The Contrarian

Satan's City.

Pentagram and Evil Bunny Man — all the proof we need?

There's a kitschy article in the Washington Post today about how DC is born of the Devil. The evidence? A couple of quotes from John McCain jokingly referring to the District as "Satan's City," and an inverted pentagram from Dupont and Logan Circles to the foot of the White House. Oh, and they filmed The Exorcist in Georgetown.

But wait, there's more:

The most persistent rumblings about Washington as the devil's workshop seem bound up in history about the city's design and the role of Freemasons in building it. It's a connection explored in the three-hour DVD "Riddles in Stone: The Secret Architecture of Washington, D.C.," which notched a respectable 90th out of 1,363 titles recently in Amazon's general history documentary category.

A DVD, eh? How about this book by David Ovason, which takes a credibly exhaustive, historically accurate look at the architecture of our nation's capital and how it fits with a greater esoteric understanding. Our Founders were hip to the importance of constructing the Federal City to align with astrological sources of power. Ye Olde Architect Pierre Charles L'Enfant and others were supposedly following the Egyptian and Roman model of urban design, in which key structures were built to correspond with heavenly bodies of supposed metaphysical significance. Here in DC, you can see the evidence of such design not only in architectural placement, but also in symbolic "code" found on sundry statuary and ornamentals. Ovason's book features a foreword by  C. Fred Kleinknecht, former Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the Southern Jurisdiction of the U.S. So you know it's legit!

The Post article doesn't really get into any of this, of course. It's far too easy to wring whatever pop-cultural juice is left from the "Satanic Panic" exploitation of the '80s and early '90s. But I did learn that esoteric-conspiracy hack Dan Brown is hard at work on a "novel" about the Freemasons and the Dark Secrets of the District. Which means us occult history nerds should have something new to ridicule soon.

Mountains 'n' Mormons.

I've been taking a lot of pictures of Utah sundry, and will post soon. We checked out the venue yesterday. Majestic. I'll upload some shots when I get a second. We play this afternoon at 2:30. I feel pretty good about our performance in rehearsals, but there are some lingering doubts about the technology. Fingers crossed. Our piece is being recorded, so there's a good chance I'll post it here for your consideration.

In the meantime, read about George Dvorsky's existential angst. I would rarely want anyone to speak for me, but I'm happy to point to this post as an example of my own intimate uncertainties.

Tuesday Trifles.

My Nadja review is up at Dusted. Check it out; there's an MP3 posted, too.

Just about to head off to Falls Church, VA, to bring back the guitars and sundry from last Sunday's house party.

One last thing, re: Buddhism v. Transhumanism: it seems accurate to say that science desires absoulutes, even when the only way forward is to indulge the theoretical. Buddhism, on the other hand, does not neccesarily require categorical definitives. Although it doesn't deny the validity of scienttific discovery, Buddhism's general cosmological orientation is based on the idea of "no fixed quality," which thereby undermines such demands for certainty. The nature of reality is apprehended subjectively, but Buddhist practice seeks to reframe said subjectivity in an infinitely vast field of possibility — spontaneously, and in the here and now. So I still intuit a subtle conflict between human enhancement and Buddhist tradition. But I certainly appreciate George Dvorsky's perspective.

Never got to see No Country for Old Men, but Candleblog also raves. Maybe this weekend. . .

Thanks for playing.

Buddhism vs. Transhumanism.

After yesterday's long-ass post about the Dalai Lama, I figured we might as well stay on the Buddhist tip.

Found an interesting article at thinkBuddha.org about Transhumanism — another abiding interest of mine.

The blogger at thinkBuddha was forthright in admitting his relative ignorance of Transhumanism; the reason he was writing about it at all was because of a seemingly unfavorable New Scientist article about cognitive scientist and Transhumanist Marvin Minski.

As a practicing Buddhist with a layman's interest in technological development and its impact on culture and civilization, I read the post with great interest.

According to current definitions, Transhumanism is an "intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death."

A lot of that seems at odds with the basic tenets of Buddhism, which regards the sloppy bad crap of life as the fertile manure from which the lotus of enlightenment sprouts. Of course, one could counter that Buddhism itself is a self-improvement trip. But that's somewhat off the mark. Buddhism seeks to improve conditions not through transcendence, but rather acceptance. This acceptance is hardly an ignorant, "oh well" approach to things, however. There's an almost scientific approach to the examination of consciousness, until the neurosis brought on by attachment to ego is exposed under the all-encompassing light of realization.

I'm also interested in Transhumanism, but recognize the enormous ethical implications human enhancement will bring about. We never really reconciled the last century's misguided stabs at eugenics, and I dare say that DNA tweaking and bio/nanotech "add-ons" will create a political shitstorm the likes of which humanity has never seen.

And this technology isn't in some far-off sci-fi future, either. Given technological measures such as Moore's Law, some observers suggest we're at the cusp of a Singularity. But that's another story. Kind of.

I haven't yet reconciled my personal Buddhist practice with possible technological "improvements" to my biological self. Like the Christian philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, I do believe that the universe (or God) seeks to know itself, and technological progress is a function of evolution. Hell, everything can be expressed by data.

Of course, it's probable that everything can also be expressed by feeling and karmic connectivity. You know, like, rocks having souls an' shit.

Are they both sides of the same coin? Is the universe an infinitely macro and micro orderly chaos machine? Are the mandalas of Buddhism actually spiritual representations of fractal expression?

Are you there, George Dvorsky? It's me, Casey.

Bye, Bye Dalai?

Photo by Phil Borges

Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, wants his followers to decide whether or not he reincarnates. Sorta like "American Idol," but with monks.

Unfortunstely, the Chinese government has declared authority in choosing the next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. Seems they're not satisfied with micromanaging the lives of their more than 1 billion citizens (including those in Tibet) — they want to meddle in their afterlives, too. That's right, those tainted-toy making commies r in ur Nirvana pickin ur Lamas.

But the 14th and current Dalai Lama — believed to be the reincarnation of Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion — isn't taking it sitting down, in full-lotus position or otherwise. From The Buddhist Channel website:

The exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader proposed yesterday to hold a referendum among his 13-14 million followers around the world — before his death — on whether he should be reincarnated or not.

If the majority vote against it he said he would simply not be reborn, ending a lineage that tradition dictates dates back to the late 14th century, when a young shepherd was appointed the first Dalai Lama.

If the vote was in favour he said that he might appoint a reincarnation while he was still alive, breaking the 600-year-old tradition of being reborn as a small boy after his death.

His proposals not only raise some mind-bending metaphysical questions: they put China’s atheist Communist leaders in the unusual position of claiming to be the protectors of Tibetan Buddhist tradition.

The 72 year-old Lama is in excellent health, but wants to ensure that Tibet has a say in its spiritual leadership. How can you not love this guy? He's a Progressive Democrat! Could you imagine Pope Benedictine XVI allowing the world's Catholics to vote for their next Funny Hat Guy? Never happen.

As the Dalai Lama himself says:

"As early as 1969 I made it clear that [whether] the very institution of the Dalai Lama continue or not, is up to the Tibetan people. So [if] the majority of the Tibetan people should feel the centuries old institution of the Dalai Lama [is] no longer much relevant then the Dalai Lama institution automatically will cease. . . The very purpose of reincarnation is to carry the task which started by previous life, which is not yet accomplished. If my death comes while we are still as refugees then my reincarnation logically will come outside Tibet, who can eventually carry the work which I started."

What's amusing to me is how the Chinese government is fighting to preserve the traditions of a nation they refuse to recognize:

“The reincarnation of the living Buddha is a unique way of succession of Tibetan Buddhism and follows relatively complete religious rituals and historical conventions,” the Foreign Ministry statement said. “The Dalai Lama’s statement is in blatant violation of religious practice and historical procedure.”

This from the country that, a handful of decades ago, tried to wipe out Buddhist monks like the Empire eradicated Jedi.

I like that the Dalai Lama is placing the choice before worldwide practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism.

Does this mean I get to vote?

Identity.

I spent part of the summer re-reading a few Philip K. Dick novellas; specifically the ones in the new Library of America edition. Shaky prose aside, Dick was a genius at examining the seemingly paper-thin constructs that comprise individual (and group) identity.

Of course, he did have a head full of amphetamines and a predisposition to mental illness.

But what if perceiving one's lack of fixed selfhood didn't result in madness? Is such awareness even worth pursuing? Most people are loathe to even approach the idea, especially in this culture, where ownership and entitlement are the essence of self-definition.

My friend Jebson, who is currently in Amsterdam pursuing a graduate degree in Hermetics and Western Esotericism (or is he gobbling fresh mushrooms and taking baths in hash oil?), recently wrote me with the advisement that even art needn't be proprietary:

In Western literature and art, there is a salient emphasis placed on the creator and not the created... Eastern art tends to be devoid of author, or painter or musician. I'm not saying I prefer it that way, but in our culture I think the artist is far too hard on himself for not accomplishing certain financial and/or commercial goals.

That made me think back to a profile I did on sound artist Greg Davis, who, in the course of our chat, stressed that he always tries to "let go" of a piece of music once he's finished with it. Playing the devil's advocate, I suggested that art is necessarily egotistical, being the imposition of one's aesthetic will on reality. He countered that he thinks of it more as "putting a frame around something" — an attitude not dissimilar from John Cage, a lifetime Zen acolyte and one of Davis' chief inspirations.

Hitting the cushion (with my ass, not my fist) every day has served to re-remind me of these points, to the degree that I can't believe I ever forgot them in the first place. Ego is one tricky bitch.

In any case, it's interesting to see things from the perspective of relative freedom. Struggles and hardships continue to occur, but with less fixation, they're less enduring. Ideas about oneself are more or less like cloud formations in a semi-clear sky. Kind of whoopty-fuck, you know? Selfhood becomes like a wardrobe. This one might be all you can currently afford, but it fits well enough. Tomorrow, maybe you'll even wear a vest — who knows?

Still, there are downsides to fluid identity. Those unwilling or incapable of observing their states of being may find themselves the victims of dangerous delusions. A recent post on Undead Molly references an article in the latest Wired about an internet relationship involving multiple levels of identity fraud. The spookiest thing about the story is the degree to which the principals fooled themselves. So be sure to stay mindful when you're self-swapping, k?

Nothing may be true and everything indeed permitted, but that doesn't mean it can't be plain nasty business.

Stay tuned for your regular programming...

This is the End...

Last Sunday's New York Times Magazine featured an article on the Mayan calendar as it relates to current metaphysical conjecture.

In case you missed it: "The Final Days."

Author Benjamin Anastas did a fair job of parsing the current thinking on 2012 without falling prey to generalizations. Instead, the piece displays a rational skepticism rare in mass media coverage of fringe culture.

Anastas either talks to or references most of the heavy hitters in this scene: Daniel Pinchbeck, José Arguelles, Carl Johan Calleman, John Major Jenkins and, of course, the late Terrence McKenna.

The overriding opinion of these experts is that the End of History will be dramatic yet spiritually liberating. This attitude is no doubt inherited from the New Age belief in consciousness transformation — a non-dogmatic, but no less rigid view of our cosmic destiny leftover from the Aquarian 1960s. But to dismiss today's seekers as starry-eyed hippies does them a great disservice. With the exception of Pinchbeck, who revels in his position as countercultural psychopomp, most of the individuals mentioned in the Times piece apply academic-grade analysis to the subject. And they know their Mayan mythology.

Although the article was well-written, it was but a summarization. I'd like to see a longer piece putting today's apocalyptic assumptions in a wider historical context. Somebody pitch the New Yorker — I'm tired of environmental cage-rattling and artist profiles.

History has shown that End Times come and go. What makes this one different is the belief in a positive outcome. Instead of harsh judgments and eternal damnation, this reckoning will supposedly provide a shit in cosmological perspective, as the shackles of space-time are forever loosed. Ride the snake!!!

Certainly not all the 2012 proponents are kooks. So why has mainstream media been slow to recognize the phenomenon? Each holiday season, Time magazine devotes space to the archaeological underpinnings of Christianity, a religion whose Final Judgment is no less bizarre.

Perhaps the press and academia are frightened of discussing New Age philosophy, lest the movement be legitimized. But you can't ignore a cultural phenomenon based on professional bias. The spiritual seeking of the '60s spawned an industry of opportunism, but it also changed how we perceive our place in the cosmos. Kudos to the Times for at least scratching the surface of what will no doubt become a major movement, bullshit or otherwise.

End Transmission.

Massive linkdump + commentary = major procrastination.

I really need to start boxing up stuff (including this here computer) for Tuesday's move, but I also really need to make a dump. A linkdump, you scatological bastards.

But being a man given to undue verbosity, I feel compelled to expound on each link.

This weekend, I crossed the digital T's on my Seven Days article about the death of the compact disc. Today, I found a first-person account of a fella who, having converted his CDs to MP3s, sold his entire collection to the local record shop. This economically savvy move made him a pariah at the selfsame store. Well, for a couple of days, anyway. The piece was published in a Halifax, Nova Scotia paper. Who knew they even had iPods up there?

The Police reunion show in Vancouver was celebrated by fans and critics alike. But not by sticksman Stewart Copeland, who thinks they sounded like shit.

Maybe we should just give these goddamn reunions a rest.

Speaking of: I'm a huge and motherfuckin' unapologetic Jane's Addiction fan, but I never supported their so-called reunion(s). Nor am I down with down Perry Farrell's new act, Satellite Party. I only bring it up 'cause the latter have a crappy new album with even crappier cover art. This from the dude who created a life-size, paper mache sculpture of a mystical ménage à trois for his band's second album. You know, after the one with the flame-headed, nude Siamese twins.

We've been slacking on the metaphysics lately. Are you hip to the noosphere? Did you know that Princeton University aided the Global Consciousness Project in analyzing the planet's psychic response to 9/11? The results are pretty interesting.

Wow. That's a lot of links. OK — off to pack.

PS: if you don't hear from me in the next week or so, rest assured that James P. Caldwell — also mysteriously but affectionately known as Slider — will pick up the slack. Right, Slide?