I wonder if the “awful shadow of some unseen Power” which “floats, though unseen, amongst us,” that “Spirit of Beauty” which “gives grace and truth to life’s unquiet dream,” or, also known as that “West wind” which Shelly wants both to be inspired by and to become one with; I wonder if that unknown, sublime force which he constantly grabs at and never quite reaches, which he always desires to blow through him, which he attempts to glimpse at through metaphors but cannot look at directly–I wonder if that is the same as the creative force of Goethe’s “Eternal Feminine”? Shelley says that religion has been a vain attempt at defining it, so has much of Romantic poetry, music, etc. He grasps and grasps, but can only envision it as being like wind, like “like mist o’er mountains driven,” or “music by the night wind sent / through strings of some still instrument,” or “moonlight on a midnight sream,” or like wind blowing through leaves–in short, transitory, fleeting glimpses of an intangible thing, but a thing which nevertheless inspires him. Is this force that which blows on the simmering coal which is the poet’s sensibility, igniting it and inspiring the poet, and leaving him to scramble to define what he just felt–and is that force indeed the “creative spirit”?

“Inspiration” is dangerous, for it can either create great things, or force the poet to create absolutely nothing at all. Shelley seems to be reaching towards that force, inspiration perhaps, but writing beautiful poetry whilst doing so.

Those quotes above are from his “Hymn to Intellectual Beauty” and “Ode to the Westerly Wind.”

For my service & my fidelity, I have this from the

Prince, the jewel of Memory, a magic pearl

that stores up the past.

One glance at it & everything is reborn, every-

thing brightens & revives, glistening like a

reflection of the present day.

What uncontainable joy! To reignite the suns of

learning; to relive timid successes: the mas-

ter’s compliments, expectation gratified by

honors.

O

Here it is, then:–but that part is not my own

past! Had I forgotten that? Let’s take a bet-

ter look, gaze, deep down, down to the very

depths of the magic jewel:

I see:–I see a terrified man, who looks like me

& is fleeing from me.

Victor Segalen,1874-1919

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


“Anonymous,” a loosely-organized group of militant internet users, has proclaimed war on the Church of Scientology following its attempted suppression of a propaganda video starring Tom Cruise that was recently leaked on the internet. They have, so far, taken down a plethora of Scientology websites, organized pamphlet-distribution campaigns, harassed Scientology phone and fax lines, and have caught, however glancingly, the attention of some media outlets. And they have much more planned for the future. The ultimate goal? To raise awareness of the various crimes, unethical workings, and unsavory history of the Church of Scientology, particularly within the news media.

In the news stories currently reporting the battle, “Anonymous” has been called a “group of internet hackers.” This, however, is not entirely true. The truth is that there really is no group called “Anonymous.” The “group” has no formal organization, no leaders, no official website, no members. “Anonymous” is a vast conglomeration of regular internet-users whose commitments to “Project Chanology,” as the operation is called, are extremely varied. Some members are completely emerged in the cause; they are most likely the ones who are making the videos, coming up with objectives and methods, etc; other members may only be paying marginal attention to the entire fiasco, perhaps helping out here and there, but not really investing any serious time in the effort. They are all regular people who happen to know what is going on and believe enough in the cause to contribute however they can. They are simply citizens who want change. They are anonymous vigilantes. “They” are anyone who cares enough and who knows where to go and what to do. And, in many ways, they are best suited to take on the Church.

The reason? They are, well, anonymous. There are no names for the Church to attack, nobody to blame, nobody to press charges against, nobody to sue. The group is made up of everybody, yet it is simultaneously made up of nobody. Because they are everybody, the more effective operations are necessarily benign and easily justified: In order for their attacks to be successful, they need as many people operating as possible; but if the cause is alienating, obscure, or questionable , then it won’t attract many people and it’ll flounder. Therefore it is not necessarily a force to be feared as they cannot by nature do anything contrary to society’s best interests, each member being, first and foremost, a part of society himself.

Anonymity is the best-suited method of attacking the Church of Scientology because the Church’s traditional ways of attacking its attackers will not work–simply for the reason that the Church is unaware of who its attackers are. Traditional methods of the Church generally involve frivolous legal action which threatens to deplete the “Suppressive Person’s” bank account (as opposed to well-founded legal action which would subject them to the consequences of the laws they broke), although other methods have been used as well. In this case, there is simply nobody to attack.

The other reason that anonymity is essential is because “Operation Chanology” is largely a vigilante effort, and employs illegal methods of attack, such as DDoS attacks and copyright infringements. However, the methods they are using hide their identities well enough, and furthermore there are enough of them that even if legal action were brought against some of them, it wouldn’t matter in the long run.

As for why this large group of regular society members, as I have called them, has chosen Scientology as a target, I can only point again to their manifesto, which I have linked to in the first paragraph, and to a website that explores many dark corners of the Church of Scientology.

What right does Anonymous have to attack a religion? Who are they to say what is a religion and what is not? Whatever happened to Freedom of Religion? From what I understand, “Anonymous” is not interested in the personal beliefs of the adherents of Scientology; they are interested in the questionable actions of the Church as an institution. As I said before, they are inherently benign; they simply wish to stop what they view as a criminal organization–not to prevent or persecute people based on their beliefs.

However, they are also extremely limited in what they can accomplish. The most they can do is raise awareness. Because they are simply regular citizens who believe in a cause, I’m certain that they won’t destroy any building, kill any of the church higher-ups, or harm anyone in any real way. It won’t be “Anonymous” who destroys the Church of Scientology, it will be Society. This group, “Anonymous,” is simply trying to be a catalyst for more effective action. Whether this happens or not, however, as long as a single person sees the facts that the Church has attempted to cover up and is able to make an informed decision about Scientology for himself, “Anonymous” will have succeeded.

Paris, May 29th, 1913. At le Theatre des Champs-Elysees, Igor Stravinsky, unknown and obscure, awaits nervously the premier of his new ballet, le Sacre du Printemps. As the lights and chatter dim, audience members in the front row notice the faint sound of pacing shoes moving to and fro behind the curtain. Then the sound stops. The curtain raises. The stage illuminates. All is quiet.

A lone, nervous bassoon breaks the silence; it sings a short phrase, a pleasant phrase, complete with a quick flick of embellishment. It has no harmony yet, but no matter; the harmony is easily imaginable, and the harmony would be pleasant were it audible.

But at the end of the second repetition of that phrase–at the very final note, precisely when that expected pleasant harmony is about to be added–another bassoon comes in and misses the note. Not only does he miss the note, but he continues to ruin the pleasant phrase with its expected pleasant harmony. The first bassoon continues on in its melody, but cannot escape the noisy undermining of that incorrigible accompaniment, which plagues it till its cadence (which, of course, is also ruined).

The audience, sympathizing with the melody and detesting the harmony, boos the awful playing. But after a brief pause, the piece continues, and the audience is silenced in shock.

The phrase is repeated again with a fuller accompaniment–or, at least, the orchestra tries to repeat it, and apparently fails, for they cannot seem to get the notes right and continues to play in their awful-sounding, almost painful-to-behold delirium. More booing ensues; yet still, the orchestra presses on.

The music crescendos into a tangled, dissonant mess; the pleasant melody strive to shine, to get its head above the tumultuous sea of terrible harmonies, but is constantly pushed back under; it’s kicked around, tripped up, shoved by the oppressive harmony. The orchestra had been playing the right notes all along, of course; it was Stravinsky who had mutilated the harmony, not the instrumentalists; but the audience doesn’t know this, and continues to boo, hiss, catcall, and make a ruckus. All of this noise–music included–continues on until it slows down to a few, quiet, humble pizzicato notes.

Then, that chord is played, and all hell breaks loose.

The strings pound out the hungry chord, again, again, again, again, each time hurts and pains the ear, pounding, pounding, the crazed notes fly from the stage, steadily, steadily, the brain rattles and shakes, over and over, relentless, over and under flights of sheer insanity by the other instruments. The rhythm, the noise, the sound, the dancing, the costumes, the lighting, the staging, the energy; and the entire house explodes into a mass of tangled fury.

The audience begins crying out, screaming, writhing, biting, tearing, pounding, in a tumultuous mass of self-destruction, beating itself over the head with its madness. A man here is bouncing in his chair, eyes blankly staring forward, his fists beating in rhythm on the head of the man sitting in front of him; neither notice. A pair there have begun punching each other in the jaw. Programs flutter around in the air. The music is hardly audible above the shouting, crying, screaming of the audience. Back on stage, the choreographer calls out the cues to the dancers; the manager begs the audience to calm down; the conductor flails his arms, squeezing every last drop of sound out of his orchestra; the composer runs out of the theater, lamenting the failure of his cherished Rite of Spring: Scenes from Pagan Russia.

The work depicted pagan dancing and is divided into two parts; “Adoration of the Earth,” and “The Sacrifice,” wherein a young maiden dances herself to death for the benefit of the Spring god. It obviously struck some sort of chord within the human psyche, some strange, primal urge that the audience of that premier simply could not handle. Incidentally, it also changed the history of music; but I’m more interested in how the audience reacted.

This is not the only instance of music driving people crazy, although it is the most famous and the most startling. Music had been experimenting with dissonance for a long time before May 29th, 1913, but always in nice, tolerable doses. Stravinsky broke that boundary and flung insanity at his audience; the insanity burgeoned.

This seems proof to me that there is some fundamentally primitive aspect of humankind that cannot be reached by thinking or reasoning. It has, since our primitive days, has been buried in civility, repressed by the requirements of social interaction; something that required the abstract nature of music to momentarily unlock on that night in Paris. I assume that there are other instances where this trait resurfaces; it might, for example, explain how wartime atrocities can be committed and acquiesced to by entire civilizations–or even how, in the heat of battle, a normal man can kill another man. Of course, there are other factors; but there must be something within man’s nature that, when activated, causes this sort of thing to happen. What other shadows of man’s past lurk in the collective consciousness, waiting to be released? What horrors will result from them?

Next Page »