History as a Hobby

There will be news in this anniversary year about the Copernican
principle. This reminds me of a strange phenomenon in modern
historiography, and an aspect that no one else seems to have noticed.
My guess is that there will be publicity not just about the Copernican
principle, which says that since the earth is no longer considered the
center of the universe, this shift in perception has adverse effects
on man's sense of himself. (That is the modern version.) Typically
since the last century the Copernican principle has been mentioned
along with two other events which are said to have altered man's
perception of himself. One is Darwin's ideas and the other Freudian
theory. All three events are said to have dethroned man as the center
of the universe, and this dethronement is commonly assumed to have
effects.

Now this explanatory model ignores history--during the time when man
was supposedly the center of the world--there is evidence that he (and
she) actually had a view of themselves as part of a larger whole.
Medieval society allowed no one except royalty to think of themselves
as the center of the world, and even royalty seems to have had a sound
grasp that the universe included other dimensions which precluded
self-absorption as a useful energy model.

I am certain other writers have noticed these facts. Probably these
theories have been hashed out somewhere and i am just not aware of it.
I bring up these ideas to point beyond them.

What is interesting in view of the thoughts of the empirical thinker,
the late writer, Jan Cox, is not just that modern historians have got
the story reversed, and it is modern man who is uniquely concerned
with himself as the center of the world. (Actually he used to say:"
the opposite is never true". So take my summary above as just a
direction, not a position I would defend.) What is interesting in
view of this idea that man has been dethroned as the center of the
universe, is that it reveals an enormous lack of apprehension of
this---

the healing and joyous results of considering one's position in a larger whole.

This is not a new mystical technique, and it is not an idea that I
recall Jan Cox phrasing in this manner exactly, but the reality that
he spent his adulthood seeking to allow others to grasp, this reality.
available to all who earnestly and persistently seek to understand
what is going on, this reality, can be approached by reminding oneself
of one's physical and chronological position in relation to the world
we live in. There is no "the truth" in a way you could sketch it, and
have it posted in a public place for all the see and grasp. Anything
that could accurately be labeled 'truth" is an individual gain and act
and healing. There is momentary and personal sight.

These thoughts come from someone for whom history is a hobby. Jan Cox
actually said that history is a dream. So for goodness sakes do not
think I am pushing the profession of history. But my background leads
me to use these ideas to make another point about man and his queries.
And I cannot resist mentioning another thing Jan said---to lighten the
path--he said if you are not smiling (inside,) you haven't yet got it.
"Getting it" always being a moment by moment, temporary thing. I had
better just stop writing, now.

Art and Reality, a ghoulish gap

If you don't go out much, and you don't have cable, your movie reviews can be a tad late. And so we get to "The Nightmare Before Christmas".  The interesting thing is the assumptions behind the plot.  People from Halloweenland find out about Christmasland and their attempts to bring the charm of Christmas to the hallows of Halloweenland reveal a total divergence between two world views.  The ghouls, dressed up in Santa outfilts, are still ghastly. The genius of Tim Burton is that you can understand how the mistakes happen, and the confusions seem inevitable.  

The setup of the movie the Nightmare Before Christmas is lively because it recalls the nonfictional gap between the world of words and that of quiet collection.

Of course Burton having set up his drama has to resolve it using a director ex machina ploy.
Since he knows how weak the idea of romantic love is as a resolution, he makes it an ironic ending with love between two characters of Halloweenland.

Irony though, is a copout.  Burton has no choice since the cognitive gaps he is outlining are real ---and without becoming a mystic, he HAS no viable conclusion.  Art often relies on the mystic underpinnings of reality, to speak on the border of incomprehensibility. But make no mistake, irony is just a copout.  To treat the conclusion ironically is to present the storyteller as having some superior awareness, which awareness is non--existent. Let me quote a leading mystic, Jan Cox---Irony just  means you do not have a big enough picture, irony reflects your ignorance. 

Are there treasures in your attic?

It is time for Antiques Roadshow.
Antiques--are your thoughts, of say an age of, a few minutes.
The Roadshow we are discussing----well, the human world.
The attic--your--upper lobes.
Are there treasures in your attic?
...
Nah.

My Fellow Eukaryotes

The news is that there is definitely a black hole at the center of our
galaxy. Surprised me, since I thought that was the accepted view, but
apparently now it is even more accepted. The instruments used to
substantiate this are so sensitive that I am going to quote the
description:

Unprecedented 16-Year Long Study Tracks Stars Orbiting Milky Way Black Hole
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=27143

"A team of astronomers led by John Johnson of the University of
Hawaii's Institute for Astronomy
has used a new technique to measure the precise size of a planet
around a distant star. They
used a camera so sensitive that it could detect the passage of a moth
in front of a lit window
from a distance of 1,000 miles."

Nothing in that contradicts Bede, whose picture of man's knowledge was
of a bird flitting through a room, in and out, from dark to dark.
That was about 1400 years ago.

So are we, proportion wise, cells? Or is our planet itself a cell?
Just questions. About our world where light depends on dark, a world
where some cellular component can glimpse a larger part of the
machinery...

Bolt from the White

There's a new Disney Pixar film out, about a dog tv star who discovers
that he does not actually have the talents of the super dog he plays
in the movies. The New York Times says this about the plot of "Bolt."
The dog "must learn that what he thinks of as his true identity is an
artifact of make-believe."

That sounds familiar to students of Jan Cox, even before you factor in
that the realization the dog must make is actually happens in an
animated film -- the layers of reality, onion thing.

These tasty crumbs are everywhere on the path.

Studying the sun

Looking back on the history of science you see that any accurate knowledge of the center of our solor system, came very late in the history of  humanity---that is assuming we do now have MUCH reliable information about the sun. Galen came before Newton.  

This came to mind when I considered the very consistent human questions about what men call god, and these questions have only  remained steady or increased throughout  human history---anyone who thinks we do not live in a theological age has not listened out to what is being chatted about.  In the past day the idea of men putting god on trial, has been verbalized, and also I just read that Isaac Bashevis Singer, an adorable thinker,  had said he was "angry with god."

Most all mention of god, in human history,  ignores one salient fact (and I am not including in this list Jan Cox, Gurdjieff,  the anonymous author of "The Cloud of Unknowing," or other mystic scientists)---but the parade of human thinkers we typically include in an intellectual history of humanity---they all ignore a certain detail---they are asking about god before they have answered THIS question---what is man.

You start with what you can access, you start with the possible, the local terrain, the planet you know, this terrestial study must preceed a study of the sun, or galaxy.  You must know what rocks are before you can study thermonuclear equations---  You start questioning what you have a chance of answering, and keep asking, pushing intellectually. This kind of radical empiricism is the path of honesty and hope.

To proceed courageously, persistently, objectively, in a study of WHAT IS MAN, is to be on the path to a summit from which real answers could be glimpsed. 

Hoax? or Natural Condition of the Brain?

There's a story with a dateline of Nov 12 in the New York Times about
these guys that hoaxed the modern media world with a story about
someone not knowing Africa was a continent. The "lesson" given in the
article is that sources must be carefully checked. That's not it
though--that is missing the whole wonderful point.

The story to be gotten from this story is about the human intellect.
The intellect is not "gullible", the nature of human cerebralness is a
group event. Jan Cox talked much about any person being one of 6
million nodes in one mind. There is no true or false here, there is
socialability--a cozy handshake passed around and around. The content
is irrelevant. So that some pranksters pulled one off is not
surprising. The surprising thing is that is does not happen more, and
more flagrantly. Or perhaps it does and we are just not aware.
Really the latter. Because ultimately

All thoughts are alike in the dark.
They are all imaginary, (Excepting of course those thoughts focussed
on rearranging the external world, and illustrating the mind as a tool
maker.)
In a certain front lobe the lights are always off.
This is never even noticed, and when someone talks about finding the
light switch, they always assume they can TALK the switch into the on
position.

So it stays dark. And only a few ever wonder why it is always dark in
this front lobe, this living room of the brain. They wonder if there
is illumination other than that from the t.v. And most, never even
notice the dark.

And that is as it should be.