The Job of Job part 2

Perhaps, since I have been pushing the Book of Job, as an up to date exploration of the mind of man, though written in the 5th century, (that timelessness would not have surprised Jan Cox of course) a few words should be directed to the prose beginning and ending paragraphs of that part of the Bible called Job.  The fresh and creative pointing to achieving a certain insight by pushing human mentation to its limits---exhausting words, not trying to ignore them, constitutes a demonstration of a technique for (can't think of a fresh way to say this at the moment) spiritual growth. Teaching by showing.  ("Spiritual growth" sounds so wrong.) Anyway the poetic form of Job has a prose beginning and end which so obviously conflicts with the message of the poetic form itself that the question is forced on us: what is the purpose of these stories about satan chatting up god, and then Job gets to have his sheep back as a grand climactic denouement. What the heck is that about.  Either this part was added later, perhaps an attempt to ensure that future generations got to read Job, by sugar coating the important poetic part, for the 5th century BC burghers. Or the original author of Job knew his work would be discarded, as incomprehensible,  if he didn't make it apparently conform to the prevalent myths of his audience, so this is his little trick to ensure the preservation of his work.  This assumes the original author of Job, like Jan Cox, well knew the importance of his words, and the significance of his enlistment of words to push beyond them. Something like that.

A Job for Job

Recently I got to reread the Book of Job.  Jan Cox did not encourage new students to read spiritual classics: the possibility of words tainting certain new experiences is a common dilemma.  That is not so much an issue now, and I was amazed at the delicate insights of this essay.  And a great surprise, the Book of Job has nothing to do with man's suffering or understanding god, or evil.  This, the common view, is no more accurate than describing Schrodingers thought experiment with a cat, as advice on feline health.  Nor was the Cliff Notes version which preceded my copy a good preparation.  Some fellow who was involved with the Jerusalem Bible's reader edition had summarized the lesson of Job, to this effect: Man learns to stop talking before God's majesty. Not even close---rather the exact opposite, in a way, of what the Book of Job describes. 

 

The Book of Job is an examination of the mind of man, the human intellect.  Naturally one discards any thought of reading about evil once the quality of insight in this prose is appreciated.  Evil is a discussion for children.  Our 5th century B.C. author has no use for the quality of thought which sees in natural processes something antagonistic to humankind.  The author of Job, is interested in how man can achieve self-knowledge, and the method illustrated is running the intellect ragged, following every logical thread no matter where that logic may lead, push push push with the intellectual busyness, let it run wild, go to extremes, play with every possible consequence of each thought.   This method is one used in the twentieth century by Jan Cox, and it was just as effective in the 5th century, at elucidating --- a certain border, a margin, an edge...

 

 

And exactly what ARE heroes?

Again we have the news and now two linked names as recent heroes, "Sully" and Captain Phillips. They arouse a thrill and thus the question I put in the subject field. What constitutes a hero. One thought is this: they are ordinary.  Not just normally, but their deeds are 'ordinary.' This surprising possibility (surprising since one might have defined hero as someone NOT ordinary in his deeds) arose from thinking about this thrill one gets from considering their stories.  People, that majority who are satisfied with the canned answers Life provides, are yet aware that their world is actually consituted of mere fantasies filaments floating around. This awareness cannot be too clear to anyone (as we all are all the time, or often anyway) or they woud be provoked to hunt for real answers, and this is not practical for Life, as a whole, -- a bunch of people searching for answers would in fact make life too holey to procede as the majestic spectacle it is. Yet this fundament of dreams cannot stay hidden all the time.  So we have heroes who accomplish exactly that which our dreams predict, and thus these heroes are reassuring the sleeper, pulling those blankets closer in the dark.  (This last picture is one that Jan Cox used on occasion.) The fact heroes actually do accomplish that which ordinary life projects as competent, aware, activity, obscures the fact that the ruling flows of life are (and must be, for the health and progress of the whole of humanity)--mechanical and not the product of man's initiative, or conscious action.

 

I am encouraged to view the possibility above as worthy of a second thought because of Wesley Autrey. Why do we not hear HIS name linked with that of Sully and Phillips? What could be more heroic than jumping in front of an oncoming subway to rescue a person fallen on the tracks?  Is it because it happened several years ago?  Is it because this saint was not of the majority race? No--- possibly we appear to have forgotten Wesley Autry because his heroism was beyond that bell curve of the ordinary which life supports by anointing some mens actions as 'heroic.'  Life wants men being able to land planes on rivers, to risk their lives for their fellow workers; one has to wonder if Life wants folks jumping onto subway tracks.  This last is not that about which men dream.

The Clatter of Jackdaws

Does the chatter of jackdaws in the ruins mean there are no owls in the tree?

All that glitters ---- has a value

Jan Cox mentioned, and this is a rare instance where I believe he was not the first to say this, but he said, that gold creates the market for the counterfeit.  Without there being such a thing as real gold, there would be no demand, for fake, or inflated, currency.  His point was, probably, that the existence of so many many so-called spiritual groups which are really just hero-worship, or herd mechanics,  their existence proved that the "spiritual quest" was capable of real answers, real accomplishment.  The existence of most religions then, their bizarre idea that creeds and crowd activity constitute a worthy path,  serve to  prove the reality of that quest which insists on originality -- that the teacher can only set up a situation where he helps students by pointing towards something real, something they must see for themselves, they cannot be spoon fed it, or read about it.  And so it is that the secret cannot really be spoken of, without damaging the hearer. They have to see it for themselves.  And struggle to  keep on remembering a certain reality.  But that the secret exists, the glittering proof is everywhere.

Not that you asked (revised slightly)

Someone remarked about Natasha Richardson that she had come to look so like her mother, Vanessa Redgrave. This was especially apparent the older she got, and others have noticed this fact in general, that family resemblances seem to emerge at a certain time. But this does not have to do with a loss of individuality as one ages. The fact is there never was a real individuality in appearance. All beautiful women look alike: their beauty reflects not any individuality, but rather the puppy chub of fresh hormones.

The Redneck Who Ruled the World

The redneck of course is Jan Cox. What world did he rule? I am using the phrase rule the world to point to what is called the awakened man. The world Jan ruled was the only world a man can rule, the only kingdom that is not fantasy and dreams, the only power that can be exerted with awareness of what one is doing, where the awareness is the power. He used the phrase revolutionary to describe his teaching, and was always careful to point out that external political activity was not the revolutionary activity that could engage an real man.
The revolution he pointed to was the revolution of each minute being fresh, overthrown, not mechanical. And Jan Cox was, along with Gurdjieff, the greatest figure of the last century, in that he brought mysticism out of the shadows of religion and into the marketplace of empiricism.
And to the end he pronounced the word "often" offTen.