The qawwali is an acquired taste, and takes huge amounts of patience. The good thing is that like classical music and dance, if you 'tune in' then you don't need technical knowledge. I must emphasise, and I am being a tad bit defensive, that 'Allah' here could be seen as a superior power, even a superior self.
This poem by Kahlil Gibran is an extension of what I was attempting to say at the beginning:
Have I spoken this day of aught else?
Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,
And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?
Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?
Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?"
All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self.
He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked.
The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin.
And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage.
The freest song comes not through bars and wires.
And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn.
Hi FV,
ReplyDeleteOne can take any view of a delusion such as god or allah and wax philosophical. I understand what you mean by the absence of walls, in a seamlessly-stitched-in-with-everything-around-you sense. But then but viewing this as a "higher power" or a "different form of the self" intrinsically creates the very walls that one tries to move away from, yes? Leaving aside the bit about faith, the the lyrics are interesting, even if self-contradictory -- that is, someone in the "prison" of unwavering faith can hardly pretend that this containment is equivalent of an uncaged songbird. Personally, I find the vocalizing a bit weak but I guess years of listening to heavy metal is at fault there, but it is all quite mellow and soothing.
-Al
PS: I see you are still adept at pushing them buttons of people who are easily outraged..sheer talent, if I may say so. :) Be well.
Hi Al:
ReplyDeleteOne does not need a delusion to wax philosophical. The crap around us makes us into thinkers, no? The breaking of walls in this case was borders. (I agree, this is not great singing.)
'Higher power' and 'different form of self' are not walls, but ceilings. Ok?!
PS: Me pushing buttons? I thought they come with their drenched fingers and poke into electric sockets.
PPS: Good to see you, again!
HI FV,
ReplyDelete"One does not need a delusion to wax philosophical. The crap around us makes us into thinkers, no? The breaking of walls in this case was borders."
different strokes, etc. but the crap around me makes me makes me want to stop thinking most of the time -- sometimes the only response to the ugliness around you involves abusing a bag filled with sand.
borders in the mind are just a creation of the mind, so they can be removed as easily as they are created, though they get burnt in over long periods and have the illusion of being unsurmountable...
'Higher power' and 'different form of self' are not walls, but ceilings. Ok?!
Just noting that in the absence of gravity, a ceiling is just another wall...I suppose "faith" is some sort of gravity, a delusion powerful enough to create "gravity".
"Me pushing buttons? I thought they come with their drenched fingers and poke into electric sockets. "
Sure you had an appropriately innocent, doe-eyed look while writing the above, to match the above denial :) "paavam, paappa vayile verala vecchaal kadikaadhu" as the saying goes in tamil. roughly translated "what an innocent little baby, doesn't know how to bite"
You provide the electricity and they provide the fingers and the subsequent screaming and one-sided agony. you provocateur you. ;) (just kidding)
-Al
Forget all that for now, Al. Tell me about your views on the RG piece.
ReplyDeleteI am sure you have been around, and posted anon. (And not very nicely at that.)
Walls, ceilings etc are mere concrete.
Hi FV:
ReplyDelete"Tell me about your views on the RG piece.
I am sure you have been around, and posted anon. (And not very nicely at that.) "
Hey now, I would sign off as myself if I had to say something to say, you know, even if it was in disagreement. I saw kind of strong responses to that RG article, which I admit to not having read carefully (just now, since you asked me to give an opinion under duress!). Not sure which anonymous handle you seem to be certain is me, seeing as there are multiple not-nice anonymous comments, but none of them was me, FWIW.
Politics in general bores me these days, not least because it is all completely pointless for the most part. I just logged off life in general, virtual and real...just sick of it all. My view is that your views on politics come with some perspective since you think about such things a lot clearly, so I don't think I can intelligently comment on politics. The materials of which no-existent walls and ceilings are made seem more interesting, not to mention closer to my area of expertise.
I think you are aware of my views of RG from comments I made here in the past (vaguely recall this), where I probably dissed him for being clueless in general - don't know enough of what's he's been up to lately to say anything new. Anyway, probably should have heeded my better judgement and not logged on...oh well.
regards,
-Al
Hi FV,
ReplyDeleteSo I watched the RG interview you wrote about on youtube, not sure if it was the entire interview though. (you made me do it!!)
Occam's razor tells me that RG is just reading off a script somebody wrote for him, especially since he is not saying anything that has not been said by his mom or the current PM. Frankly, mildly puzzled why this speech would evoke strong reactions such as those in the comments section for your RG post.
I suppose one could view RG's speech in a way as ascribed some sort of deliberate strategy behind the words, but then a variation of Hanlon's law could also be at play, i.e., mistaking random events for a well-thought out strategy...who knows. Wish I cared enough about this topic to think more about this to say something more intelligent...sorry. :(
-Al
FV,
ReplyDeleteI meant interview, not speech by RG. (just clarifying that I did watch the right youtube video before commentifying) -- for once, neither side was yelling on this TV show for some reason, which was a surprise.
-Al
AL!
ReplyDeleteGood to . . . ah, "see" you, one might say. :)
To the chase:
>>But then but viewing this as a "higher power" or a "different form of the self" intrinsically creates the very walls that one tries to move away from, yes?<<
For me, it's a matter of perspective. Literally. So then, yes, wall and/or ceiling remains -- even if re-moved.
If I may, there was, apparently, an occasion when Jesus was invited to the house of one of the chief Pharisees as a guest on the sabbath, to dine with this august personage's retinue:
And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. (Luk 14:7-10)
It seems to me that those walls and/or ceilings -- and however self-imposed -- howsoever a delusion -- might be seen as a form of self-restraint, something that used to be honoured, indeed valued, in a guest -- in a friend. Doubtless you're familiar with the phrase, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread?"
And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever
springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?
Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?
Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself;
This for my soul, and this other for my body?"
There would seem a similar sentiment in play here by the poet, particularly if we consider the last phrase, "the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn," to underscore a certain lack of or disparately distributed restraint. :)
>>Personally, I find the vocalizing a bit weak but I guess years of listening to heavy metal is at fault there, but it is all quite mellow and soothing.<<
Does that mean you didn't catch the brief digi-da-digi-digi-de riff in there? A nice touch, I thought.
Mark
Al:
ReplyDelete1. As you might have guessed that particular piece just got the most bizarre reactions, not all that I could use, although I let many pass through. I had to, uncharacteristically, keep a watch.
Let me just say, it could be a garbled 'moment' that led me to ask you.
You have said No, and I accept it.
2. I'll skip the views on RG, I am aware of them from earlier, and I wonder why if it were just so bad it is agitating people so much that I still have to moderate comments.
Thanks for your input on the few words here. Right now, I am unable to add anything.
Hi mstaab,
ReplyDelete"Good to . . . ah, "see" you, one might say. :)"
Hey mark, Or as young hipsters like us greet each other these days, waddup dawg! :)
"For me, it's a matter of perspective. Literally. So then, yes, wall and/or ceiling remains -- even if re-moved."
Of course, that places a certain strain on the semantics of the word "remove", but I suppose if one needs to maintain illusions of the "divine" other, then such walls need to exist just as matter of differentiating from the self, even when the "other" is just a figment of one's own imagination...like a child plays with its imaginary friends, who are all of course very different from the child own's mental image of itself...would be too boring to play with imaginary clones of oneself surely.
"If I may, there was, apparently, an occasion when Jesus was invited to the house of one of the chief Pharisees as a guest on the sabbath, to dine with this august personage's retinue:"
From the outside, this parable seems more of a means to avoid looking like a fool in social situations (by sitting at a privileged seat and then being told to move down, rather than take a non-privileged seat and move up) which could happen if one is presumptuous enough to take the host for granted.
(hit word limit...continuing in next comment)
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that those walls and/or ceilings -- and however self-imposed -- howsoever a delusion -- might be seen as a form of self-restraint, something that used to be honoured, indeed valued, in a guest -- in a friend. Doubtless you're familiar with the phrase, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread?"
I can see the value when dealing with real people that can react to one's actions... and I can inveigle from the thoughts behind the parable that I should not have rushed in with comments on the RG post, as a guest on this comment section to our gracious host here :) Seriously though, it is not very clear to me that such restraint is needed for imaginary friends, except for the purpose of maintain such illusions. Granted that illusions of the mind serve their own purpose in stabilizing other parts of one's mind, maybe computational neuroscience will figure out the value of creating useful illusions to stabilize the brains, when such illusions are imagined with care, of course :)
"And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever
springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?
Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?
Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself;
This for my soul, and this other for my body?"
I read that in the sense of "how can I separate me from own illusions that is strongly believe in, given they are part of the same whole" but then not having any specific illusions of my own to cradle, it is hard for me to read such things and place it in some personal context like people who believe can, quite effortlessly I believe. Nothing more exists than the "self" which is this thing in our heads that claims to represent us at all times...words like "id" and "superego" etc. were used to identify this train of thought called "consciousness", in my own opinion only of course.
"There would seem a similar sentiment in play here by the poet, particularly if we consider the last phrase, "the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn," to underscore a certain lack of or disparately distributed restraint. :)"
Must admit my lack of proper education stops me from parsing the above sentence correctly (I mean, "the house of this soul....") ...or maybe it is lack of a common context that I may be missing. Don't quite believe in souls, so that may be part of the problem -- there is our head and what's in it, and nothing much else...humans seem to want to believe that there is something else that exists outside of mundane chemical processes in the head and body that drives living things...but then a world without such illusions is probably a good filler in the absence of knowledge. It is a lot more thrilling to believe that someone who created the universe actually cares for me as an individual than to believe that I (or any human, no matter how rich, powerful or famous) matter just about as much as a rodent in the basement in the larger scheme of things, and I mean in the time scale of a few million or billion years, given what we know now about universal time scales....that would mean coming up with entirely new reasons for doing something useful or indeed to continue one's existence, and accepting we are not all that special really.
-Al
"Thanks for your input on the few words here. Right now, I am unable to add anything. "
ReplyDeleteHi Farzana, glad you don't want to add anything...entirely too boring that topic is, for me anyway. :) I really don't care about how apathetic I may seem to observers by stating such a lack of interest. The only political party that interests me these days is the Apathy Party (where you can only be a member if you don't care to belong to the party).
I suspect people are just dealing with their cognitive dissonance in the normal way people deal with cognitive dissionance, i.e., aggression...."how dare you say something that does not compute in my head, are you stupid?" kind of response.
-Al
Al,
ReplyDelete*Young* hipsters . . . ? Thanks for being inclusive. :)
>>a figment of one's own imagination...like a child plays with its imaginary friends<<
Seems a familiar refrain -- almost a mantra -- indeed, virtually an echo in tone of the drones that descended on Farzana's RG piece. Are you trying to set the record straight, Al? :)
>>From the outside, this parable seems more of a means to avoid looking like a fool in social situations (by sitting at a privileged seat and then being told to move down, rather than take a non-privileged seat and move up) which could happen if one is presumptuous enough to take the host for granted.<<
It does at that and, yes, it could. All the more remarkable that one so highly placed and revered as this chief Pharisee should be so surrounded by those as apparently needing to be so apprised. It would seem not much has changed in two thousand years . . .
>>I can see the value when dealing with real people that can react to one's actions...<<
Indeed. How "real" were they? What sort of guests (or friends) were they to be so anxious to be seen seated proximate to . . . power, authority? Was the parable for them, or was it for the chief Pharisee?
>>and I can inveigle from the thoughts behind the parable that I should not have rushed in with comments on the RG post, as a guest on this comment section to our gracious host here :)<<
You could, but there's always the prospect of reading more into a parable than its intent. Besides, the smiley suggests you know better. :)
>>there is our head and what's in it, and nothing much else...<<
Well, nothing much else save for that which does the sorting (and re-sorting, now and again).
>>I mean in the time scale of a few million or billion years, given what we know now about universal time scales....<<
Eh? On such a scale what we "know" is speculative at best.
>>that would mean coming up with entirely new reasons for doing something useful or indeed to continue one's existence, and accepting we are not all that special really.<<
I hear you; this "chosen" business may get some traction with children, but with adults its unseemly. Restraint -- and a little humility, perhaps -- goes a long way to demonstrate that one is accepting s/he is "not all that special really." That said, try and convince a plurality -- your "we" -- of that. The poet would also seem to have known better. :)
Mark
Hi mstaab: just one clarification:
ReplyDelete"Eh? On such a scale what we "know" is speculative at best. "
I only mean we know that the scales are in the order of millions of years, not that we know anything beyond that. Extrapolating from what we know, human collective memory is patchy even for the first few thousand years. People who were considered immortal a few millenia or centuries ago are a footnote in some textbook..now consider the accumulation of such immortals over 100,000 years...how many such "immortal" personas would survive through all that and still be remembered?
"That said, try and convince a plurality -- your "we" -- of that. The poet would also seem to have known better. :)"
But the reality of not being special would remain even if people refuse to acknowledge it :) -- by that I mean, if a tree fell in the forest and no one heard it fall, one can still conclude on the lack of uprightness of said tree....
-Al
.... or beavers. :D
ReplyDeleteFV, oh, and I am glad to be back from sulking for a month :) (apologies for belated response to your welcome) -- sometimes having enemies seems to be more preferable than having "best friends", I tell you. :) Makes you lose all faith in humanity...which is hard to develop in the first place these days...
ReplyDelete-Al
Al:
ReplyDeleteI thanked you for your input to the little I said about the music/sufis etc.
{FV, oh, and I am glad to be back from sulking for a month :) (apologies for belated response to your welcome) -- sometimes having enemies seems to be more preferable than having "best friends", I tell you. :) Makes you lose all faith in humanity...which is hard to develop in the first place these days...}
No worries, but sulking is a character trait that might go well with this blog.
Anything "best" is extreme, with the possibility of burnout. Friends vs. enemies is too B/W. Dogs also qualify as humanity, as do acquaintances, colleagues and roustabouts. Have hope!