Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Понедельник

Слишком сильное сосредоточение на себе порождает ужасную усталость. Человек в такой позиции глух и слеп ко всему остальному. Эта странная усталость мешает ему искать и видеть чудеса, которые во множестве находились вокруг него. Поэтому кроме проблем у него ничего не остается.
- - -
Все пути одинаковы: они ведут в никуда. Есть ли у этого пути сердце? Если есть, то это хороший путь; если нет, то от него никакого толку. Оба пути ведут в никуда, но у одного есть сердце, а у другого - нет. Один путь делает путешествие по нему радостным: сколько ни странствуешь - ты и твой путь нераздельны. Другой путь заставит тебя проклинать свою жизнь. Один путь дает тебе силы, другой - уничтожает тебя.
- - -
Обычный человек является либо победителем, либо побежденным и, в соответствии с этим, становится преследователем или жертвой. Эти два состояния превалируют у всех, кто не видит. Видение рассеивает иллюзию победы, поражения или страдания.

К.К.

(30/10/2006)

Labels:

Monday, October 30, 2006

Playing In Asia

Goodbye Godzilla, Hello Kitty
The Origins and Meaning of japanese Cuteness

by NORIHIRO KATO

Norihiro Kato is a literary critic and professor at Waseda University's School of International Liberal Studies. This essay was translated from the original japanese by Michael Emmerich.

Since the end of the 1990s, Japanese subculture products have been growing increasingly visible throughout Europe, the United States, Asia and Latin America. The Japanese government took notice of this trend only in 2000, but since then the Japanese Agency of Cultural Affairs and other governmental organs have been searching for ways to foster the development of the nation's culture industry.
The range of products is startlingly diverse, including many accessible to a general audience: the fiction of Haruki Murakami and Banana Yoshimoto; anime by Hayao Miyazaki and Mamoru Oshii; the live action films of Takeshi "Beat" Kitano; and fashion by Issey Miyake and Rei Kawakubo, to name just a few. Many other products are aimed at more particular groups, including Tamagotchi "virtual pets", Hello Kitty, Pokemon, and a slew of manga, anime and computer games that hardly register on mainstream radars but claim a devoted cult following. The historically self-conscious art exhibition/manifesto, "Little Boy: The Arts of Japan's Exploding Subculture", held at the Japan Society of New York in the spring and summer of 2005 and curated by the artist Takashi Murakami, might be considered another product of this wave-but one with an unusually recursive character to it.
There's so much Japanese culture on the move that it's hard to get a grip on it all. That said, there is one key term that epitomizes the current boom in Japanese subculture: kawaii, whose nuances are only partly captured by its rather cardboard common English translation, "cute." If we view the spread of Japanese subcultural products as the rise of "Japanese cool", as many have of late, this new 2pt-century surge might perhaps be characterized as the rise within Japanese cool of "Japanese cuteness."A good deal has been said in recent years about Japanese cuteness.l At the center of the discussion has been the question of what in Japanese subculture has allowed it to begin supplanting the standard emblems of global popular culture, epitomized by the Hollywood blockbuster and cartoon characters such as Mickey Mouse and Snoopy. Two points have to be addressed if we want to answer this question:
First, how does "Japanese cool", with its cast of "cute" characters, differ from "American cool" and its characters meant for children, which have long set the global standard.
Second, what is it about this difference that has made it possible for Japanese cool to challenge American cool.
Since critics have yet to offer a persuasive answer to either of these questions, perhaps we need to come at them from a different angle.

From the Cultural to the Political
Japan has a long tradition of fascination with little things. The Pillow Book, a miscellany composed in the 11th century by Sei Shanagon, observes that, "Not only lotus leaves, but little hollyhock flowers, and indeed all small things, are most adorable." In his insightful analysis of Japanese society, Smaller is Better: Japan's Mastery of the Miniature (Kodansha America, 1984), which uses this same quotation by Sei Shanagon as an epigraph, the Korean scholar O-Young Lee argues that for centuries Japanese have used a variety of techniques of making things smaller-shrinking, compressing, folding, excerpting, deleting and so on-to make them more beautiful, more durable, newer and better. Bonsai, fans, Japanese dolls, obento boxed meals and rock gardens that represent an ocean are all good examples, though perhaps the modern epitome of the small, durable, high quality product is the Sony Walkman. O-Young's cultural analysis offers a compelling explanation of postwar Japanese accomplishments in developing hardware like cameras, watches and computer games, but it does not help us understand the emergence of small "soft" products of the sort that define "Japanese cuteness." The booming culture of cuteness that has been on the rise in Japan since the 1980s, represented by characters like Hello Kitty, Pokemon and Sailor Moon, clearly has less to do with a cultural background that stretches back into antiquity than with the particular climate of postwar Japanese politics and society.
The difference between Hello Kitty and the Japanese tradition of smallness becomes clear when we compare the contemporary feline with a character who represents the old tradition, Issun Boshi, or "Little One-Inch." Similar to the German story of Tom Thumb, the tale of Issun Boshi concerns a boy about an inch tall, small enough to sit in the palm of one's hand, who rows to the capital in a bowl and defeats an enemy many times larger than himself This was the tradition in Japan: Things grow stronger and more effective when they diminish in size. Hello Kitty, on the other hand, is small, soft, and adorable, but she never expresses any will of her own, and she hardly seems like a character one would want to rely on in a pinch. The whole secret to her cuteness lies in the fact that she is obviously not what the Walkman is: She's, but not stronger or better.
The defining characteristics of Hello Kitty stand out still more clearly when she is set alongside the character Bou in Spirited Away, the 2001 anime by Hayao Miyazaki, whose films have played a major role in the popularization of recent Japanese culture abroad. Bou, the overprotected son of Yubaba-mistress of the bathhouse in which much of the movie is set-first appears as a monstrous, thoroughly spoiled. baby who remains ensconced in his nursery, surrounded by fancy toys. Part way through the film, a spell transforms him into a tiny mouse (a latter-day Issun Boshi) and he goes off to overcome various obstacles, growing stronger in the process. Bou clearly embodies the cultural dynamic of "smaller is better"; Hello Kitty, who just sits there, does not.
Hello Kitty is also quite different from little characters who originate in Europe and the United States like Snoopy, Mickey Mouse and the members of the Moomin family. While these characters serve as objective correlatives for childhood as a point in the human maturation process, Hello Kitty has been plucked from that narrative of growth and set down in a world without adults as an objective correlative of unchanging immaturity. Hello Kitty has no mouth, and certain critics have seen this as a symbol of the social apathy and compliance that characterize consumerism. But the truth is that Hello Kitty isn't just missing a mouth; she also has no story, no obstacles to overcome, and thus achieves no growth.
Seen in light of these comparisons, Hello Kitty emerges as a particular character with a history of her own that cannot just be ascribed to differences between Asia and the West, the United States and Japan. There is more going on here than facile dualistic references to the history of two cultures or civilizations can explain. As I see it, there is a good reason Hello Kitty appeared when she did, after Japan had experienced nearly half a century of "democratization."
On April 28, 1952, almost seven years after the end of the war, the U.S. occupation ended and Japan formally regained its independence. Hardly anyone in Japan remembers that date, however. This is only natural, because as a result of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which went into effect on the day the occupation ended, U.S. forces continued to be stationed throughout Japan and the nation remained in what was substantially a state of political subordination to the United States. Considering that the American military still has bases in Japan, one might say the occupation and democratization of Japan still isn't over.
In 2003 the democratization of Japan was cited as a success story by those seeking to justify the postwar democratization of the former Ba'athi regime in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. But how successful was Japan's democratization? Surely the ongoing chill in Japan's relations with its East Asian neighbors suggests that the results are deeply problematic, and hints that even now, more than fifty years after the official end of the occupation, Japanese politics and society have yet to recover fully from the shock.
On the other hand, maybe there is no need to reference actual conditions. After all, isn't the very idea of a foreign power endeavoring to force democratization onto another state a contradiction in terms? As all Japanese adults know, Japan's postwar constitution, which presents itself as a statement of popular sovereignty framed by the Japanese people, was drawn up by the occupation forces.
Or consider Hirohito, the Emperor Showa.
As utterly self-evident as it was that he, too, had been responsible for the war, the United States stepped in to shield him, letting him off the hook at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial and allowing him to retain his position as emperor-if now a human one in the newly democratized state. Hirohito's acceptance of this occupational transformation represented a shameless betrayal of those who had died in his name, and while the United States saw this as unavoidable if the democratization of Japan were to succeed, it played havoc with the nation's moral fiber. Democratization was carried out in Japan in a way that dealt a fatal blow to citizens' faith in the fundamental concepts that lie at the very core of politics, including morality, justice and the very idea of having political convictions. The pseudo democratization of Japan has, in fact, prevented the recuperation of a genuine sense of the political.
Japan has never said much to the rest of the world about the after-effects of the occupation and its attempts at democratization, or about the bizarre position in which the nation has found itself. The problems with Japan's democratization run deep. Even the concept of democratization needs to be treated as a problem, but so far neither the Japanese government nor the Japanese media has addressed these issues head on. But if little has been said explicitly about the occupation's after-effects and about the troubles that have haunted postwar Japanese society, the problems have perhaps begun to be marked in another way. This is the meaning of Japanese cuteness.

Levi-Strauss and Spirited Away
I have noted the difference between contemporary Japanese cuteness and earlier instances of Japanese smallness. Claude Levi-Strauss' theory of miniatures and Jacques Lacan's discussion of the imaginary give us two good ways to explore the issue further.
Levi-Strauss begins by asking why people take such delight in miniatures, and suggests that the reason lies in a reversal that takes place in the process of our perception of them. Ordinarily, when we are confronted with some huge object-a life-size replica of the Titanic, for instance-we first take in individual parts and only arrive at a recognition of the whole by a process of synthesis. In the case of a miniature, however, as we cradle the ship in the palm of our hand, the process is reversed: First we see the whole, then we take in the parts. This perceptual reversal is enabled by the compression and erasure of various features of the actual object. A similar sort of reduction and reversal takes place even in the case of full-size replicas, "since graphic or plastic transposition always involves giving up certain dimensions of the object: volume in painting, color, smell, tactile impressions in sculpture and the temporal dimension in both." The pleasure of the perceptual reversal derives, Levi-Strauss argues, from the reductions that take place, which sweep away the resistance offered by the hard reality of the real; life-size person or object, replacing it in the viewer's mind with an awareness of his own subjectivity: ''A child's doll is no longer an enemy, a rival or even an interlocutor. In it and through it a person is made into a subject."2
Japanese society, creating its new culture of the scaled down, has become incapable of tolerating silence, afflicted with a terror of misunderstandings. Direct confrontation with hard realities must, at any cost, be circumvented. Many foreigners who visit Japan for the first time are struck by the excessively coddling, "education mama"- style culture of overprotection that is found in. every large city. Guardrails separate almost every road from every sidewalk, recorded announcements incessantly warn people waiting for trains and subways not to step beyond the yellow line that runs parallel to the edge of the platform "because it's dangerous." Eventually, these overprotective admonitions inspire the peculiar sense of bewilderment that Sophia Coppola so astutely conveys in Lost in Translation.
For some reason, too, television commercials in Japan tend to follow a fairly standard plot that starts with a lot of goofing around, poking fun at things, and comes to an end when all the characters break out dancing. Everything is filtered through a mild, lukewarm haze, a prism of fashionable items that deflects the viewer's attention. Beyond the prism, in the unfiltered world, everyone is terrified of getting hurt, and of hurting one another. By means of a series of ingenious, carefully orchestrated maneuvers, the necessity of coming face to face with other humans, of being sober, sincere and right, of having pride, dignity and convictions-all this is whittled away, reduced, erased, circumvented.
Now consider Hayao Miyazaki's Sprited Away. The main character in this anime, a girl named Chihiro, passes through a tunnel and emerges into a bizarre new world in which her parents are turned into pigs: She saves them and her family and finally returns to this world, where she finds, like Rip van Winkle, that years have passed in what seemed a short time. Structurally, this tale can be mapped onto the fate of the Japanese who found, when they tried to get back to their lives after passing through the occupation, that there no longer was an old life to which they could return.
If we read the film this way, the bathhouse run by the witch Yubaba becomes a homologue of the peculiar social space of postwar Japan after the experience of democratization stripped it of its ability to produce political value by and for itself In Miyazaki's film, Yubaba, who would be a symbol of evil if this were a Disney cartoon, is paired with her twin sister, Zeniba, a witch who lives in her own house and could perhaps be construed as a symbol of good. Miyazaki doesn't have Chihiro join forces with Zeniba, the incarnation of good, to defeat Yubaba, the incarnation of evil, though, and neither does Chihiro make Yubaba arrive on her own at a recognition of the evil of her ways. Chihiro saves her parents and leaves the world of the bathhouse behind without changing anything. People can't banish evil from the world all that easily, but even in the midst of intractable contradictions, they can overcome small difficulties, and they can still mature. As Miyazaki himself has said in interviews, this is the message he was trying to convey in Spirited Away.
For a viewer steeped in a Hollywood-style worldview rooted in a binary opposition between good and evil, Miyazaki's message is bound to seem frustratingly ambiguous. But this is the answer the director formulated to the vexed question of how postwar Japan, which long ago lost its faith in clearly opposed standards of value such as good and evil, adult and child, right and wrong, belief and disbelief, might build a solid moral foundation for itself without lapsing into either nihilism or the fabrication of false pride.
Think a little more about the relationship between Zeniba and Yubaba. Watching Spirited Away, it is easy to miss the fact that the two never appear together. The voices of both women are done by the same actress, Natsuki Mari, and when the first characters of their names (zeni meaning "money" and yu meaning "hot water") are combined, they form the word "sento", meaning "public bath." Miyazaki also observes in notes to his scenario that the two witches, who are twins, wear exactly the same rings, and in the same order. And it's true: You do notice this when you watch the movie. So are Yubaba, the incarnation of evil, and Zeniba, the incarnation of good, actually one and the same person? Is the world of this film one in which the two extremes of good and evil are linked, like the two sides of a Mobius strip?
No answer is provided to this question.
Clearly, though, for Miyazaki the world of the bathhouse is less like what Jacques Lacan termed the "symbolic order", which is structured by language and clearly distinguishes good and evil, than the "imaginary order", in which rigid boundaries do not yet exist between good and evil, self and other. Lacan says that infants in the first 18 months of life, who have yet to separate from their mothers and possess no ego, live in the imaginary.
If so, then the imaginary order of the bathhouse is the world Japan created for itself in the wake of the war. It was a world in which Japan was forbidden to have a military and compelled to deny pre-war ideology in its entirety, in which it found itself unable to piece together its own political ideas, making its own the values that underwrote the new postwar ideals of democracy, peace and international cooperation. Miyazaki's bathhouse is the result of Japan's postwar democratization-a world with no political language, no standards of good and evil. It is a world with no adult models, infatuated with cuteness.
No political solution has yet been found for the contradictions Japanese society was forced to swallow in the wake of defeat, so the contradictions have been suppressed. Sigmund Freud described as "uncanny" everything "that ought to have been kept secret and hidden and has come to light", things that are terrible precisely because they are "too close to home." The processes I have described saddled postwar Japan with an abundance of memories it did not wish to confront-in other words, with an uncanny history. Everything possible is done to avoid this history, to sterilize it, sanitize it, render it harmless. The overprotective character of contemporary Japanese society, symbolized by all the announcements and the careful mildness of the television commercials, is often described as excessively "motherly" in contrast to the excessively "fatherly" discipline of wartime Japan. In fact, we might just as well think of it in terms of exorcism, as a means of banishing the uncanny demons of the past.

The Uncanny Godzilla
This form of postwar Japanese exorcism is most often accomplished through a process of miniaturization like that discussed by Levi-Strauss. Godzilla furnishes an excellent example of how this works.
The relationship between postwar Japan and Godzilla runs very deep. The first movie, released in 1954, reached an audience of about 9,610,000 people; by 2004, fifty years after the series was inaugurated, 28 films had been produced and seen by a total of99,250,000 people. The first figure corresponds to about 10 percent of the population of Japan in 1954; the second comes close to the average population of the entire country over the next fifty years.
Why does Godzilla touch the hearts of so many Japanese? The first movie was essentially a monster film based on Hollywood's King Kong, but it was also intended as an expression of protest against the u.s. testing of a hydrogen bomb on the Bikini Atoll in 1954, during which the Japanese ship Daigo Fukuryumaru and its crew were exposed to radiation, in some cases fatally. The creators of the first Godzilla film were quite explicit about their political message, and when the movie is interpreted as having a message, it is generally read in this way, as a prayer for peace and a protest against the hydrogen bomb.
But of course there is more to Godzilla than that. Anti-hydrogen bomb pacifism can hardly account for the production and continued popularity of 28 movies over half a century. We need to look elsewhere if we want to really understand the Godzilla phenomenon.
Why is it that after being awakened by a hydrogen bomb from thousands of years of sleep on the floor of the South Pacific, Godzilla keeps returning, time after time, to Japan? Doesn't it seem likely that he would occasionally strike out in a different direction, make a stop on the shores of Australia, for example? Yet he only visits Japan. The reason for this is clear: Godzilla is a revenant, the returning spirit of the Japanese who died in that war we would rather forget. (This isn't apparent in the American remake of the first Godzilla, issued in 1956; in that remake everything that clashed with a Hollywood sensibility was cut out and the whole movie reworked. But the original contains an abundance of details that support this interpretation.)
Once the war was over, the newly human Emperor Showa - freshly relieved of his war responsibility by the United States-led the citizens of Japan in committing a spectacular national betrayal of the 3.1 million fellow citizens who died during World War II. This is largely what the democratization of Japan meant in what we can call the psycho-domestic context of postwar Japan. Prior to the defeat, these war dead had been depicted as defenders of their country, soldiers who fought off the hated enemy soldiers of Britain and the United States, or as innocents who lost their lives as a result of inhuman fire-bombings. After the war, their deaths took on a different cast: The soldiers came to be viewed as participants in a shameful, aggressive war, but also as human shields who kept their civilian compatriots from harm. The moment democratization converted the survivors into opportunistic believers in a shallow simulacrum of democracy, no one was sure what to think of the dead, or how to handle them. They were left hanging in the void; no one could say for sure what they had died for. So when the occupation ended and Japanese found themselves able for the first time to confront their war dead without trepidation, they nevertheless decided to sidestep them, to pretend they were not there.
It was then, in 1954, that Godzilla erupted from the South Seas. Lumbering up onto land near Tokyo, he set about destroying the recovering city, bellowing into the darkness. At times his roar sounded like a lament, as if he were crying out, "What happened to the country I died for?" At the end of the first movie in the series, Dr. Serizawa, a member of the wartime generation, uses a new weapon called the Oxygen Destroyer to kill Godzilla as he lies slumbering at the bottom of Tokyo Bay, sacrificing his own life in the process. At this point, the soundtrack takes on the air of a requiem. The crew of the boat from which the attack was carried out, left bobbing on the waves of Tokyo Bay, offers a silent prayer to Dr. Serizawa's spirit, but somehow it seems as if they are also praying for Godzilla. Once dead, the uncanny, frightening beast arouses in the hearts and minds of the audience a profound sadness and sense of associative guilt, just as King Kong did for American audiences the moment he fell off the Empire State Building.
Why was Godzilla remade so many times?
In subsequent films, Godzilla fought numerous other monsters-he became relativized, one monster among many. Eventually he started a family, had an adorable baby named Minilla and, as the 1970s wore on, began taking a fatherly interest in his child's education. Finally, as in the TV commercials, Godzilla began doing silly dances. Stripped of his uncanny aura and turned into a joke, he no longer attracted much of an audience. Still, with telling persistence, the series continued, even though the real Godzilla had already said goodbye.
This was the process by which a democratized Japan sanitized its uncanny war dead. Godzilla goods are everywhere in Japan, even today. If you visit Akihabara, the mecca of otaku culture, you will find dozens of Godzilla miniatures. The Internet is crawling with cute pictures of Minilla and other monsters from the series. It was only a matter of time before other cute monsters such as Pikachu, the best known of the "pocket monsters" (Pokemon) appeared, and it was just one step further from the cute monsters to the cute non-monster Hello Kitty.
It is not an accident that Hello Kitty has no mouth. The small things Japan has been producing since the 1990s, of which Hello Kitty is the best representative, come at the end of a long process of"cutification": They are what remains after words and meaning have been reduced, erased, cast away. These cute characters are the remnants, the purely imaginary shells of the
symbolic. They are soulless celebrations of having achieved emptiness, for they mark the disappearance-but not the solution-of a problem.

The Paradox of Globalization
There is a passage in Kojiki-the first written work to appear in Japan (in 712 BCE), transcribed using characters imported from China in an age when Japan was being swept for the first time by a tide of globalizationabout a sea cucumber. One day, the story goes, a messenger from one of the gods came, assembled all the creatures of the ocean and asked them, "Will you serve my lord?" All the creatures said they would except the sea cucumber, who remained silent. Seeing this, the messenger grabbed the sea cucumber. "Seems you have no mouth ro answer with", he said, and cut it one with his knife. This, Kojiki explains, is how the sea cucumber got its mouth.
This tale seems an apt image of globalization. For many non-Western peoples, globalization is the appearance of a new god who speaks a new language-or rather, languages: English, the Internet and consumer capitalism. Globalization makes all of us learn these new grammars. From a certain point of view, this seems like the advent of a series of global languages, but this is only one point of view. In the 1960s, most people in Japan were fine as long as they could use Japanese. People had a language; they were literate. But now many people have been rendered voiceless and illiterate by the spread of English through the Internet. Globalization divides the voiced and literate few, those who can decipher the new language, from the newly voiceless and illiterate many. What is liberating and empowering for the fortunately placed can be oppressive and emasculating for the unfortunately marginalized. Mass media in Japan have been making much of this gap, discussing it in terms of "winners" and "losers."
The same situation is emerging in Afghanistan, China, Peru, eastern Europe, Egypt and elsewhere. From the perspective of the literate who can communicate in this new world, globalization seems like a movement toward the light; from the perspective of the illiterate, it is the darkness growing. And this brings us back to the main question: Why is phony Japanese cool taking the world by storm, displacing the original American cool? Why are the cute little "imaginary" products of postwar Japan's twisted history gaining the upper hand over the "symbolic" American characters that have so long dominated the global market? Why is Hello Kitty ovetwhelming Mickey Mouse?
Douglas McGray, the author of a stimulating essay about the "soft power" of Japan's "Gross National Cool", argues that what is most important in the struggle between Japanese cool and American cool is not "cultural accuracy" or having an "authentic American origin." He calls our attention to the omnipresence in Japan of phony products of American culture like potato salad pizza and "Harbard University" T-shirts. This is indeed the essence of Japanese cool:
It's all about being phony. Deliberately dubious imitations of American cultural products, fraudulent Americanization (or Europeanization), the creation of fake new global standards, expressions of illiteracy, of voicelessness-in all of this there is no creative principle of resistance. But it is nevertheless a form of resistance. Since the occupation, Japan has pursued a form of resistance that looks almost exactly like emulation of the American way, resistance infinitesimally close to imitation, while politically it has bumbled alongside the United States in a path, possibly, toward its ruination. This environment was an ideal incubator for cultural expressions of the power of voicelessness. The current wave of cuteness is an unexpected side-effect of this history. In this sense, one might say that Hello Kitty is a distant descendant of the sea cucumber in Kojiki.
In the face of this surging tide, it is only natural that the charms and attraction of Mickey Mouse, Snoopy and the rest of their American and European cartoon cohort should fade in the too-bright light of their own authority as emissaries of the vocal and the literate. In the past, when these Disney characters first emerged as "low culture", when they were still stand-ins for the voiceless, they had the power to speak directly to the hearts of people all across the globe. But they're no fun anymore. Like Americans who, having little if any training as language instructors, are nonetheless welcomed as English teachers by the language schools that are ubiquitous in Japan these days, the cartoon gods from the homeland of globalization are now defined primarily by their connection to power. Place Mickey Mouse and Snoopy next to Hello Kitty and Sailor Moon and you will see just how eloquent, vocal, literate and decorously ready to travel they are-and how in some contexts they might seem a bit overwhelming, oppressive, even macho.
Globalization turned America into a planet-spanning speaker, a broadcaster, the source of the new literacy. The iPod, that tiny box of voices, is a symbolic piece of hardware, but the soft power of cultural products shouldn't be underestimated. According to Ken Belson and Brian Bremner in their book, Hello Kitty:
The Remarkable Story of Sanno and the Billion Dollar Feline Phenomenon (2003), Bill Gates offered $5.6 billion for the rights to Hello Kitty-though Microsoft denies any knowledge of this. If the story is true, one can only surmise that Gates detected something in Hello Kitty that Microsoft didn't have: her blank, mouthless face looming up as a symbol of the unknown powers of the voiceless. Sanrio would not sell.

1 See, for example, the new book by Roland Keltz, japanAmerica: How japanese Pop Culture Has Invaded the US. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).
2 Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 23.

(from "The American Interest", Vol. 2, No. 1 - September/October 2006)

Labels:

Воскресение

Сон

Забыть я не могу,
Любимая, тот сон,
Который нас с тобой
Привел в пустынный зал,
Высокий, как вокзал.

Стояли там толпой
кровати,
И в углу
лежали мы вдвоем.
Там поезд не гудел,

И шепот не будил,

И я всему был рад,

Что говорила ты,

И безразличен был

Тупой враждебный взгляд
Обнявшихся людей

Без радости, без сил.

Но кто же влил в мой ум

Сомнение и ложь?

Средь ласк твоих, как яд,

Признания твои -

Не я, другой любим.

И, чувствуя себя

Ненужным никому,

Покорно я ушел.

Auden

(29/10/2006)

Labels:

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Sabbath


Mors stupebit et natura
Cum resurget creatura

Mors stupebit et natura
Cum resurget creatura
gere curam mei finis

Lacrimosa dies illa
qua resurget et favilla
iudicandus homo reus
huic ergo parce Deus

(28/10/2006)

Labels:

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Playing the Asia

"...The modern European seeking his religion in Asia is reading his religion into Asia. Religion there is something different; it is both more and less. He is like a man mapping out the sea as land; marking waves as mountains; not understanding the nature of its peculiar permanence. It is perfectly true that Asia has its own dignity and poetry and high civilisation. But it is not in the least true that Asia has its own definite dominions of moral government, where all loyalty is conceived in terms of morality; as when we say that Ireland is Catholic or that New England was Puritan. The map is not marked out in religions, in our sense of churches. The state of mind is far more subtle, more relative, more secretive, more varied and changing, like the colours of the snake. The Moslem is the nearest approach to a militant Christian; and that is precisely because he is a much nearer approach to an envoy from western civilisation. The Moslem in the heart of Asia almost stands for the soul of Europe. And as he stands between them and Europe in the matter of space so he stands between them and Christianity in the matter of time. In that sense the Moslems in Asia are merely like the Nestorians in Asia. Islam, historically speaking, is the greatest of the Eastern heresies. It owed something to the quite isolated and unique individuality of Israel; but it owed more to Byzantium and the theological enthusiasm of Christendom. It owed something even to the Crusades. It owed nothing whatever to Asia. It owed nothing to the atmosphere of the ancient and traditional world of Asia, with its immemorial etiquette and its bottomless or bewildering philosophies. All that ancient and actual Asia felt the entrance of Islam as something foreign and western and warlike, piercing it like a spear.

Even where we might trace in dotted lines the domains of Asiatic religions,
we should probably be reading into them something dogmatic and ethical belonging to our own religion. It is as if a European ignorant of the American atmosphere were to suppose that each 'state' was a separate sovereign state as patriotic as France or Poland; or that when a Yankee referred fondly to his 'home town' he meant he had no other nation, like a citizen of ancient Athens or Rome. As he would be reading a particular sort of loyalty into America, so we are reading a particular sort of loyalty into Asia. There are loyalties of other kinds; but not what men in the West mean by being a believer, by trying to be a Christian, by being a good Protestant or a practising Catholic. In the intellectual world it means something far more vague and varied by doubts and speculations. In the moral world it means something far more loose and drifting.

I have read somewhere that there were three great friends famous in medieval Persia for their unity of mind. One became the responsible and respected Vizier of the Great King; the second was the poet Omar, pessimist and epicurean, drinking wine in mockery of Mahomet; the third was the Old Man of the Mountain who maddened his people with hashish that they might murder other people with daggers. It does not really much matter what one does.

But this sort of universalist cannot have what we call a character; it is what we call a chaos. He cannot choose; he cannot fight; he cannot repent; he cannot hope. He is not in the same sense creating something; for creation means rejection. He is not, in our religious phrase, making his soul. For our doctrine of salvation does really mean a labour like that of a man trying to make a statue beautiful; a victory with wings. For that there must be a final choice, for a man cannot make statues without rejecting stone. And there really is this ultimate unmorality behind the metaphysics of Asia. And the reason is that there has been nothing through all those unthinkable ages to bring the human mind sharply to the point; to tell it that the time has come to choose. The mind has lived too much in eternity. The soul has been too immortal, in the special sense that it ignores the idea of mortal sin. It has had too much of eternity, in the sense that it has not had enough of the hour of death and the day of judgement. It is not crucial enough; in the literal sense that it has not had enough of the cross. That is what we mean when we say that Asia is very old. But strictly speaking Europe is quite as old as Asia; indeed in a sense any place is as old as any other place. What we mean is that Europe has not merely gone on growing older. It has been born again.

Asia is all humanity; as it has worked out its human doom. Asia, in its vast territory, in its varied populations, in its heights of past achievement and its depths of dark speculation, is itself a world; and represents something of what we mean when we speak of the world. It is a cosmos rather than a continent. It is the world as man has made it; and contains many of the most wonderful things that man has made. Therefore Asia stands as the one representative of paganism and the one rival to Christendom. But everywhere else where we get glimpses of that mortal destiny, they suggest stages in the same story. Where Asia trails away into the southern archipelagoes of the savages, or where a darkness full of nameless shapes dwells in the heart of Africa, or where the last survivors of lost races linger in the cold volcano of prehistoric America, it is all the same story; sometimes perhaps later chapters of the same story. It is men entangled in the forest of their own mythology; it is men drowned in the sea of their own metaphysics. Polytheists have grown weary of the wildest of fictions. Monotheists have grown weary of the most wonderful of truths. Diabolists here and there have such a hatred of heaven and earth that they have tried to take refuge in hell. It is the Fall of Man; and it is exactly that fall that was being felt by our own fathers at the first moment of the Roman decline. We also were going down that side road; down that easy slope; following the magnificent procession of the high civilisations of the world.
If the Church had not entered the world then, it seems probable that Europe would be now very much what Asia is now. Something may be allowed for a real difference of race and environment, visible in the ancient as in the modern world. But after all we talk about the changeless East very largely because it has not suffered the great change. Paganism in its last phase showed considerable signs of becoming equally changeless.It does not mean that there would be no social codes, as there were codes in Antiquity and are codes in Asia. It does not mean that there could not be good men or happy lives, for God has given all men a conscience and conscience can give all men a kind of peace. But it does mean that the tone and proportion of all these things, and especially the proportion of good and evil things, would be in the unchanged West what they are in the changeless East. And nobody who looks at that changeless East honestly, and with a real sympathy, can believe that there is anything there remotely resembling the challenge and revolution of the Faith.

In short, if classic paganism had lingered until now, a number of things might well have lingered with it; and they would look very like what we call the religions of the East. There would still be Pythagoreans teaching reincarnation, as there are still Hindus teaching reincarnation. There would still be Stoics making a religion out of reason and virtue, as there are still Confucians making a religion out of reason and virtue. There would still be Neo-Platonists studying transcendental truths, the meaning of which was mysterious to other people and disputed even amongst themselves; as the Buddhists still study a transcendentalism mysterious to others and disputed among themselves. There would still be intelligent Apollonians apparently worshipping the sun-god but explaining that they were worshipping the divine principle; just as there are still intelligent Parsees apparently worshipping the sun but explaining that they are worshipping the deity. There would still be wild Dionysians dancing on the mountain as there are still wild Dervishes dancing in the desert. There would still be crowds of people attending the popular feasts of the gods, in pagan Europe as in pagan Asia. There would still be crowds of gods, local and other, for them to worship. And there would still be a great many more people who worshipped them than people who believed in them. Finally there would still be a very large number of people who did worship gods and did believe in gods; and who believed in gods and worshipped gods simply because they were demons. There would still be Levantines secretly sacrificing to Moloch as there are still Thugs secretly sacrificing to Kalee. There would still be a great deal of magic; and a great deal of it would be black magic. There would still be a considerable admiration of Seneca and a considerable imitation of Nero; just as the exalted epigrams of Confucius could coexist with the tortures of China. And over all that tangled forest of traditions growing wild or withering would brood the broad silence of a singular and even nameless mood; but the nearest name of it is nothing. All these things, good and bad, would have an indescribable air of being too old to die..." (from "The Everlasting Man" by G. K. Chesterton)

Labels:

Пятница

Рассказ о лавочнике, у которого были гири из глины

Ликует птица, увидав зерно,
Хоть в сеть подчас ее влечет оно.

Мы столь же немудры, и алчность глаз
Порой в ловушку завлекает нас.

Когда приманку видим мы, бывает,
Растет влеченье, разум убывает.

Мирские блага - то, что всех обманет,
Лишь редких птиц иное благо манит.

Чтобы попасть им в ту, иную сеть,
Они готовы многое стерпеть.

Я, даже Сулеймана будь мудрей,
Не огражу вас от земных цепей.

Царями мира вы себя зовете,
Но вы рабы своей же грешной плоти.

Меж тем владыка мира под луной
Лишь тот, кто избежал тщеты земной.

И душно в этом мире, как в темнице,
Где душам вашим суждено томиться.

Жил горожанин... чем-то он болел;
Но, как халву, простую глину ел.

Аптекаря однажды посетить
Пришлось ему, чтоб сахару купить.

Аптекарь вмиг (он плут великий был)
Комками глины гири заменил.

Сказал: "Торгую без обмана я -
По гирям глина взвешана моя!

Что вы хотите?" - "Сахар нужен мне,
А глина гири заменит вполне".

А сам подумал: "Гирь в аптеке нет.
Пустое! Глина лучше, чем шербет".

(Вот так же сваха к юноше пришла:
"Ох и невесту я тебе нашла!

Боюсь - неровня вам. Беда одна -
Дочь нашего кондитера она".

А он в ответ: "Что слаще и жирней
Кондитерских любезных дочерей!")

"Ты не имеешь гирь, но глина мне
Ценней и слаще сахара вдвойне".

Аптекарь тот весы установил
И вместо гири глину положил.

И не спеша пошел в покой другой
Колоть индийский сахар дорогой.

Сказал: "Простите мне, как на беду,
Топорик свой, никак я не найду".

Пока топорик он, ворча, искал,
Тот покупатeль глину колупал.

Пихал он воровато глину в рот,
Боясь: "Аптекарь невпопад придет,

Заметит: глину ем я, скажет - "вор".
Тогда - увы - беда мне и позор!"

Но про себя аптекарь от души
Смеялся: "Ешь, несчастный, не спеши.

Ты у меня желанное нашел.
Меня боишься, ибо ты - осел.

Ешь, ешь любезный, досыта... А мне ж
Одна опаска - вдруг ты мало съешь?

За съеденную глину я прощу,
По весу глины сахар отпущу.

Не ведаю, поймешь ли ты потом,
Кто был из нас разиней и глупцом!"

Руми

(27/10/2006)

Labels:

Friday, October 27, 2006

Четверг

The Maze

Antropos apteros for days
Walking whistling round and round the maze,
Relying happily upon

His temperament f
or getting on.
The hundredth time h
e signed, though,
A bush he left an hour ago,
He halted where four alleys crossed,

And recognized that he was lost.

Where am I?" Metaphysics says

No question can be
asked unless
It has answer, so I can
Assume this maze has got a plan.

If theologians are correct,

A Plan implies an Architect:

A God-build maze would be,
I’m sure
The Universe in Miniature.
Are data from the world of
Sense,
In that case, valid evidence?
What in universe
I know,
Can give direction how to go?

All Mathematics would suggest

A steady strait line is the best,


But left and right alternately

Is consonant with History.
Aesthetics, though, believes all
Art
Intends to gratify the Heart:
Rejecting disciplines like these,

Must I, then, go which way I please?

Such reasoning is only true
I
f we accept the classic view,

Which we have no right to assert,

According to the Introvert.

His absolute pre-supposition

Is – Man creates his own condition.


This maze was not divinely built,
But it secreted by my guilt.

The center that I cannot find

Is known to my unconscious mind;

I have no reason to despair

Because I am already there.

My problem is how not to will;

They move most quickly who stand still;

I’m only lost unt
il I see
I’m lost because I want to be.

If this should fail, perhaps I should,

As certain educators would,

Content myself with this conclusion:
In theory is not solution.

All statements about what I feel,

Like I-am-lost, are quite unreal:

My knowledge ends where it begins;

A hedge is taller than a man”.
Antropos apteros, perplexed
To know which turning to take next,

Looked up and wished he be a bird

To whom such doubts must seem absurd.

Auden

(26/10/2006)

Labels:

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Среда


О том, что истинно верующий не отличается от дикобраза

Да, дикобраз - создание такое,

Что впрок порой ему идут побои.


Все знают: если бить его сильней,

То глаже он бывает и жирней.


Мне кажется: душа у грешных нас

Не что иное - сущий дикобраз.


Не потому ль, что люди били их,

Пророки совершенней всех других?

Руми

(25/10/2006)

Labels:

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

На холмах Грузии

(публикация "Кахетинское", Петр Вайль. Радио Свобода, 8/10/2006)

Несколько раз за долгие годы я проехал Грузию с востока на запад. При всех переменах Тбилиси – столь же восхитителен, и мало есть городских видов такого обаяния, как где-нибудь возле храма Метехи, на фоне древней крепости Нарикала. При всех переменах – безошибочно те же люди.

В последний раз зашел в кафе на улице Бараташвили, у самой площади Свободы, бывшей Ленина, от которой начинается проспект Руставели. Женщина средних лет подметала пол.
«Вы еще не открыты? – А что вы хотели? – Кофе. – Я вам сварю». Отставила метлу и сделала прекрасный кофе: в Грузии везде вкусно, в любом подвальчике, у любого придорожного мангала.
Похвалил, спросил, сколько должен, и услышал то, что можно услышать только тут: «Ничего не надо, мне приятно было вас угостить». Красивое достоинство и простое благородство, которые встречаешь в средиземноморской Европе. Видно, та же живая волна ударяет в берег Колхиды, пройдя от Геркулесовых столбов через Геллеспонт, Пропонтиду, Боспор.

Лихский хребет разделил Грузию, оставив к западу – горы, субтропики, море, к востоку – холмы, виноградные долины. К западу – бойкие имеретинцы, менгрелы, гурийцы, к востоку – спокойные карталинцы, кахетинцы. По Кахетинскому шоссе едешь, как по длинной улице, и только таблички оповещают о смене одной деревни другой. Сентябрь, сухо и солнечно, о дождях забыли. По обе стороны – парча винограда, дубы, переплетенные с гранатом, фотографии в рамках на скорбных домах, и справа иногда блеснет потерянная в широчайшем весеннем русле узенькая Алазани.

Въехали в Гурджаани. Водитель сказал, что надо заглянуть к родне. Мне спешить было некуда. Движение началось сразу, как только мы появились в воротах дома. Старик в глубине двора уселся рубить баранину, сын его понес табуретки, невестка с кувшином полезла в погреб. Знакомиться стали, уже сидя под инжиром и абрикосом, за столом, уставленным цветами, зеленью, сыром, помидорами, вином. К шоссе провожали все. Мне совали чурчхелы – колбаски из застывшего виноградного сиропа, начиненные орехами, какие-то фрукты, бутылки вина. Может быть, негостеприимные грузины и есть, но о них никто не знает: они ведь не принимают гостей.

В Сагареджо попал на винный завод. Шел ртвели – сбор винограда: важнейшее событие года. Дорога перед воротами забита грузовиками, повозками, телегами с виноградом. Ркацители – материал для почти всех известных белых кахетинских вин: «Гурджаани», «Манави», «Цинандали». Саперави – для красных. В том числе и для знаменитого «Кинзмараули». Но это вино получается только из саперави в селе Кинзмараули. Уже километр-другой в сторону – и не то. То же с «Хванчкарой»: виноград не такой уж редкий – александроули, но лишь в селе Хванчкара. И «Чхавери» получается только в Бахви. Есть в этом высшая справедливость, сродни редкости алмазных россыпей и человеческих талантов.
На дороге водитель сказал: «А вот здесь много русских. – Откуда? – Николоз пригнал». Он бросил это между прочим, а я что-то припоминал, догадывался, что Николоз – это Николай Первый, устроивший здесь солдатские поселения. Как удивительно ощущают бытие эти люди.

Грузия для них «свое» не только в пространстве – от Алазани до Черного моря, но и во времени. Они не знают, они чувствуют, что Кутаиси – ровесник Вавилона, царь Ираклий Второй – фамильярно Ираклий, и даже нелюбимый и отделенный полутора веками русский император – просто Николоз. «Николоз пригнал»!..
Уезжал я через Гомборский перевал. Высота подбиралась к двум тысячам. Свежело. Качался желто-красный сентябрьский лес – клен, бук, шиповник.
Кто это сказал: «Вся Грузия – песня: мотив благороден, слова строги и очень грустны»...

Labels:

Вторник

























ГОРОД

Сказал ты: "Еду в край чужой, найду другое море
и город новый отыщу, прекраснее, чем мой,
где в замыслах конец сквозит, как приговор немой,
а сердце остывает, как в могиле.
Доколе разум мой дремать останется в бессилье?
Куда ни брошу взгляд – руины без числа:
то жизнь моя лежит, разрушена дотла,
ее сгубил, потратил я с судьбой в напрасном споре".

Нет, не ищи других земель, неведомого моря:
твой Город за тобой пойдет. И будешь ты смотреть
на те же самые дома, и медленно стареть
на тех же самых улицах, что прежде,
и тот же Город находить. В другой – оставь надежду –
нет ни дорог тебе, ни корабля.
Не уголок один потерян – вся земля,
коль жизнь свою потратил ты, с судьбой напрасно споря.


ВСЕ ТО ЖЕ

Один однообразный день сменяет
другой, такой же скучный и однообразный,
все то же нас сегодня ожидает –
вчерашняя тоска и несуразность.

Минует месяц, и другой придет на смену.
Нетрудно угадать, что он предложит:
такое надоевшее, бессменное,
что завтра уж на завтра не похоже.


ПО МЕРЕ СИЛ

Когда не можешь сделать жизнь такой, как хочешь,
ты попытайся быть способным хоть на это
по мере сил: не унижай ее мельчаньем
в несметном скопище сует, общений, связей,
речей, свиданий, посещений, жестов.

Не унижай преувеличенным значеньем,
и выворачиваньем с ходу наизнанку,
и выставленьем напоказ для любований
в бессмыслице собраний и компаний,
пока она не надоест, как жизнь чужая.

Кавафис

(24/10/2006)

Labels:

The Dogmatic Part

"...There will be no end to the weary debates about liberalising theology, until people face the fact that the only liberal part of it is really the dogmatic part. If dogma is incredible, it is because it is incredibly liberal. If it is irrational, it can only be in giving us more assurance of freedom than is justified by reason. The obvious example is that essential form of freedom which we call free-will. It is absurd to say that a man shows his liberality in denying his liberty. But it is tenable that he has to affirm a transcendental doctrine in order to affirm his liberty. There is a sense in which we might reasonably say that if man has a primary power of choice, he has in that fact a super-natural power of creation, as if he could raise the dead or give birth to the unbegotten. Possibly in that case a man must be a miracle; and certainly in that case he must be a miracle in order to be a man; and most certainly in order to be a free man. But it is absurd to forbid him to be a free man and do it in the name of a more free religion.

But it is true in twenty other matters. Anybody who believes at all in God must believe in the absolute supremacy of God. But in so far as that supremacy does allow of any degrees that can be called liberal or illiberal, it is self-evident that
the illiberal power is the deity of the rationalists and the liberal power is the deity of the dogmatists. Exactly in proportion as you turn monotheism into monism you turn it into despotism. It is precisely the unknown God of the scientist, with his impenetrable purpose and his inevitable and unalterable law, that reminds us of a Prussian autocrat making rigid plans in a remote tent and moving mankind like machinery. It is precisely the God of miracles and of answered prayers who reminds us of a liberal and popular prince, receiving petitions, listening to parliaments and considering the cases of a whole people. I am not now arguing the rationality of this conception in other respects; as a matter of fact it is not, as some suppose, irrational; for there is nothing irrational in the wisest and most well-informed king acting differently according to the action of those he wishes to save. But I am here only noting the general nature of liberality, or of free or enlarged atmosphere of action. And in this respect it is certain that the king can only be what we call magnanimous if he is what some call capricious. It is the Catholic, who has the feeling that his prayers do make a difference, when offered for the living and the dead, who also has the feeling of living like a free citizen in something almost like a constitutional commonwealth. It is the monist who lives under a single iron law who must have the feeling of living like a slave under a sultan. Indeed I believe that the original use of the word suffragium, which we now use in politics for a vote, was that employed in theology about a prayer. The dead in Purgatory were said to have the suffrages of the living. And in this sense, of a sort of right of petition to the supreme ruler, we may truly say that the whole of the Communion of Saints, as well as the whole of the Church Militant, is founded on universal suffrage..."
(from "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton)

Labels:

Monday, October 23, 2006

Понедельник

неизбежное - это то, что произойдет
с вами чисто случайно.

настоящее - это то, чему вы удивитесь
как сущему вздору.


...прежде чем входить, подумай о том, как ты выйдешь...

What is seen is not the Truth
What *is* cannot be said
Trust comes not without seeing
Nor understanding without words
The wise comprehends with knowledge
To the ignorant it is but a wonder
Some worship the formless God
Some worship His various forms
In what way He is beyond these attributes
Only the Knower knows
That music cannot be written
How can then be the notes
Says Kabir, awareness alone will overcome illusion

(23/10/2006)

Labels:

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Воскресение

Под небом голубым и в ясном свете солнца
Не надо ничего искать.
А тот, кто спрашивает, что такое Будда,
Подобен вору с краденым в кармане,
Твердящему, что нет за ним вины.
***

Это даже слишком просто -
Оттого и непонятно.

Шел огонь искать болван,

Прихватив фонарь зажженный.

Знай он суть огня, то мог бы

Рис сварить намного раньше.


***

Один монах спросил у Сэйдзё:
- Я допускаю, что Будда жил задолго до летописной истории и просидел в медитации десять кругов существования, но не смог осознавать высшей истины и поэтому не смог стать совершенно освобожденным. Отчего это было так?
- Той вопрос уже содержит ответ, - сказал Сэйдзё.
- Но если Будда медитировал, - спросил монах, - отчего же он не мог достичь состояния Будды?

- Он не был Буддой, - ответил Сэйдзё.

Когда невежда достигает осознания - он святой.
Когда святой начинает понимает - он невежда.

Labels:

Doors of Perception


THERE is NO NATURAL RELIGION

The Author & Printer W. Blake

[a]

The Argument Man has no notion of moral fitness
but from
Education.
Naturally he is only a natural organ subject to Sense.


I Man cannot naturally Percieve, but through his natural or bodily organs
II Man by his reasoning power can only compare & judge of
what he has already perciev'd.
III From a perception of only 3 senses or 3 elements none
could deduce a fourth or fifth
IV None could have other than natural or organic thoughts if
he had none but organic perceptions
V Mans desires are limited by his perceptions none can desire
what he has not perciev'd
VI The desires & perceptions of man untaught
by any thing but
organs of sense,
must be limited to objects of sense.


[b]

I Mans perceptions are not bounded by organs of perception.
He percieves more than sense (tho' ever so acute) can discover.
II Reason or the ratio of all we have already known is not
the same that it shall be when we know more.
[III lacking]
IV The bounded is loathed by its possessor. The same dull
round even of a univer[s]e would soon become a mill with
complicated wheels.
V If the many become the same as the few, when possess'd,
More! More! is the cry of a mistaken soul, less than
All cannot
satisfy Man.
VI If any could desire what he is incapable of possessing,
despair must be his eternal lot.
VII The desire of Man being Infinite the possession is Infinite
& himself Infinite

Conclusion, If it were not for the Poetic or Prophetic character
the Philosophic & Experimental would soon be at the ratio of
all things & stand still, unable to do other than repeat
the same dull round over again Application.
He who sees the Infinite in all things sees God.
He who sees the Ratio only sees himself only.

Therefore God becomes as we are, that we may be as he is

Labels:

Суббота

ST.AUGUSTIN
ON THE MORALS OF THE MANICHAEANS
(excerpt)

Chap. 2 - WHAT EVIL IS. THAT EVIL IS THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE. IN ALLOWING THIS, THE MANICHAEANS REFUTE THEMSELVES.

2. You Manichaeans often, if not in every case, ask those whom you try to bring over to your heresy, Whence is evil? Suppose I had now met you for the first time, I would ask you, if you please, to follow my example in putting aside for a little the explanation you suppose yourselves to have got of these subjects, and to commence this great inquiry with me as if for the first time. You ask me, Whence is evil? I ask you in return, What is evil? Which is the more reasonable question? Are those right who ask whence a thing is, when they do not know what it is; or he who thinks it necessary to inquire first what it is, in order to avoid the gross absurdity of searching for the origin of a thing unknown? Your answer is quite correct, when you say that evil is that which is contrary to nature; for no one is so mentally blind as not to see that, in every kind, evil is that which is contrary to the nature of the kind. But the establishment of this doctrine is the overthrow of your heresy. For evil is no nature, if it is contrary to nature. Now, according to you, evil is a certain nature and substance. Moreover, whatever is contrary to nature must oppose nature and seek its destruction. For nature means nothing else than that which anything is conceived of as being in its own kind. Hence is the new word which we now use derived from the word for being,--essence namely, or, as we usually say, substance,--while before these words were in use, the word nature was used instead. Here, then, if you will consider the matter without stubbornness, we see that evil is that which falls away from essence and tends to non-existence.

3. Accordingly, when the Catholic Church declares that God is the author of all natures and substances, those who understand this understand at the same time that God is not the author of evil. For how can He who is the cause of the being of all things be at the same time the cause of their not being,--that is, of their falling off from essence and tending to non-existence? For this is what reason plainly declares to be the definition of evil. Now, how can that race of evil of yours, which you make the supreme evil, be against nature, that is, against substance, when it, according to you, is itself a nature and substance? For if it acts against itself, it destroys its own existence; and when that is completely done, it will come at last to be the supreme evil. But this cannot be done, because you will have it not only to be, but to be everlasting. That cannot then be the chief evil which is spoken of as a substance.

4. But what am I to do? I know that many of you can understand nothing of all this. I know, too, that there are some who have a good understanding and can see these things, and yet are so stubborn in their choice of evil,--a choice that will ruin their understanding as well,--that they try rather to find what reply they can make in order to impose upon inactive and feeble minds, instead of giving their assent to the truth. Still I shall not regret having written either what one of you may come some day to consider impartially, and be led to abandon your error, or what men of understanding and in allegiance to God, and who are still untainted with your errors, may read and so be kept from being led astray by your addresses.

(21/10/2006)

Labels:

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Пятница

"...Christ founded the Church with two great figures of speech; in the final words to the Apostles who received authority to found it. The first was the phrase about founding it on Peter as on a rock; the second was the symbol of the keys. About the meaning of the form there is naturally no doubt in my own case; but it does not directly affect the argument here save in two more secondary aspects. It is yet another example of a thing that could only fully expand and explain itself afterwards, and even long afterwards. And it is yet another example of something the very reverse of simple and sel-evident even in the language, in so far as it described a man as a rock when he had much more the appearance of a reed.

But the other image of the keys has an exactitude that has hardly been exactly noticed. The keys have been conspicuous enough in the art and heraldry of Christendom; but not everyone has noted the peculiar aptness of the allegory. We have now reached the point in history where something must be said of the first appearance and activities of the Church in the Roman Empire; and for that brief description nothing could be more perfect than that ancient metaphor. The Early Christian was very precisely a person carrying about a key, or what he said was a key. The whole Christian movement consisted in claiming to possess that key. It was not merely a vague forward movement, which might be better represented by a battering-ram. It was not something that swept along with it similar or dissimilar things, as does a modern social movement. As we shall see in a moment, it rather definitely refused to do so. It definitely asserted that there was a key and that it possessed that key and that no other key was like it; in that sense it was as narrow as you please. Only it happened to be the key that could unlock the prison of the whole world; and let in the white daylight of liberty.


The creed was like a key in three respects; which can be most conveniently summed up under this symbol.


First, a key is above all things a thing with a shape. It is a thing that depends entirely upon keeping its shape. The Christian creed is above all things the philosophy of shapes and the enemy of shapelessness. That is where it differs from all that formless infinity, Manichean or Buddhist, which makes a sort of pool of night in the dark heart of Asia; the ideal of uncreating all the creatures. That is where it differs also from the analogous vagueness of mere evolutionism; the idea of creatures constantly losing their shape. A man told that his solitary latchkey had been melted down with a million others into a Buddhistic unity would be annoyed. But a man told that his key was gradually growing and sprouting in his pocket, and branching into new wards or complications, would not be more gratified.


Second, the shape of a key is in itself a rather fantastic shape. A savage who did not know it was a key would have the greatest difficulty in guessing what it could possibly be. And it is fantastic because it is in a sense arbitrary. A key is not a matter of abstractions; in that sense a key is not a matter of argument. It either fits the lock or it does not. It is useless for men to stand disputing over it, considered by itself; or reconstructing it on pure principles of geometry or decorative art. It is senseless for a man to say he would like a simpler key; it would be far more sensible to do his best with a crowbar.


And thirdly, as the key is necessarily a thing with a pattern, so this was one having in some ways a rather elaborate pattern. When people complain of the religion being so early complicated with theology and things of the kind, they forget that the world had not only got into a hole, but had got into a whole maze of holes and corners. The problem itself was a complicated problem; it did not in the ordinary sense merely involve anything so simple as sin. It was also full of secrets, of unexplored and unfathomable fallacies, of unconscious mental diseases, of dangers in all directions. If the faith had faced the world only with the platitudes about peace and simplicity some moralists would confine it to, it would not have had the faintest effect on that luxurious and labyrinthine lunatic asylum. What it did do we must now roughly describe; it is enough to say here that there was undoubtedly much about the key that seemed complex; indeed there was only one thing about it that was simple. It opened the door..." (from "The Everlasting Man" by G. K. Chesterton)

(20/10/2006)

Labels: