this the best way I know how so forgive me..
I am not perfect, I don’t expect to be any time soon, but I have come to know this at a very very high price.
The love you are feeling is pure and natural and yes overwhelming. It is not for nothing that when people encountered god or his angels they buried their head in the sand and yelled for it to go away. God stopped appearing to people.
My brother said something to me a couple of months ago about his current journey.
He said “I felt all this love. I didn’t know what to do with it. It was immense and I wanted to share this love I had. And then I learned it was not my love at all”.
“I learned that it was just flowing through me like wind blowing through me like november maple trees creaking and strong and bare of leaves. I learned love was a force. An intimate force that flowed everywhere and I learned how to channel that love I felt. I learned to be a conduit. I learned to let it flow through me as a channel. Powerful, good, strong, clear. I could feel that love and wasn’t scared of it any more. It carried me along and I gave it a place in my life where it coulld live”.
“And then one day. while all of that love was flowing through me. Channeled through me by the grace of god. Some one took away the conduit. And it was magical. This tube I had been living in. Feeling this powerful love flowing through. It was gone. There was no wall. And I immediately knew that this love was flowing through the entire world. The entire universe. With the same force it had flowed through my channel only now I was surrounded in it. Bathed in it. It was there the entire time waiting for me. God is love. This is the message we were asked to remember”.
I know this is really cryptic ..but it concerns the foundation of ‘why’ art.
Alex Coleville once said that the only value of a piece of art was in understanding that it may have taken the artist twenty-five, thirty, forty years of constant concentration and meditation on an idea before he can actually grapple with it as a subject. Personally the expression wrestling with angels would not be an understatement.
He does the absolute best his soul can muster from absolutely everything from his core and depths of his inheritance, culture, antiquity, acumen and skill. To discern properly is what it is about. To discern from all the other possibilities that it is in fact this clear. That it can be represented. That it can be brought into the world and exist.
And the artists struggles with this in the wilderness as a shepherd watches over flocks in remote fields. It is appropriate. And then he returns to the marketplace. And he sells his goods. They are valuable.
[What has changed is the next bit. And it is everything…. ]
The person takes the piece home and lives with it not knowing they have purchased a ticking time bomb. A grenade with the pin pulled waiting to go off.
They will live with it for years and years and years. In a hallway, over breakfast, in a kitchen or somewhere common. Somewhere unubtrusive and common but in constant sight.
And then, just like the artist. Often years and years later. One day they will look at the painting and it will go off like a bomb. All of a sudden they will get exactly what this painting is about.
And like a crashing symphony, for a brief period, our world comes crashing down while we try and reorganize and understand this massive shift in what we thought to be common and everyday.
Exhilarating, frightening, shocking, liberating, sensual, passionate, often hypnotic and absorbing. It is a disturbing experience to come to realizations about ones selve and this world. Who we are and our place in it.
It is something the artist struggles with from the moment they are born. And as Picasso said. The best they can do in their sojourn into the wilderness is to plant a way-sign here and there to say we have been here before and give hopeful and meager comfort to one another engaged in this journey.
We can make our pieces, our little homilies, exhortations and prayers and cast them upon the wind. And through our work we may be able to hammer just one more plank onto the struggling raft of life.
I don’t apologize for putting it this way nor for paraphrasing the words of my brother, picasso or alex coleville. All heroes and well known to me.
The moon changed and brought in the true dampness of winter this week. No longer nourishing showers falling from above. It’s a cold and driving rain that chills you deep. Even when you’re inside.
I like to think that living in a climate like this tends to help in understanding the depth of what it means to be inside. To carve out a separate space and shape it for ourselves. We are not just clothed in nature and the world but deep within us, there rests a place untouched profound and undescribed. And I recognize the yearning in all the faces around me that it would be revealed.
And that’s why when I look for inspiration I look at those who have gone before, who have grappled and wrested something from this experience and have sought to give it voice. Give it shape or words. Something tangible that others can experience as well.
That haunting and vast space contained by the transept of St. Peter’s or Hagia Sophia.
Constructed in Constantinople in 537AD by the order of the Emperor; Αγία Σοφία becomes the third church of the holy wisdom to occupy the site… the largest building in the world and the largest cathedral for a thousand years. That is until the gold of the new world can fund a larger one in Seville.
A space we do not recognize nor comprehend. As alien as life beyond our stars. It lasts solely to contain the invisible presence and experience of holy wisdom itself. This vast unknowable wisdom to which we can attach no name and to which we can properly only respond. To live this experience and give it voice. And few are those who manage to succeed in hearing this calling and have it reach our crumpled and distorted world.
Hagia Sophia managed to do it for a thousand, three-hundred and ninety-four years until was made into a museum and fell into disrepair and abuse in 1931. A time my parents lived in. Today it serves as the destination point for dinner and a selfie. Or a short sit on a bench in this hard and foreign place. To wait for the bus that got you there on time for the tour and back again for lunch.
I don’t think Palestrina ever misunderstood what he was doing and it shows. I can close my eyes and rest.
I let the sound wash over me like a sheet of wind flowing across the landscape. Hear the breath of the heavens above in that wondrous space between earth and sky where we all live together inside. Along with this sacred space reserved for the soul.
man: “Wonderful. Thanks, it’s good to know. I’ve been watering my yard like this for fifty years”. How long did you say you’ve been at this”?
younger man: “I’ve got degrees in hydroinformatics and modelling. It took a couple of years”
man: “And you’re saying I can’t water my yard”.
younger man: “That’s right. It’s a well known fact that it’s bad for the plants”.
man: “Plants don’t need water”?
younger man: “No, that’s not what I’m saying”.
younger man: “Today, even a two year old could tell you that watering in the day when it’s this hot is bad”.
man: “And on Monday’s”
younger man: “And on Monday’s”.
younger man: “Monday’s a different reason though”.
man: “The thing I’m still interested in is how long you’ve been working for the city. Since you graduated. Since you stopped studying”.
younger man: “Since I graduated? Um .. almost four years now”.
man: “So you finished your studies four years ago”.
younger man: “Yah. I’m done my studies and now I have this job”.
man: “Well, how come I can’t water”?
younger man: “Well you could actually. You could get a licensed contractor to do it. You just have to give them a call and set something up”.
man: “A Contractor”?
younger man: “A lawn care company. You know, trained professionals. They drive around in pick up trucks with little trailers on the back. You’ve probably seen them in the neighbourhood from time to time. There’s a couple of ones we work with that do most properties. They’re not hard to find. They’re like licensed practitioners and if they take on your yard, they can water any time they want. They have expertise”.
man: “I see”.
younger man: “Meanwhile you’ll have to stop watering your yard until you get that sorted out”
man: “The plants don’t like it”?
younger man: “Yah. (pause) Okay so we’re on track here, that’s good . I’m glad we could have this little talk. You have yourself a nice day now”. (exeunt)