#not even going into the free will aspect of it since the belief in predestination necessarily entails the disbelief in free will | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sprawa-przybyszewskiej · 3 years

Text

Gnostic inspirations in Przybyszewska’s works

At the highest point of her intellectual life, Stanisława Przybyszewska spent over 12 hours each day simply on writing her own works, continously, and with maniacal care, educating herself on absolutely everything (she was constantly looking for fields in which she might be a natural genius) and she rarely did anything else at all, which included things like earning a wage or sweeping her own floors. The effect of such existence was of course that she was severely depressed, but also thoroughly educated. It means that traces of whatever matter from history or philosophy can be spotted in her works, are most likely intentional and put there exactly with the hopes of showing her erudice.

One of such matters was gnosticism. Gnosticism is a set of beliefs which put emphasis on obtaining liberation from this life through gnosis (knowledge) and cast aside all that is not of the mind – so not only the flesh, but also the spirit. Without going into details of some specific gnostic rite it is simpler to say that gnostics value gnosis higher than any of their base beliefs and teachings (in Europe gnostics are mostly mentioned in relation to early christianity, Cathars are an example of this). Then the contrast one can find within religion (for example sin and liberation from it) is replaced with earthly illusion and gnosis, which frees one from the illusion and guarantees a higher level of life, of sorts (in gnostic beliefs, our presence on Earth is not linear, leading from birth, through life and death to afterlife, but resembles more of a ladder, with each rung leading closer to obtaining total knowledge, and simultenously losing all that tethers one to earthly illusions.

In literature, strong contrasts are a good indication we can look into it to spot gnostic inspirations or at the very least make a strong case they could be there, even if unintentional. In Przybyszewska's case, however, they are all the more probable, for I vaguely recall she was well aware of the presence of these beliefs and everything she wrote on the nature of genius points in the same direction, too. She held these beliefs in her own, private set of core values, and there isn't any better place for her to show them to us but through her works. She presented us with an utopian vision of mental progress in her plays, while in her prose works, she focused on the darker side of the same things.

The axis of conflict in gnosticism is between the mind and the spirit. Robespierre is without a doubt a man of the mind much more so than of the spirit, and all the important figures surrouding him are more on the spiritual side of things (with Camille being the most prominent in this regard). Maxime has achieved the gnosis, the crown that will burn [his] brains right through.Before it happens, though, he is elevated onto another plane of understanding, a place where no other person can reach him, or even understand him:

Danton, of course, is lying.

(There is, sadly, no French translation of Thermidor; on another note, it took me this long to realize the French decided to change the person's tag from Camille to Desmoulines, which is suprising in the best sense of the word).

Robspierre is clearly constructed to be a genius, standing above everybody else and thus bearing greater responsibility, something which demands of him more than it does of others. Madness which he suspects within himself at the end is only a threat because it potentially leads to commiting mistakes, and a mistake is an unforgivable offence when it is committed by the one who ought to know better. Mistakes by a hand of another – for example Camille – are a different story altogether, for the majority of people not only don't achieve gnosis, but even cannot achieve it, their mental state isn't developed enough for them to grasp at the higher concepts. I think this is one of the reasons why Saint-Just's words: It is not madness, it's despair, are actually calming Robespierre down. Despair is simply a sign of being weary, something to be expected.

Maxime's knowledge and better judgement of everything is of course still a curse, leading to his death. In gnosticism, death isn't meant in a macabre sense, since it leads to yet another, higher rung of the metaphorical ladder we're standing on, but the gnosis obtained beforehand makes a death a good one instead of a waste. When Robespierre is going through his moment of despair at the end of The Danton Case, he betrays the gnosis he has in favour of admiting that the future will turn out differently than what could be expected: his death won't be a natural progression, but a failure, his depaire sets him back into the crowd of the sad, grey mass of the people who are not – like him – predestined to understand more.

From the linguistic point of view, I find it interesting that in the original and in the French version, he is using somewhat esoteric language (the future is under the sign of Danton – to my eyes, it is a clear refereance to the Zodiac signs, something which is supposed to predestine our futures, and which is also esoteric and ritualistic; given all the hints that she was abused by her satanist father, it makes a really sad, hopeless final note on the grand scheme of things for the humanity, that we, as humans, are incapable of running away from the brute forces which will continue to rule us simply because the world is built like this – not to mention the inability to change the future or even just the fate of one's life is a staple of gnostic beliefs).

No matter what he says about it, the inability to escape from one's fate is something which we rarely associate with Robespierre, because – as much as Przybyszewska makes it clear, thet he is a genius and thus everything he does he is not only allowed to do, but must do it for the greater good – he seems a bit like a self-made man, perhaps because we see him all the time in situations which are hard and difficult, but not impossible. A much more tragic situtation of the lack of escape from his own poor choices is being presented to us through Camille.

Camille has had a chance to be continously tethered to Maxime, securing for himself relevant safety in the public life, and calmess or even happiness in his private one. Yet he breaks with Robespierre over and over again, starting even before the plot of the play. Maxime reaches out to him against his better judgement, and Camille – also against his better judgement – decides to stay loyal to Danton. He is as if glued to his leader, even though he sees him clearly for what he is. Camille is an apotheosis of a spiritual being, someone ruled by impulses, perhaps even with the best of intentions, but whose mind will never achieve gnosis, the clear vision of what is right and true. When Robespierre argues with the Committee by demanding they leave Danton (and Camille by proxy) alone, he plots against Maxime in his newspaper; when Robespierre goes to him under the cover of night, he doesn't want to see him and then throws him out; when Robespierre tries to either break him free from the prison or at the very least console him by admitting his love (I never actually knew what was his plan here), he follows the advice of his bad influences and doesn't admit him. It's as if a strange force kept him by Danton's side, and I don't think it was any normal feeling (of shame or guilt) keeping him away from Maxime. In The Last Nights of Ventose he makes it quite clear being a stronger person's lap dog would never bring him shame, but honour, thus I don't think he'd have any problem with returning to Robespierre after a long while of abuse and slander.

The relationship Camille has with Danton is another aspect of gnosticism, namely its duality. Danton is a stand-in for Maxime, which doesn't work because Danton is anti-Robespierre, his negative double (much like in some gnostic beliefs world was created and being conducted by two gods, one good and one evil). It is unclear whether Camille had any real, true potential to serve "good" Robespierre, but even if he didn't, if his friableness kept him from serving a greater purpose (which I don't know if I believe, in The Last Nights of Ventose we are presented with a very different portrayal of Camille, one who could achieve something much greater than he did if only he was by Robespierre's side at all times), serving the "evil" Danton couldn't possibly have a good outcome.

He even does return to Robespierre, for a short while, steered by emotions rather than anything else. But in this dualistic, gnostic reality, emotions have little to do, they aren't worth very much. What's more, if we focus solely on Camille, we have to admit that – as in every story, revolving around a single character – a person is in a way stuck in time. He can go about in the space his life takes, but time is more like a deity, untouchable and something you cannot pact with. For Camille, it doesn't matter how many times and at what point in time (before their fallout, during the crisis or at the last hour) Maxime asks him to break with Danton and go back to him, because time and predestined fate hold all the power of what is happening, while individuals hold none (and the aforementioned last statement of Robespierre explains right away that it is so even for the "great" individuals, who in other aspects are being held to different standards, but against time and fate they are just as powerless).

I like to think, though, that Przybyszewska has left a small postern for Camille to achieve gnosis or its more humane equivalent by drawing a symbolic parallel between two scenes, which are only made significat by their possible relating to each other, but mean next to nothing on heir own:

In the first scene, the key could have been a completely incidental choice of words/tools, after all it's a logical conclusion of the scene. There is, however, a more symbolic reading of it, as a key is of course a symbol, and a pretty easy one at that. If Camille gave Robespierre the key himself, this could be read as an end to their relationship, Camille returning the power that Maxime holds over him to Maxime's own hands. But since we only see Lucille relay the key, and we know that Lucille is also capable of influencing her husband and directing his steps (even if she says she can't; Robespierre's words, seeing as he's the genius here, are the final judgement of this), this could mean she is giving her portion of power to Maxime, whom she trusts to save her husband. And Maxime uses this one more time, when he tries to visit Camille in prison. That he fails miserably is against Camille's wishes, because Camille even in his demise only succumbs to wishes of others.

But we know he regrets this step mightily and we know it precisely because he dreams (or rather has a nightmare) about the very key he was supposed to convey to Robespierre earlier. He regrets the desire to give Maxime his power back, he regrets that by doing so in any way, shape or form he has finally given up his life. Choosing a beautiful death over an ugly, humiliating life only sounded good in his head, but in truth, he is beyond terrified and would love nothing more but to Maxime to come in again and if not save him, then at the very least – forgive him. But for that, they'd have to meet again, and he couldn't throw Maxime out. I also don't understand why both the English and French translation added the word "effortlessly" when describing his last moment with Robespierre, because make no mistake, it is very much an unnecessary addition, going against everything that he has been portrayed like so far. Their last conversation is just as much a tragic one for Camille as it is for Maxime.

Przybyszewska took great pains to paint Camille in front of our eyes as someone so weak that we find him as more of a comic relief than anything else, but in reality he is just a differing portrayal of powerlessness when faced with fate. Camille is not a comical character, but a tragic one, he is just the same as Robespierre, his other half: they both believe in their own agency, they both believe they are the ones making choices and pushing their lives forward, but it is not a coincidence that they both end up in he very same place, in a span of mere weeks.

This post would not have been born if it weren't for @patricidefan.

#@patricidefan thank you so much for talking with me about it #as i said you opened my third eye #patricidefan #Stanisława Przybyszewska #stanislawa przybyszewska #the danton case #sprawa dantona #thermidor #Maximilien Robespierre #maksymilian robespierre #Camille Desmoulins #Kamil desmoulins #gnosis #literary analysis #philosophy

21 notes · View notes

micahammon · 4 years

Text

All the walls are crumbling because they were never real

I’m moving into belief. I’ve spent my whole life trying to understand the nature of life and identify the construction of right and wrong, truth and illusion. It’s a fascinating process and I know I’ll never be done with it, and that’s exciting and makes life interesting. But I feel like I’ve come to a point in my process of discovery something like scientists did when they discovered quantum physics.

In Newtonian physics everything has a cause and effect. There exists a linear relationship between action and consequence. That is true and will continue to be so forever. But Newtonian physics cannot describe everything that happens in the material world. When the scale of matter becomes really small, on the level of atoms, Newtonian physics no longer succeeds as a theory. Atoms are governed by different laws, and quantum theory, as bizarre and unintuitive as it is, continues to be proven true.

Physical reality is made up of two theories which have yet to be reconciled. Although they appear to be incompatible, compatible they must be. The physical world and everything we see with the naked eye is built on the foundation of the irrational and the impossible. The particles which we are made of can move within and without time, be in two places at the same time, and seemingly violate the universal speed limit--the speed of light. Particles can be physical matter which take up space in the physical world, and at the same time, be a wave--like a radio wave if you will. Somehow reality is built upon this impossibility.

"Reality is far fetched. The truth is always a long shot."

As modern humans, we are in a precarious place. A detached place. Our roots are no longer in the soil of the earth which gives us life. We are living in the world of biological theory, political theory, economic theory, etc.--which all function very well and have allowed us to advance incredibly once understood and applied. What is the logical conclusion from this process?

We learn natural laws that we might better understand spiritual laws.

I remember in the first computer science class I took at university, my teacher drew a picture on the board, something like the following...

And then he asked the question, “What’s missing?”. He answered his own question by saying “antimatter”. Then he filled in the “antimatter” absent from view, something like this...

Note: I’m a bad artist but I tried to draw the inverse of what was originally visible.

So what’s the logical conclusion of reality? Reality is a paradox. There’s always a catch.

Note: The teacher then went on to name laughter as an example of something behaving like antimatter. In this regard, we can theorize that antimatter comes in to play where we have inflection points. That’s useful to think about in the context of the choices we make, day by day.

Note 2: Antimatter, which cannot be seen, “refers to sub-atomic particles [that] have properties opposite those of normal matter.” It’s useful to note that this is in the quantum world, where perhaps, we could say that everything there is existing simultaneously.

I think the first paradox was in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. They were also commanded not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The problem which may not be obvious depending on your brand of Christianity is that Adam and Eve apparently could not keep both commandments at the same time. They were in a state of innocence and could not procreate without first creating the fall through eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I’ve heard it said that what may appear to be contradictory to us is not to God, and that somehow He can balance two conditions in perfect harmony which appear mutually exclusive. I don’t know how God could do it in the example of the Garden of Eden, but I do think we should learn to try it in other areas.

I am nothing. I am everything.

Helaman 12:7 O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?

Through the course of a day we may need to remind ourselves of either of these quotes. What’s important is that we have to choose to put the concept into use in order to humble or inspire ourselves as needed. We have to draw up the belief then let it guide.

All truth is paradox.

My brother once responded to the above statement by saying that the paradox of truth serves as the fuel for free agency. That is an extremely instructive comment, which makes me think of Einstein’s dissatisfaction with the then emerging theory of quantum physics. When Einstein analyzed and documented the workings of the universe, he did so from the perspective of trying to understand the mind of God. He disbelieved the theory of quantum mechanics presented by Niels Bohr; the same theory that today continues to be scientifically verifiable. What he objected to was that in this explanation of the universe, the natural world became a lot more random. It seemed to diminish the role of the Master Designer. Einstein’s famous quote was “God does not play dice (with the universe)”.

I sometimes think that quantum physics only appears mysterious and random to us because we cannot see the complete picture, we are only seeing the effects of things in the physical world and perhaps there are other counterparts like antimatter that we can’t see (but can detect) and even beyond that, other counterparts we can’t even detect with clever testing.

On the other hand, there is beauty in accepting the concept of an “uncreate Reality” that can represent the quantum state. We in the Newtonian state have become the created Reality which “shows forth in our beings the uncreate Reality.” That is to say, our physical world and our physical selves are manifestations of the uncreated reality.

Alma 30:44 ...all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator...

What we see here in this world is a manifestation of God and the uncreate Reality beyond. Said in different words we have the following:

“For the Source of All Life created the worlds by dividing Its Unmanifest Unity into the manifesting Duality, and we that are created show forth in our beings the uncreate Reality. Each living soul has its roots in the Unmanifest and draws thence its life, and by going back to the Unmanifest we find fulness of life.“

The uncreated reality represents a primordial place from which the physical world is drawn into being from. This place we could liken to the quantum state. I make this comparison because when we can understand a concept in the real world, it helps us to have the faith or belief to put it into practice for our own benefit.

To address Einstein’s concerns, quantum mechanics may actually be evidence of God’s will to give us more free agency by providing an uncreate Reality with which we can interact. For one, It provides some “randomness” whereby everything that happens is not simply a predestined linear result of cause and effect--thereby, we cannot blame every thing that happens as a direct consequence of God’s original first act of creation (whereby He would have known the exact consequences of every single thing to ever happen, and the only intrigue in all of it would be our discovery of the result). Secondly, and more importantly, the interconnection of the quantum and Newtonian world can become for us a primordial wellspring from which we too can create. I am suggesting that it is belief and faith which allows us to materialize things in the physical world. Even as God himself does.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God...

Lastly, the context of reality, or truth being a paradox further bolsters free agency because it provides choice, even as it did for our first parents. The choices you choose to make are based on what you first choose to believe. In the paradox, you are able to believe whichever aspect you choose to focus on because it also has basis in reality.

I don’t speak of the choice between good and evil, but rather the choice between beliefs. Belief is a tool you can use to do good or harmful things.

I think it’s important to iterate that prerogative is a part of free agency and choice.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.

We know we should do many good things of our own free will and choice but those choices will naturally be more oriented to our own dispositions. The challenge is not to confuse limiting beliefs about ourselves with what is our true nature and disposition. In fact, what I am getting at is that we should use faith and belief to overcome our limitings habits, beliefs and worldview.

I reckon that beliefs become powerful as they connect to internal desire. Since that is the case, it is instructive to follow the path of our own personal orientation and if there are lessons to be learned, we will learn them much, much faster if we are making the choice for ourselves rather than merely trying to follow someone else’s instruction. That’s because belief is the thing that supercharges our experience.

With belief in play we can properly channel the “why” to our actions and attendant effects in the real world. If we err, the “why” will be there to make clear the error of our ways. Notwithstanding, in the middle of all of this is God’s intervention to steer us from unneeded error if we stray off course, and which can be greatly aided by our responsiveness to His Spirit.

Let’s introduce something which is not a paradox but tends to be polemic.

Brigham Young said that “we live far beneath our privileges” because we fail to seek and receive the guidance the Lord wants to give us in our spiritual and temporal affairs.

This instruction is meant to help us lay claim to what might be ours but it can also paralyze us if we don’t engage with the belief that we will actually receive it. Successfully gaining access to guidance from the Lord is usually based on the belief and faith we put into it. The important thing is that we need to use belief to create the reality and then it follows that we will receive the guidance. However, we also have to put belief and faith into a great many other things of which we proceed with in lieu of guidance because...

Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things...

We must build and develop our ability to seek and understand guidance from the Lord but most times His guidance works like a signpost as we navigate. It helps us stay on course but there are a million decisions we must make for ourselves along the way by “using [our] best judgement”.

In my experience the contrast between God having a personal prerogative and objective in the management of choices and not having a prerogative is plainly evident in the line between church affairs and private affairs. When it comes to the administration of callings and duties within the Church I have witnessed an extremely high level of involvement from the Lord. If you pay attention you can see that He is almost constantly involved and directing. The Lord really, really cares about His work.

As soon as you move away from the realm of the administration of His Church, guidance is much more sparse. It truly feels like our personal lives are meant to be a learning experience through trial and error--a sort of experimentation. It does help us develop our own capabilities bit by bit. When you think about it, that really makes more sense anyways. Perhaps it also allows us to make mistakes without the additional condemnation we might receive if we had access to more from beyond the veil.

On the other hand, as I consider what will happen in the future as the world is thrown into turmoil and we all begin the work of building Zion I reckon that the line between church affairs and private affairs will become almost indecipherable--and I know that there will be an abundance of guidance as such in order to complete God’s work. There is something to be said for living like that already, here and now.

Gospel of Thomas 22: When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female...

The world is separating from a longstanding known reality. Social systems are being dismantled with an intention to reengineer them. Truth and science have become weaponized. We are dependent on technology more and more. Algorithms and big data will rule our lives. Breakages will occur. Power grids will be threatened. IT infrastructure will be compromised. Natural resources will become scarce. There will be natural disasters. Financial systems will collapse. Some of these things will be unplanned, others intentional.

I’ve always thought it so peculiar the human creature existing on this planet. All the animals on the earth have been endowed with instincts which directly provision their survival. Many young animals are taught survival skills during infancy, that is true, but even if they lose their mother, their instincts will guide them the rest of the way.

Humans on the other hand are nearly helpless without the knowledge passed on from generation to generation. At this point we’ve already lost our connection to mother earth. In our quest to master nature we have also sought to remove ourselves from nature--mother nature and also what we might call human nature.

As the walls crumble around us and the very ground is swept from under our feet, our only choice is to evolve and learn to fly.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

Faith and belief will enable many to do things which we previously knew to be impossible in the Newtonian world. To evolve means to move beyond the structures (spiritual and otherwise) we have upheld for sake of dogma. Those structures will be shaken. God’s work will not fail but we are to learn not to look beyond the mark. Ultimately, to evolve will result in having our natures changed into that resembling God as we learn to create/do through faith and belief.

For those whose trust remains in the shifting sands of the world’s social, economic, political and even scientific structures--they will be left without root and branch to stand on.

We’ll have to act for ourselves rather than be acted upon. We have to use faith and belief to power those actions or else it will be hollow inside and our hearts will ultimately fail us.

Luke 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth...

Let’s go back to the world of very small particles...

If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed...

Matthew 17:19-20 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

I’ve always thought it so curious that basically the whole point of our existence on this earth is to learn to exercise faith and belief. Before we can really do anything, the important first step is starting with a real belief that we can do the thing we set out to do. When we supercharge our actions with belief, the universe responds.

I posit that we on this earth are here to learn to become co-creators with God--creating through faith just as God does.

Sometimes we are able to energize belief through our belief in others, but it’s not always enough, as I believe was the case with the disciples of Jesus referenced in the example above and Oliver Cowdery desiring to participate in translating the Book of Mormon.

Doctrine and Covenants 9:11 Behold, it was expedient when you commenced; but you feared, and the time is past, and it is not expedient now;

Let it be noted that this was free agency in action, since it wasn’t in the original design of God that Oliver Cowdry participate in the translation, but it would have been permitted if he had faith enough.

Because God wanted Joseph to translate, He gave him extra strength to be able to do it.

Doctrine and Covenants 9:11 For, do you not behold that I have given unto my servant Joseph sufficient strength, whereby it is made up?

To aid with the translation of the Book of Mormon Joseph received special seer stones called the Urim and Thummim. What’s curious is that Joseph often used his own seer stone rather than strictly relying on the Urim and Thummim. Eventually Joseph had enough faith to do without seer stones altogether as he continued to receive revelations. I believe that the Urim and Thummim were there to build his belief and make up for his strength until he was able to fully energize belief in himself, his ability.

Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours

One thing that hurts belief is by having a narrow view based on the here and now. When we think of how things are supposed to happen in the Newtonian world we limit the power of the supernatural quantum, timeless uncreate Reality which is boundless. We have to allow for the uncreate Reality, unintuitive non-Newtonian world to intercede. We connect to this state though the particle of belief.

As long as I believe in myself I find I can do certain things. If I ceased to believe in myself, I think I should just crumble into dust, like an unwrapped mummy.

I have said all of this in order to say this, we need to use belief daily in order to shape our lives in the way that we truly wish them to be. Our lives have ended up the way they are precisely because of the beliefs we have engaged about ourselves, others and the nature of reality. If you say that you belief that life can be grand and beautiful but you spend your days dejected and depressed, then you aren’t engaging the grand and beautiful beliefs. Whether we like it or not, beliefs are constantly directing our lives.

“The basic difference between an ordinary man and a warrior is that a warrior takes everything as a challenge, while an ordinary man takes everything either as a blessing or a curse.”

There are indeed blessings and curses in our lives but we cannot ascribe our current condition to merely a result of those two things. In addition, we need to enlarge the gratitude we feel for the blessings and overlook where possible the curses. Feeling gratitude will enlarge our beliefs and strengthen the conduit between us and the Divine.

When we engage in belief in order to shape and direct our lives we cannot merely state a belief and then forget about it. We have to return to the belief day after day.

I have been reading about 45 books a year for the last 5 years. I set a goal on a website which helps track my progress and keeps me motivated. The first year I started the reading challenge I set my goal as 100 books for the year. I didn’t have experience and I didn’t really know what that meant though. It was an idle, pie in the sky wish. I didn’t return to the goal frequently. I forgot about it most of the year and I finished with 33 books that year.

That reminds me of Oliver Cowdry’s wish to participate in the translation of the Book of Mormon. If he had more experience or at least consistent belief he could have succeeded. The same was true of me. Experience does help, in so far as it helps to reduce fear since we have better bearings on the task before us. Perhaps fear is like antimatter.

That’s the tricky thing with belief and faith. If we have enough faith we could actually move mountains. But most of us probably don’t have enough belief to make that happen. But we could and that promise is available for us, but perhaps we misunderstand something about belief.

Mark 11:23-24 (NIV) Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

The NIV translation makes more clear something which has caught on with new age spirituality, like in books such as The Secret, and others which profess the power of manifesting in our lives by using the so-called law of attraction.

New age spirituality has brought us the power of meditation and living mindfully, which have slowly come into mainstream Christianity and that includes the LDS church.

And indeed, meditation and mindfulness are key parts of nurturing belief as I am prescribing. The current problem we have with incubating belief is that, as mentioned above, we already have many beliefs which are like weeds choking out the good belief that we want to use to empower our lives. We live barely cognizant of the incessant, mind-numbing chatter going on about our heads. You can consider all the thoughts that jump into our minds as competing beliefs. It’s a battlefield for our minds and our empowering beliefs may fall casualty if we don’t learn to quiet the mind and focus. That enables us to act for ourselves rather than to be acted upon.

The first thing we need to do with the mind is wash it, clean it up, not only once or twice a day as we do for the body but in all our waking moments.

Similarly...

Doctrine & Covenants 121:45 let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly...

A way which helps me practice a chosen belief is to do an experiment of thought. What I mean is that on a given day I may tell myself that I am doing an experiment of thinking that day and that helps me to suspend disbelief as I am merely there to analyze and watch the results of what happens, rather than to prove veracity or to gauge the level of real belief. I did one experiment of imagining each person as I would my own self.

Mark 12:31 love thy neighbor as thyself

I really did feel something wonderful that day.

That’s one reason I say that...

life works best when undertaken as an experiment

Sometimes if we put too much pressure on the act itself, we enlarge the importance of a thing beyond what it truly is. We have to maintain calm levity and not worry about the result; to laugh instead of get caught up in an act’s undue significance. In this way we can shake off a thousand mistakes of ego and bad humor which sabotage us.

the fatal flaw is that average men take themselves too seriously

The balance has been described this way...

Thus a man of knowledge endeavors, and sweats, and puffs, and if one looks at him he is just like any ordinary man, except that the folly of his life is under control. [He regards] nothing as being more important than anything else. A man of knowledge [can thusly] choose any act, and act it out as if it matters to him.

So to apply all of this in a practical way let me tell you my plans. I am making and setting goals, big lofty goals. I am aiming for 5 years to enter more fully into the vision I see for my life. I will meditate and pray each day and return again and again to the beliefs--multiple times each day in fact--which I think are necessary to empower me to achieve my goals. I don’t know exactly how things will happen, but I do believe in the scriptures referenced, including the very words of Jesus Christ. I consider it already done because I have picked up the rod, which at the far end connects to the result. The point of access where I grip the rod is belief.

Update Apr 22, 2021: This video supports my view of free will and quantum mechanics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMb00lz-IfE

5 notes · View notes

ffstlanguage-blog · 7 years

Text

Peering into the Abyss: Milton and Nietzsche

Donelli Iva

Archangel Gabriel to John Constantine;’‘ No, John. You are going to die because you smoked 30 cigarettes a day since you were 15... and you're going to go to hell because of the life you took. You're fu*ked.’’ (Adler and Aguilar, 2005)

And while John Constantine- the main protagonist of the same-titled 2005 movie- got his answer of why he is going to hell- a frightening thought itself, some 150 years earlier German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, proposed even more horrifying prospect: ‘’What, if some day or night, a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: This life, as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh… must return to you—all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over again and again—and you with it, speck of dust!’'(Nietzsche, 2015:236). What is even more interesting is that the latter statement came from the very same figure who seemingly refused to answer what is the purpose of this possible ''eternal recurrence'', as he called his doctrine, stating how: ''there is no bourne. There is no answer to the question: To what purpose?'' (Nietzsche, 2015:5) Namely, by announcing the death of '' all gods'' in his 1883 Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche dubbed himself as the ''atheistic nihilists'' refusing the idea of there being hell or heaven waiting for us up above or down below; ’’ we have not the smallest right to assume the existence of transcendental objects or things in themselves, which would be either divine or morality incarnate (Nietzsche, 2015:5). According to Nietzsche, hell is here and now- constantly occurring and recurring ad infinitum. And yet, despite Nietzsche initially claiming of how there is no purpose to be found in the recurrence, it seems how the very concept of eternal recurrence poses the question of its significance by itself. What if things do really recur infinite number of times? What does one do to escape this eternal recurrence? Is there any way to escape hell and suffering at all, or are we all- just like John Constantine- doomed?

Having ''no wish to enter the kingdom of heaven'' Nietzsche’s The Antichrist, published in 1885, seems not only to stamp his ''infamous'' status, but it also appears to be Nietzsche's ''harshest condemnation of Christianity'', calling it ''the greatest misfortune of mankind so far'’(Lewis, 2017:44). Namely, this 20th century German philosopher, psychologist and- according to some ‘’Antichrist’’- blamed God for turning the Spirit against the earthly and who ''had devalued the worth of life on earth'' (Lewis, 2017:44). And so Christian Spirit, still connected to the earthly and the physical- thus not being able to unite with God ''in a super-sensible realm'', decided to '' lash back at the body out of anger for having its dream of ascension thwarted'' (Hiltner, 2003:35). Thus, for Nietzsche God and Spirit were the primary source of one’s misery and were the ones men should therefore reject if they are to achieve the ultimate liberty;’’ Nietzsche saw this anger in Christianity in a more general way as a need for power and dominion not only over the body but over all that was Earthy, indeed, the earth itself (Hiltner, 2003:35). Consequently Nietzsche’s forcing back from all ‘’higher beings’’ led many critics to conclude how his denial of Christianity logically led to his negation of Christian morality, which fell alongside God. And now, since God was no longer the unitary measure for what was considered to be righteous and what was faulty- the responsibility for ‘’all that was Earthy’’ fell on the Overman. However, the figure Nietzsche introduced in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883) was later perceived by many as the symbol of ‘’the affirmation of egoism itself’’ (Ponzi, 2016). Namely, it was now the time for the Ubermensch to re-create the new, as Lewis, calls it ''morality without supernatural sanctions'' (2017:44). While the role of Overman will be discussed later in the paper, it is important to mention how this ‘’new order’’ led to numerous debates of how it will affect an individual- his moral values and responsibilities. Will that mean that the Overman is no longer chained to any rule? Is he beyond of that what is right and what is wrong? Is everything, since God’s death, now permitted? And what position does the Overman have in the eternal recurrence? Well, some critics did indeed see Nietzsche's announcement of the death of God and Overman taking its place, as leading to ‘’complete loss of all significance’’- some called it Nietzsche’s ‘’hidden despair’’, others even argued that this was the result of his implicit desire to be godlike and some saw a world with no compassion as leading to ‘’violence and cruelty (...) in an ever-decreasing scale and degree’’ (Lewis 2017:44).

On the other side of the spectrum, there is a figure- who appears to be a rather mirroring opposite to Nietzsche himself- John Milton, the author behind the first English epic Paradise Lost (1667). The most notable difference between the two is of course their perspective towards religion. Unlike the self-proclaimed ''immoral atheist'' Nietzsche, Milton thought of himself as being the man of religion- despite the fact that his ''religious opinions cannot be stated in terms acceptable to any single nonconformist church'' (McLachlan 1941:66). Namely, in spite of his refusal of clerical authority, as it was already hinted, Milton's faith had deep Christian roots. In relation to the latter, at the first glance John Milton modus operandi – both earthly or spiritual, appears to be in clash with that of Nietzsche’s. To be more specific, Nietzsche- whose sole purpose seemed to be disproving the laws imposed by God, for Milton God plays the central role. Not only that, unlike Nietzsche’s ‘’dead’’ God, Milton’s God is very much ‘’alive'' and is, for him, undoubtedly considered to be a point of reference when it comes to deciding what was equitable and what was not. Milton, in his epic Paradise Lost, thus served as a sort of an interpreter of God’s message to humanity, wanting to ‘’assert Eternal Providence’’ and ‘’to justify God’s ways to men’’ (Milton, 1.1-26).

Bearing all these differences in mind, it almost appears to be impossible to try and draw any parallels between the two respectable figures- unless the sole purpose is to highlight their clashing outlooks on God, religion and morality in general. However, if the latter is to be done, and if the questions whether the man- now being ‘’Godless’’- is free to do as he pleases, one must consider the doctrine of Ubermensch and its relation to the eternal recurrence. Before trying to fit Nietzsche’s notion of ‘’the heaviest burden’’, as he calls his notion of eternal recurrence-,and its relation to John Milton’s epic Paradise Lost, it is important to see how and whether their seemingly clashing views- regarding not only religion, but moral, responsibility and even politics- are in contrast- or could they possibly lead to their union in the end. In spite of their opposing standpoints of who is to blame for the imposed burden in the first place and whose way is to follow: God’s or man’s own- if read more closely, Paradise Lost does not only seem, as Hiltner (2003) suggests, to ‘’escape Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity’’, it also rather implicitly re-affirms Nietzsche’s concept of the Overman as the ‘’protector of the Earthy’’, as well as the fact that eternal return is indeed “the heaviest burden”.

Speaking of Milton’s epic, many critics often stress out the necessity of Milton’s work being read at three different levels: moral, ecological and political- dubbing ,thus, Milton as the proto-critic of capitalism, as the environmentalist and even as the prophet of modernity. Related to aforementioned issues, it can then be argued how these different ‘’dimensions’’ of his epic are not only interrelated through the aspects of religion and morality- the central focus of Paradise Lost, but can also be connected through Nietzsche’s concept of eternal return- as it will be shown later in the paper.

Speaking of the most noticeable, moral dimension of Paradise Lost, it can also be visible, that this level is perhaps the one which relies the most on Milton’s view of religion. Namely, refusing the Protestant concept of Predestination- according to which one was either predestined for eternal salvation or eternal damnation despite one’s beliefs, deeds or actions, Milton’s epic wanted to highlight the seemingly forgotten notions of freedom and choice. Thus, Milton believed that every single man was, as he states, ‘’free to fall’’. And so, Milton’s God on numerous occasion emphasizes how he is not responsible for the collapse of humanity, since ‘’they themselves decreed/Their own revolt, not I’’ (Milton, 3.116-117). This is repeated, when God foretells the fall of Adam in Book III of Paradise Lost he emphasizes that it will be the Adam’s own choice- not his;

‘’ "So will fall/

He and his faithless progeny. Whose fault?/

Whose but his own? Ingrate! He had of Me/

All he could have; I made him just and right/

Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall."

(Milton, 3.95-99)

As it was already noted, unlike Milton, Nietzsche seems to disagree with this idea of God not being responsible for the ‘’fall’’ of mankind. According to Nietzsche it was God who imposed the burden the moment God, not only turned the Spirit against the body and‘’ has waged a war against all sense of respect and feeling between a man and a man’’, but also when he ‘’accused’’ God of imposing moral values, and free will as a kind of a ‘’guilt trip, a form of manipulation that enslaves’’ (Lewis, 2017:44 and Spencer 2016:57). Speaking of God and free will, in Milton’s case, the reader cannot but feel perplexed by his portrayal in the epic. As it was stated before, Milton's God on multiple occasions states how it is he who ‘’ form’d them free, and free they must remain’’ (Milton, 3.125-130). Thus, God is first seen as the one to whom ‘’mankind’s free will is repeatedly the underlying principle of his self-justification’’ (Baxter, 2017:259). However, on several occasions in his epic, Milton appears to be inconsistent in depicting how God ''operates''. Consequently many argue, that Milton actually sided with Satan and, thus, deliberately ‘’failed’’ to portray God as ‘’a strong and decisive figure who would warrant our faith in him’’ -since it rather seems how God merely ‘’ had to be shown to allow free will’’ to avoid accusations of being a dictator (Baxter, 2017:259). As Baxter states, God has ''ordained or decreed certain events and these ''decrees'' are regarded as commands to be carried out by the angels '' (Baxter, 2017:259);

‘’Th’ eternal Regions: lowly reverent /

Towards either Throne they bow, & to the ground /

With solemn adoration down they cast’’

(Milton, 3.345-350)

This, subsequently, leads to question of who is responsible for the fall of nature in Paradise Lost. Was it the Nature itself, that decided to turn against Adam and Eve- without any ‘’supernatural intervention’’; ''At that tasted Fruit/ The Sun (...), turn’d/ His course intended’’ (Milton, 10.687-689) Or was it ‘’the dictator’’- God who caused the sudden fall, as a sort of - as Nietzsche would say punishment -for Adam and Eve disobeying his laws?; ‘’Some say he(God) bid his angels turn askance/ The poles of Earth twice ten degrees and more/ From the Sun’s axle’’ ( Milton, 10-651-719) . Viewing God in such light, it indeed does seem to go ‘’hand in hand’’ with Nietzsche’s accusation of God’s ‘’metaphysical hostility’’ being the very essence of his revenge against ‘’the Earth and Earthy itself’’ (Hiltner, 2003:35)

In relation of Milton’s portrayal of God, it is interesting to see how he depicts Satan. While Romantics argued that Satan was actually the protagonist of Milton’s epic- seeing him as a tragic hero, latest readings of Paradise Lost seem to be more focused on his capitalistic tendencies. Speaking of the latter, some critics, such as Colebrook (2008), argue that Milton can actually be considered as one of the first proto-critics of capitalism. Namely, in the epic, Satan does indeed view the new world as a good waiting to be appropriated by him and the rest of his fellowmen. In Book I, he so agrees with Belzeebub’s plan of finding;

‘’ Some easier enterprize?/

Some advantagious act may be achiev’d/

By sudden onset, either with Hell fire/

To waste his whole Creation, or possess/

All as our own, and drive as we were driven/

The punnie habitants (...)''

(Milton, 2.345-370)

And, throughout the epic, one can see how Satan's ''economic'' diction, thus, often involves words such as purchase and bought. One example being when Satan describes the possible outcome of him submitting to God, Satan states; ''so should I purchase dear/ Short intermission bought with double smart'' (Milton, 4.101-102). Another example, as Stirling and Dutheil de la Rochère (2010) state, is when Satan flaunts his accomplishments to his fellowmen, while dismissing the prophecy(of the bruised head) of the Son; ''A world who would not purchase with a bruise'' (Milton, 10.500).

If Milton is to be viewed, as some considered him to be, the anti-capitalist, then one must analyze the position God holds in relation to this issue. Namely, on numerous occasions in Paradise Lost it can noticed how, not only Satan, but God himself appears to be involved in, as some call it, ‘’spiritual capitalism’’. As Sterling and Dutheil de la Rochère again point out, ''work is done by everyone in the poem''- angels, Satan, Adam and Eve, implying, thus, ''economic operation:(...) what we give(or what we give up) is what we get, what we risk in order to gain (...)- a cost- benefit analysis (2010:88). God, thus, implies that man’s free will, logically enables them to indulge in free enterprise. Not only that , it appears that God even acts as the ‘’customs broker’’- suggesting them what is worth of investing in;

‘’ Thir freedom, they themselves ordain’d thir fall/

The first sort by thir own suggestion fell/

Self-tempted, self-deprav’d: Man falls deceiv’d/

By the other first: Man therefore shall find grace/

The other none: in Mercy and Justice both/''

(Milton, 3.130-135)

As it was already stated, there are also mentions of possible profit- as the result of their right investment;’’ To prayer, repentance, and obedience due,/(...)Mine eare shall not be slow, mine eye not shut ‘’(Milton,3.185-195). In relation to his Satan views God as another ‘’capitalist giant’’, - the only question then being who will dominate the free market;

‘’Evil be thou my Good; by thee at least/

Divided Empire with Heav’ns King I hold/

By thee, and more then half perhaps will reigne’’

(Milton, 4.110-115)

And while Milton was not perhaps entirely sure where he stands when it comes to the issues of capitalism- Nietzsche's standpoint seems to be rather clear. Not only does Nietzsche points a sharp critique of the capitalist and conformist tendencies of bourgeois society, God for Nietzsche, just like Milton’s Satan, turns everything working in man’s favor into ‘’the chief weapon against us, against all that is noble, gay, high-minded on earth, against our happiness on earth’’(Lewis, 2017:44). Hence, it can be argued that God for Nietzsche, became Satan itself- if one is looking from the Christian standpoint. Speaking of the devil, it can also be debated whether Nietzsche shared his view of Milton’s Satan with Romantics. As it was mentioned, latter perceived Satan as a rebel, a tragic hero, in pursuit of his own freedom. And it indeed appears that Nietzsche, similarly to Satan, wishes to; ‘’Live to our selves, though in this vast recess, free/ and to none accountable'' (Milton, 2.250-255).

However, it is important to state how for Nietzsche, denying God did not mean turning to worshipping Satan, nor does his ‘’annihilation’’ of Christian morality means rejection of one’s morality per se nor responsibility. As it was mentioned in the introductory part, a beacon of freedom- both from Satan and from God- for Nietzsche became the figure of Overman or, as some call it, Beyond-Man (Ponzi, 2016).

Nietzsche’s notion of Overman is described by many critics as the one who ‘’in his self-centred will-power, is more or less indifferent to others’’ and, therefore, is slowly becoming a ‘’contradictory self-emancipatory being: both zealously domineering and competitive and highly curious and sensitive in his interactions with other will-powers in the world’’ (Fletcher, 2017:102). On the other hand, Nietzsche himself indicates how Overman -despite his freedom of morals imposed by any ‘’higher’’ being- should not be used as a synonym for anarchy since, at it was mentioned in the introductory part, Overman was in charge of taking care of ’’all that was Earthy’’ and ‘’ the Earth itself’’. In other words, in spite of the fact that sinning against God- since the latter is dead, is no longer considered to be sin, ''to sin against the earth is now the most dreadful sin'' (Lewis, 2017:44). Thus, perceiving Overman as the ‘’protector’’ of what God has not only forgotten, but acted out against- that being the earth and life in all its physical forms- Nietzsche’s view slowly comes to coincide with that of Milton’s. However, before looking more closely into relation Nietzsche has with nature and ecology, I will first explore that of Milton in his epic.

Namely, apart from being dubbed as a proto-critic of capitalism, most recent readings of Paradise Lost portray Milton not only as a proto-environmentalist but also as a prophet of modernity. When it comes to the latter, some consider his epic to be his reaction of the growing urban and environmental problems of his time- 17th century London- over population, air pollution and rapid urbanization (Duran, 2008). Bearing this in mind, one can look at Book II of Milton’s epic, which depicts Satan and his fellowmen katabasis into hell. There, one can find lengthy, and rather gory descriptions of the place, which is portrayed as a ‘’vast recess’’ and a place that is, in Satan’s own words, rather ‘’intolerable’’. Milton- drawing his inspiration from other greats such as Homer, Virgil and Dante, used some elements from Greek mythology, such as the five rivers which run through of Hell;

‘’ Into the burning Lake thir baleful streams/

Abhorred STYX the flood of deadly hate, Sad ACHERON of sorrow, black and deep/

COCYTUS, nam’d of lamentation loud Heard on the ruful stream;fierce PHLEGETON/

Whose waves of torrent fire inflame with rage./

Farr off from these a slow and silent stream,/

LETHE the River of Oblivion rules''

(Milton, 2.575-580)

What is interesting is how in the original Greek mythology, the aforementioned rivers were often used to connote the emotions of death in the relation to the very inhabitants of the place. However, if Paradise Lost is to be read as not only as moral, but also as a prophetic and ecological text it can also be argued that Milton was wailing the death of the place itself- which is due to happen if the modernity starts to dissipate into chaos.

Milton then goes on to describe hell as a sort of an arctic tundra, proving further how hell is ridden of all life; ‘’Beyond this flood a frozen Continent/Lies dark and wilde, beat with perpetual storms (...) All else deep snow and ice (...) The parching Air/ Burns frore, and cold performs th’ effect of fire’’ (Milton, 2.545-555). Whether John Milton foresaw the ‘’fall of nature’’ will be discussed further, but what is certain is that today; ‘’We have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century’’ (Ripple, Wolf, Newsome et al.2017).

Back to Milton's prophetic role in Paradise Lost, he hints in Book II , first how Satan is forced to use ''various modes of survival to get to the newly created world which; ‘’With head, hands, wings, or feet pursues his way/And swims or sinks, or wades, or creeps, or flyes’’ (Milton, 2.950-955). But another important detail occurs just before Satan arrives to his desired destination. In order to pass through the region in which ‘’Chaos reigns’’, Satan needs to pass through the gates guarded by Sin and Death. If Milton’s role as a prophet of modernity, and even a moralist, is to be considered, than one can interpret this encounter as Milton’s referring to the black plague- which decimated the population of London in 1665, as the result of already mentioned overpopulation. Similarly, Satan’s encountering Sin can also be read as Milton’s seeing people of his time trading their working for God, for working for their own personal profit- as the consequence of industrialization, and growing wealth (see Picture 1).

Connected to this prophetic reading, ecological outlook on Paradise Lost seems to unite not only prophetic, but also moral and politic dimensions of Milton’s epic. As it was already mentioned, Milton’s faith was deeply rooted in the Holy Bible, or in this case, the Book of Genesis. Related to Milton’s Paradise Lost, it is important to state how the Book of Genesis also has two, vastly different, versions. First version, also known as the P(Priestly) text, emphasizes human dominion over nature, since God tells Adam and Eve; ‘’ be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl in the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth’’(Genesis 1.28). Milton's Satan seems to encapture and operate by this version of the Book of Genesis, it is shown in the scene where he first enters the Garden of Eden, feeling alienated from it, and perceiving the Earth with its beasts and humans as commodities which are to be driven as he ''was driven''. This is also connected to the political-economic reading of the epic in which Satan himself continue to display his capitalistic aspirations. Firstly, from the descriptions found in Book II which describe ‘’the mining of riches and the forging of metals’’, one is led to conclude how’’ getting rich from the process of material production originates in hell’’, even though God himself enjoys the very same ‘’wealth’’ in Heaven (Stirling and Dutheil de la Rochere, 2010:88). Back to Satan, in Book III, he decides to explore the newly created world. His very position- depicted as a vulture standing on the Tree of Life which the highest in the garden of Eden- not only indicates him feeling superior, but it also provides him with the perfect view of the ‘’goods’’ surrounding him;

‘’Thence up he flew, and on the Tree of Life/

The middle Tree and highest there that grew/ Sat like a Cormorant (...)

Of that life-giving Plant, but only us’d/

For prospect, what well us’d had bin the pledge/ Of immortalitie. So little knows/

(...)to value right/

The good before him, but perverts best things /

To worst abuse, or to thir meanest use.’’

(Milton, 3.195-205)

Later, in the poem, Satan slowly starts conceiving himself in terms of alienation and abstraction- from what surrounds him, manifesting his general hostility to the universe around him;

‘’ Of this new World; at whose sight all the Starrs/

Hide thir diminisht heads; to thee I call/

But with no friendly voice, and add thy name/

O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams(...)’’

(Milton, 4.35-40)

Ironically, Satan becomes unable to escape this very alienation- which he later comes to embody; ‘’Me miserable!(...)/ Which way I flie is Hell; my self am Hell’’ (Milton, 4. 73-75).

Back to Nietzsche's Overman, as it was already stated, some critics find him resembling Milton's Satan, due to him being ''zealously domineering and competitive’’. This led some to conclusion how his Overman was, like Satan, alienated due to him being ‘’complete separate from ordinary mortals- the ‘herd’ or ‘mob’ as Nietzsche always rather disparagingly described the common people’’ (Morris, 2014:571). However, most recent readings of Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, paint a different picture of his concept, again highlighting how Ubermensch is not only being in charge of taking care of the earth but being ‘’the meaning of the earth’’ itself. (Morris, 2014:571).

Thus, Nietzsche’s, as a naturalistic philosopher, emphasizes that man cannot turn ‘’against’’ nature- since he is the very nature. Similarly to Milton, Nietzsche writes how; ’’Nature- and life (...) are continually in motion, striving towards self-transcendence. When man tries to master his animal nature and to sublimate his impulses, he is only exemplifying a striving that is essentially natural’’ (Kaufman, 1974:260). Nietzsche, thus, wishes for a man to become more ‘’natural’’, or tries to translate man back into nature. He further, promotes positive ecology of value ‘’designed to sustain species whose will to power is value positing’’(Bull, Cascardi, Clark, 2009:45). And so he writes how’’ society must not exist for society’s sake but only as a foundation and scaffolding on which (...) a being is able to raise itself to its higher task and to a higher stake of being-comparable to those sun-seeking vines of Java (...) high above the oak tree- but supported by it, they can unfold their crowns in the open light and display their happiness’’ (Bull, Cascardi, Clark, 2009:45).

It, then, seems that Nietzsche’s understanding of man and nature, or to be more specific, man in nature or man of nature, could go well with the second version of The Book of Genesis. Namely, the Y(Yahwist) text which highlights human responsibility for it; ‘’ dressing and keeping’’ the nature, emphasizing that human’s use of plants and animals is not based so much on sovereignity as on service (Genesis, 2:15). The latter statement shows that Nietzsche’s outlook, in its core, is not so contrary to Christian morals, and is also promoted by Milton- since genius loci according to both appears to be’rooted in the Earth itself’’ (Hiltner, 2003:35). That is why , both in Paradise Lost, as well as in Paradise Regained, Milton emphasizes the importance of what Anna Tsing (2017) calls ‘’resurgence’’. Unlike ‘’sustainbility’’ which leads to alienation of all organisms- promoted by Satan who himself embodies this very alienation, ‘’resurgence’’ may be described as the multispecies affair or ’'life cycles in which there is no grave’’ (Brown, 2009);

’If every just man that now pines with want/

Had but a moderate and beseeming share/

Of that which lewdly-pamper’d Luxury /

Now heaps upon some with vast excess/

Nature’s full blessings would be well dispens’t/

In unsuperfluous even proportion’’

( Milton, Paradise Regained, 768-773)

Apart from their emphasis that nature is not merely a commodity designed to ‘’serve’’ humans, is connected to another prominent similarity between Milton and Nietzsche which is related to physicality and spirituality. As it was already mentioned, Nietzsche was a naturalistic philosopher believing how body and spirit were the part of the same continuum- which was one of the reasons why he’’ turned away’’ from God who made the Spirit lash out against the body. As the opponent of dualistic ideology, Nietzsche saw soul in a sort of a rhizomic relationship with the physical- as the inseparable part or feature of the body. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra he emphasizes both natural world and natural body’’ Body am I, and Soul.- thus speaks the child. And why should one not speak like children?’’ (Peery, 2008:123). Also, Nietzsche’s monism can be noticed in Deleuze’s and Guattari’s view of his concept of Overman. According to the two authors, ''Nietzsche's lone superman taking on the world with his life force- his raw will power'' is ''toned down'' and transformed into '' a being with desires'', insisting that the ''connective nature of human being'' – as ''the being who is in intimate contact with the profound life of all forms or all types of beings '' . Thus the connective nature, along with human desire ''produces ever- new connections between beings''- a rhizome, if you will (Fletcher, 101:2017).

Similarly, to Nietzsche, Milton in Paradise lost displays his monistic outlook on both human body, soul and very nature- despite the fact how for Milton, God is not the one who ‘’lashes against the body’’ but he rather acts like a ‘’supernatural glue’’;‘’God shall be All in All’’(3.340-345). Eve, thus explains Adam how:

‘’O ADAM, one Almightie is, from whom/

All things proceed, and up to him return/

If not deprav’d from good, created all /

Such to perfection, one first matter all/

Indu’d with various forms, various degrees /

Of substance, and in things that live, of life/

But more refin’d, more spiritous, and pure(...)

Each in thir several active Sphears assignd/

Till body up to spirit work, in bounds/ Proportiond to each kind(...)’'

(Milton, 5.470-480)

And so, Adam and Eve are intertwined- both physically and spiritually, through God, to all the beasts, trees and plants, surrounding them;''

''(...)I feel

The Link of Nature draw me: Flesh of Flesh/

Bone of my Bone thou art, and from thy State/

Mine never shall be parted, bliss or woe.”

(Milton, 9.15-20)

What is interesting is that Milton's first humans as well as Satan, fell due to this very rejection of monism. Namely, starting to reject the rhizomic relationship between self and other, every single one of them imposes himself either as the Subject to the Objects, playing, thus, ''Gods''- leading slowly to their demise; ’At that tasted Fruit/ The Sun (...), turn’d/ His course intended/(...)Some say he(God) bid his angels turn askance/ The poles of Earth twice ten degrees and more/ From the Sun’s axle’’ (Milton, 10.651-710). Nietzsche's Zarathustra also descended, due to the same reason- wanting to impose himself as a god-like figure; ''But let me reveal my heart to you entirely my friends''- says Zarathustra, if there were gods, how could I endure not to be a God'' (Slote, 2013:113).

Related to the question of Milton's and Nietzsche's monism, the role of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, and those of the first humans in Milton's case, in the concept of eternal return must be discussed. Nietzsche’s notion of eternal recurrence, left many not only puzzled but, Nietzsche was both criticized and, in some cases even, mocked for his idea of things repeating themselves eternally. And so Jorge Luis Borges, in his essay The Doctrine of Cycles dubbed Nietzsche as ''the most pathetic inventor of the theory of cyclicality''. He also posed a question of - if the theory holds- how would one know if we are in an ever changing, possibly repeating world- if God is dead. Borges also touched upon the question of; ''what significance can there be to the fact that we are going through the cycle the thirteen thousand five hundred and fourteenth time, and not the first in the series or the number three hundred twenty-second with the exponent of two thousand?'' (Jenckes, 2012:132). When it comes to Borge's first question, of how would one know whether events do really repeat themselves to infinity, it can be said the satisfactory answer, fortunately or not, does not exist. However, as Jeckens (2012) states, since there is no ''higher being'' that would inform us of ''our curved entity'', we are to rely on ourselves and our own ''imperfect modes of memory and representation''- such as art and music; the society's highest values, with the Overman being acknowledged by the society as the embodiment of these values.

When it comes to the other question posed by Borges- that of significance of things repeating themselves eternally, one can look at Hieronimus Bosch’s, triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights for the possible answer (see Picture 2). And so, the exterior of Bosch's painting, seems to represent Earth- trapped in a spherical ball- during the first three days of creation- having no animal or human life.

Once opened, the first panel the Joining of Adam and Eve in the ‘’original Garden’’ portrays the events before the sin started to flourish alongside flora and fauna- as it is presented in the central panel. The latter- containing numerous portrayals of nudity, sexual acrobatics, are believed to represent how man is slowly progressing to becoming one with the beast. The situation culminates in the right panel titled ‘’The Hell’’ or ‘’The Final Judgment’’, in which Eden- due to sin became ‘’the torture garden with concealed mechanisms, nightmares intimating the irrational and with violent applications of scientific knowledge ‘’ (Deckard, 2009). Analyzing the painting this way, there is an allusion to the linear and finite occurrence of the events- having its ultimate ending in the hell. In other words, the original sin of the first humans led to the consequent fall of humankind and their suffering in inferno. However, looking more closely at the first left panel, the viewer can see how- even in Eden, scenes of brutal violence and killing are being presented. Scenes of a wild cat carrying a mouse and boar catching a fox are rather peculiar considering the portrayal of the original garden in The Book of Genesis, in which beasts lived in peace alongside humans.This led some to conclude that the exterior of Bosch’s painting- representing the Earth in a spherical ball, actually represents the days of Noah, or the Great Flood- after the fall of the first (Jacobs, 2012). If Bosch’s work is analyzed this way, it can be seen how the events occurrence is no longer linear, but it rather resembles the structure of the Celtic cross.

In other words, the fall of Satan was a reference point after which ‘’falling’’ occurs in a rather circular motion. Namely, the descent of Satan caused the fall of Adam and Eve which led to fall of the Cain and the days of the Great Flood. Looking at this from a broader, Biblical perspective, what followed was the fall of the Tower of Babel and Christ’s crucifixion which also seems to suggest that the fall was not singular. Also, speaking from Christian perspective this cycle will have no end- since even after the Judgment day, for some, hell will repeat itself infinitely (see Picture 3.). In Paradise Lost even Milton, just like Nietzsche, suggests that history- or in this case fall of Satan and the first humans will repeat itself again. And so, in Book XI, Milton foresees the fall again- writing of days of the Flood as well as the arrival of the Son- as the result of humanity falling yet again;

‘’ He look'd, and saw the face of things quite chang'd/

The brazen Throat of Warr had ceast to roar/

All now was turn'd to jollitie and game/

To luxurie and riot, feast and dance/

Marrying or prostituting, as befell/

Rape or Adulterie (...)''

(Milton, 11.710-720)

Perhaps, then, the Borge's question of the significance of eternal is actually that, once one becomes aware of it, it becomes -as Nietzsche states- “the heaviest burden.'' Or, as Kundera in his The Unbearable Lightness of Being states;'' As opposed to the profound moral perversity of a world that rests essentially on the nonexistence of return- for in this world everything is pardoned in advance and therefore everything cynically permitted (...)the idea of eternal return implies how (...)If every second of our lives recurs an infinite number of times, we are nailed to eternity as Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross. It is a terrifying prospect. In the world of eternal return the weight of unbearable responsibility lies heavy on every move we make (2009:10,11)''. And so, the frightening prospect of every single event, every fall, could possibly repeat themselves ad infinitum not only places, as Nietzsche would say das schwerste Gewicht, on our every thought, action or event, but it also puts the emphasis on the right to choose, and more importantly the right choice- when it comes to Milton. At the same time , it also underlines the responsibility in ''active nihilism'' of Nietzsche's Overman when it comes to ''legislating values'', since ‘’the absolute absence of a burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into the heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being'' and to avoid becoming '' only half real, with his movements being as free as they are insignificant'' ( Kundera, 2009:11). And so it seems how for both Milton and Nietzsche it is this very belief that it is in responsibility of '' those who have spiritual strength''- either in themselves, as Nietzsche’s Ubermensch or in ''higher being'' as Milton does, lies the answer of being able to ''make tolerable, a rather intolerable situation'' ( Fontinell, 2000:178). However, as Kundera would say: ‘’ Anyone whose goal is something higher must expect some day to suffer vertigo. What is vertigo? Fear of falling? (...)No, vertigo is something other than the fear of falling. It is the voice of the abyss below us which tempts and lures us, it is the desire to fall (...). The heaviest of burdens is therefore simultaneously an image of life's most intense fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real and truthful they become'' (Kundera 2009:11,78).

Works cited:

1. Adler, G., Aguilar, M. & Lawrence,F. (2005). Constantine (Motion picture). United States: Warner Bros.

2. Baxter, D. (2017). Free Will, Foreknowledging and Predestination. In: D. Baxter (ed.); Paradise Lost: A Drama of Unintended Consequences. Leicester: Troubador Publishing Ltd., 259-277.

3. Bull, M., Cascardi, A.J., Clark, T. (2009), Where is the AntiNietzsche. In: M. Bull, A. J. Cascardi,T. J. Clark (eds.); Nietzsche's Negative Ecologies. Oakland: Univ of California Press, 20-50.

4. Colebrook, C. (2008), Capital, Time, Production and Generation. In: Colebrook, C. (ed.); Milton, Evil and Literary History. London, New York, Sydney, Delhi: Bloomsbury Publishing.44-70.

5. Duran, A. (2008),Textual Sites. In: Duran. A (ed.); A Concise Companion to Milton. New Yersey: John Wiley and Sons.59-215.

6. Colebrook, C. (2008), Capital, Time, Production and Generation. In: Colebrook, C. (ed.); Milton, Evil and Literary History. London, New York, Sydney, Delhi: Bloomsbury Publishing.44-70.

7. Fletcher,D. (2017).Deleuze and Guattari: Self-emancipatory philosophy in the '68 era. In: D. Fletcher(ed.); The Cultural Contradictions of Anti-Capitalism: The Liberal Spirit and the Making of Western Radicalism. Abingdon:Routledge, 83-105.

8. Fontinell, E. (2000). Immortality, Hope or Hindrance? In: E. Fontinell (ed.): Self, God and Immortality: A Jamesian Investigation. New York: Fordham Univ Press,165-200.

9. Hiltner, K. (2003). Eve as the Garden's Spirit of Place. In: K. Hiltner (ed.); Milton and Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 30-43.

10. Jacobs, L.F.(2012), The Sixteenth Century and Beyond. In: L.F. Jacobs (ed.) ; Opening Doors:The Early Netherlandish Triptych Reinterpreted. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press,189-220.

11. Jenckes, K.(2012). Reading Historie's Secrets in Benjamin and Borges. In: K. Jenckes (ed.); Reading Borges after Benjamin: Allegory, Afterlife, and the Writing of History. New York:SUNY Press, 67-99.

12. Kaufman, W.A. (1974). Power versus Pleasure. In: W.A. Kaufman (ed.); Nietzsche, Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 257-284.

13. Kundera, M. (2009). The Unbearable Lightness of Being.New York: Harper&Collins Publishers.Print.

14. Lewis, G. (2017).Atheism: Proclaiming the Death of God. In: G. Lewy (ed.); If God is Dead, Everything is Permitted? New Jersey:Transaction Publishers, 43-51.

15. McLachlan, C. (1941). John Milton. In: C. McLachlan (ed.); The Religious Opinions of Milton, Locke, and Newton. Manchester:Manchester University Press, 3-69.

16. Milton, J. (2016).Paradise Regained. North Charleston:CreateSpace Independent Publishing. Print

17. Milton, J. (2016).Paradise Lost. North Charleston:CreateSpace Independent Publishing. Print

18. Morris, B. (2014). Friedrich Nietzsche and Existentialism.In: B. Morris (ed.); Anthropology and the Human Subject. Bloomington: Trafford Publishing, 550-601.

19. Munroe, A., Geisweidt, E.J.(2016). Approaches to Teaching Ecological Texts and Metodology. In: 8.Munroe, A., Geisweidt, E.J.(eds.); Ecological Approaches to Early Modern English Texts: A Field Guide to Reading and Teaching. London: Routledge, 143-205.22

20. Nietzsche, F. (2015). Attempt at a Self-Criticism. In: Delphi Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche (Illustrated): Friedrich Nietzsche. East Sussex: Delphi Classics, 5-21

21. Peery, R.S. (2008). Body and Bodies. In: R.S. Peery (ed.); Nietzsche, Philosopher of the Perilous Perhaps. New York: Algora Publishing, 121-127.

22. Ponzi, M. (2016). Nietzsche Editions and Interpretations of His Works. In: M. Ponzi (ed.); Nietzsche's Nihilism in Walter Benjamin. Berlin:Springer:57-93.

23. Ripple J. W., Wolf, C., Newsome T.M., Galetti, M., Alamgit, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud,I., Laurance, W.F. (2017). World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice.

24. Stirling,K., Dutheil de la Rochère, M.H. (2010).Devilish and Devine Economies In and After Paradise Lost. In: K.Stirling, M. H. Dutheil de la Rochère (eds.); After Satan: Essays in Honour of Neil Forsyth. Cambridge:Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 85-100.

25. Slote,S. (2013). Also Sprach Molly Bloom. In: S. Slote (ed.); Joyce’s Nietzschean Ethics. Berlin:Springer, 107-127.

26. Tsing, A. (2017). Threat to Holocene Resurgence Is a Threat to Livability, The Anthropology of Sustainability. Mark Brightman and Jerome Lewis, eds. Basingstoke: Palgrave

0 notes

rueur · 8 years

Text

Morning Pages #19 (25.01.2016)

Wednesday 25th Jan - 7:35 a.m.

So Ikaros came over yesterday, from about 3 till maybe 7. He had just come from seeing Jacob and a friend of his. They have this social tactic where they just approach girls on the street and talk to them, trying to pick them up or make friends. Jacob invited Ikaros to try that out, and Ikaros quite definitely did not because it sounded very very weird to him, and also a little out of line. Of course, a lot of the people Jacob and his mate talked to didn’t want to be approached by a random person on the street because that’s how most people tend to be on any given day. Especially in the city, I mean you have your guard up around men in the city because everyone’s in such close proximity. Anyway, I think this taste of the urban single life got Ikaros in a bit of a sorry state, because he decided to get curry tofu and then hop on the train and come and see me. I met him at Northcote station where we shared an intensely passionate kiss on the railings of the path leading from platform two to platform one, the place that flooded (or floods). He lifted me up and just kissed me, held me, for a very long time. When he finally let go, I realised that my earphones had snapped in my iPod and were irreparably damaged. Sweet, but such is the price of love.

He gave me a piggy-back down three streets just because he felt like it, and also maybe because he wanted to show me what he’s capable of now that he’s been going to the gym. I will say he’s gotten stronger, fitter, and he’s looking really well. Really fine. Goodness, if he weren’t such a dickhead, he’d literally be my perfect partner. In a perfect world, I’d just marry him. I would, in a heartbeat.

We had a conversation I’ve lately only mostly been having with myself today. I told him that during my writing of these pages, I’ve come to realise that we’re not going to end up together, and if we do try to end up together, it’ll implode and we won’t even be in each other’s lives anymore. And I didn’t want that. I want him to be happy, and I don’t want to hold him back. And I want myself to be happy too, and vice versa. So, I told him that what I wanted from him was an ‘open break-up’, in the sense that we’d still get to see each other; we’d still get to hang-out, maybe even have sex, we’d still get to talk, we’d be in each other’s lives because we love each other. We just won’t hold each other back by shackling ourselves to each other, because even if it is willingly now, there are certain aspects of our relationship that will overtake or overpower our love in the near future. I told him that I needed to be with somebody who could support me as a writer, who could let me know that what I’m doing is good so that I can drown out all the professional rejection I am yet to experience. And I didn’t say this to him, but I secretly thought that he needed somebody who wouldn’t ever belittle him for not being a confident reader. See, I thought that would be me. I thought that the fact that he couldn’t read my work would be a good thing, because I could write about him. It occurred to me over the past few days that I will need somebody to critique me who loves me, not just strangers. Ikaros has never given me adequate feedback, because he and the written word don’t get along. However, he is still an immensely interesting subject and I am going to write so much about him. I’m going to write about him all the time.

What happened when he came over was I tried on my new dresses for him and he isolated the blue one as his favourite. We had very passionate non-penetrative sex (at his request, I sat on his face), had a shower together, got fish and chips at the Northcote Fish and Chippery, and some beers from IGA, and then came back to the apartment and watched The I.T. Crowd. I let him try some of my mango and toasted coconut ice cream, and then I walked him back to the station. We’ve made a date to go to Gong De Lin on Sunday, the day after my show runs.

It’s 7:49 a.m. now and I am roaring through these morning pages. I think I’m finally feeling good about writing these at a rapid pace, because I’ve stopped having to write hard truths, or write things that I’m secretly ashamed of. I still haven’t told Ikaros that I’d already seen Evan before all this had happened. As far as he knows, I haven’t seen Evan since I met Evan on Friday the 13th. I think it won’t be of any issue, however, from this point onwards. But I am a little worried about Evan asking me about Ikaros, not that I should be though. I’ll just say he’s my ex, and that we had a good relationship but foresaw a very inevitable eventual end, so we just nipped it in the bud so that we could stay friends. Ikaros is most definitely one of the most important people in my life, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. Of course, anything could happen. I don’t see Marcus that often anymore, but I still love him from afar. Malith is most definitely my best friend. I could still end up marrying Ikaros, growing old with him, once we’ve achieved everything we’ve set out to achieve. Anything can happen.

I posted three photos on Facebook last night, after he left. The first one was of one I took during this peculiar day he spent at mine, where he just decided to hide under the bed in mock terror of me. I captioned it ‘ded’. The other two photos were taken on the train this day I went to the beach with Isaac and he went out to meet Melike: 12th of December, 2016. I captioned it ‘thanks for tolerating//matching my boundless ‘sass’’. My brother liked it. I feel really good about everything that’s been happening in my life right now. I just hope that Evan doesn’t feel threatened by Ikaros’ web presence on my Facebook. I feel like the main reason I waited so long to add him was because of Ikaros. It’s not that it’s complicated between Ikaros and I, it’s just that it’s complicated to anyone outside of us. I’m fairly certain Nick and Lucas are also really curious about how close Ikaros and I still are. I don’t know, to be honest I don’t even care what they think. I care what Evan thinks though. I really really like him, and I just feel like we could really have something. Not that I’m looking for something else right away. I don’t know! I’m a firm believer in the idea that you meet people and you learn things the MINUTE you’re supposed to, and for cosmic reasons that have all been predetermined, prewritten, predestined.

I was talking to Lauren about this the day I first met her, in the Royal Botanic Gardens. She was talking about the idea of free will in relation to determinism, and I felt like it aligned fairly well with my own beliefs regarding the set path of human life: faith in fate. I also told her about my ideas regarding soul mates, and how sometimes people are meant to meet each other, for either romantic or platonic reasons. You just have something to gain and something to give that will aid in both your personal growth. I feel like I was destined to meet and fall in love with Ikaros, and that that love would grant me things I wouldn’t have otherwise found at my young age: self-confidence, and the principles of self-love. I feel like if I hadn’t met Ikaros, I’d have let myself be walked all over professionally for a long time to come, maybe even into my mid-thirties. But Ikaros has taught me the power of determination and tenacity. He’s also taught me about the benefits of light-heartedness. This was such an easy relationship to be in. We were kids, we were having fun, hell we ARE having fun. This relationship, like him, has been incredibly hedonistic and in that way, it’s been pure. We had few roadblocks and so we were able to love deeply, and I got to experience what that is like without watching it die away, although it did falter from late October till maybe early January.

I’m actually nearly done with my morning pages for the day. I think I’ve only got about half a page left to go, which is ideal because it’s six minutes past eight and I should feed the cats before 8:30 a.m., and I’m fairly certain I’ll be able to do that. I think that this morning, I would like to have some of the canned spaghetti for breakfast, with some chickpeas? Ikaros used to make me that sometimes. He’d get canned spaghetti or baked beans, heat them up on the stove. I’d put some bread in the toaster, and maybe fry up some eggs if we had time, and then we’d put it all on a plate and eat with a knife and fork. He always made me crack eggs for him because he was very unconfident with them. I thought for ages that he just couldn’t do it, but honestly he just wanted me to do it for him. It’s like the way he wants me to check his back for pimples, or brush his hair: it just makes him feel loved.

That’s another thing I’ve learnt from him, is how to let your partner know that they’re needed. He made me feel so loved and needed, it was actually quite lovely to feel indispensable, even if it is an illusion. I’ve always been a little bad at that; I’ve always felt the need to be self-reliant. Looking back on this break-up and how I ‘pioneered’ it as the most practical step for us, even that seems like a desperate plot for me to prove myself to be self-reliant. I love being in a relationship though. I love giving my time to another person and having them appreciate that. I love supporting somebody, emotionally and spiritually and sexually. I love the idea of spending the rest of your life with a kindred spirit, inhabiting a shared space with them and building an idyllic future for yourselves together. I just really love being in love, and I am really good at it. I just know that when the time comes, I’ll get to experience all of this with the right person. And when things get hard, this person will stick by me and I will stick by them. And it won’t seem that hard at all.

#19 #25.01.2016 #breakup #morning pages

0 notes