| FBI auth. # 45920-xx899e3 cell
phone 206-788-9692
secondary file: crowbar
|
[inaudible]
| For me what it boils down
to is growing up with the ideas of love of God
combined with belief in hell plus the imperative
to evangelize non-believers so they wouldn’t
go to hell. This is a huge package to deal with,
if one takes it seriously, which I did. And seeing
the problem with this
combination of ideas actually isn’t an
intellectual problem or one about arguments, so
much as a matter of faith. |
| Faith? What do you mean,
Zo? --Religious
faith? |
| Yes, of course. Faith in
the love of God. If one really has faith it just
becomes impossible to believe in some of the
petty ideas. As I grew up the love of God in my
heart gradually dissolved all the beliefs. It
took a long time. In this respect I just
naturally became a buddhist, although I refuse
any label like that precisely because the
liberation from that sort of identification was
so sweet-- |
| That’s how you see
it now? |
| I don’t even think
about it now. And I’m not very interested in
delving into it. But if you want to talk about
the traditional beliefs, Erin, my opinion is that
if one believes for example that non-christians
are going to suffer endlessly in hell -- well, in
my opinion, that person is an atheist!
--they don’t really believe in God.--Not the
christian God at any rate; maybe you believe in
some old god who wants animal sacrifices. |
| True, Jerry Falwell and
Billy Graham and those guys are atheists. Like I
wrote in the book. --But promise me you
won’t start talking that way on tv. |
| I might say it if I get a
chance. |
| Please don’t. |
| You said it in your book? |
| I said it could be argued
that way. Just like you said, actually-- |
| Huh. |
| By the way, I honestly
don’t feel bad that you didn’t read my
book. It’s ok. We’ve talked about most
of it anyway. |
| I read some of it. -- |
| What I said was Nietzsche
meant something like that. Consigning people to
hell for disagreeing with you means you are an
atheist -- indeed I think that is what he meant
by that famous phrase, "God is dead, -- and
you have killed him."
People tend to remember just the first conjunct,
God is dead, but the second
conjuct is more interesting-- |
| I don’t know if
Uncle Fred meant it that way, but I would, Erin.
I really do. They may think they believe in God
but in fact they have no faith. |
| Well. I think they have
faith, but haven't really looked-- |
| People say they believe
in God but their whole life belies it. I’m
not interested in fighting with them but they
really don't know the love of God. |
| you angry about
something? |
| What? |
| Why are you so shrill? |
| Shrill? |
| It just struck me --you
seem angry. Why are you so rough on them? |
| I don’t think so. |
| Why say they don’t
know anything about it?
--of course, they might not've appreciated what
it means totally. |
| Yes, but what they say
and believe is offensive. I mean, imagine it from
God's point of view. It would be offensive. It's like somebody saying
you committed a crime when you are innocent-- |
| Ok, I see your point, Zo. |
| I mean, to think you get
tortured forever unless-- imagine somebody
thinking that about you --that you were actually
planning to torture somebody unless they had the
right beliefs or accepted a certain religion--
what a horrendous thing to think about you-- |
| oK. Yet
people, including the religious people
you are talking about--generally are
doing the best they can, Zo.. |
| I don't
know. Really?
Are they? I don't really think so. |
| See? there.
--That is shrill,
Zo. --you, knowI think you are part of
the problem! What
problem?
The
condemning people at the the drop of a
hat problem.
|
| Hmph. Ok.
Funny. But isn't it worth some
passion then? I don't really want
to argue about it, and I am
interested only because somehow
these terrifying packages of
ideas seem to be so tenacious and
persistent for people. Everywhere
you look people are trapped, even
when we think we’ve got past
it. A sort of guilty fear about
the future and we are never
content in the present moment. |
|
| Maybe.
Maybe so. There certainly are some
clear-cut examples, I would say. In moral
theories like utilitarianism, for
instance, which obviously grew right out
of Christianity. |
| Yes,
Erin, exactly: maximizing happiness from
a God’s-eye point of view. The only
connection such an idea possibly could
have with basic moral behavior is through
the link with the idea that morality is
based upon God’s commands. Socrates
showed what is wrong with that, but still
the idea persists; and in utilitarianism
it persists even when people think they
have rejected the theistic
presuppositions. |
| Well,
yes Zo--it is surprising and sort of
weird. Look for instance how so much of
Parfit’s work is devoted to
defending utilitarianism. Didn’t you
write about that part in your thesis? |
| No, not
really, not that part. |
| It is
astonishing to me that anybody would even
take it seriously for even ten seconds as
a theory having anything to do with basic
moral behavior. |
| Well, it
is sort of a relic of preoccupation with
theism-- the God's eye point of view --we
could call it that --a belief-relic. |
| That’s
a good term for it. You find other relics
in the most surprising places. for
example, in science when people think of
the laws of nature as
"governing" the natural world.
That is a belief-relic too, a relic of
belief in God. |
|
| I think the religious
ideas stucture our relationships with other
people, too. Always mediated by externalizing
thoughts-- |
| Like what? |
| Like marriage as a form
of property ownership-- |
| I think you maybe skipped
a step ---- --or where parents think
and act--
or
two--
as if
they own their
children.
Whoa,
Nellie! How on earth is
this supposed to be connected with the theistic
belief relic ideas --or were you simply imparting
your wisdom in a general free-style disconnected
way?
Erin, I
think the idea that as persons we are going to be
judged
is tied into the sense of self as a separate
dense entity --something
one could own, like a car. --I mean, think of the
model of an external observer, the All-Seeing Eye
of God, observing and evaluating oneself. In that
model one naturally thinks of oneself as dense
and separate. --Then the model easily gets
extended to others too, and so our closest
relationships, then, get characterized in the
same terms --as in Kant's analysis of marriage as
mutual co-ownership. And owning children is just
a natural corollary of marriage as property.
But in
real life people don't necessarily act that way.
Well, I
agree. That's sort of my point too --the belief
relics don't enable us to make sense of how we
really live, precisely because the beliefs
themselves comprise an incoherent package. That
was my point. One needs a sort of faith to be
willing to see it.
You are
too abstract--, Zo. Anyway, people certainly live
with plenty of first-hand understanding of love
and commitment and so on. We talk about it all
the time.
|
| Maybe that is why. |
| What? |
| There is not enough place
for silence. I mean, comfortable, shared silence
with oneself and with others. |
| Zo, I happen to have
noticed you talk a lot yourself--fact is, I've
never met anyone who talked more than you! |
| Hmph. Like Uncle Fred
saw. We have killed it. |
| Oh boy, here we-- |
| I’d like to
understand this. I don't want to posit some past
golden age, but I’d guess something was
squeezed out in the industrial revolution. Or
maybe it never really was present for people in
western culture. I don’t know. Either way,
any glimmer of it is likely to disappear-- |
| Glimmer of what, Zo? |
| The void, Erin. The great
lucid void. |
| Oh, come on. |
| The love of God, if you
will. And it gets increasingly obscured with all
the new fascinating communication technologies,
as we become ever more efficient and energetic
consumers and producers. |
| Oh come on--don’t be
such a Luddite! |
| Every day things seem to
get faster, smoother, more incredible and more
intense. --On the screen,
I mean. And religions don’t tend to help
much, because too often they involve just always
talking and such clutter going on, like in prayer
it is always talking, thinking, plus more
generally always expecting entertainment --so
there isn't much chance for a kid's heart to open
to the love of God. Or whatever you want to call
it.. |
| You definitely are angry
now. You're livid. My cell phone is shaking. |
| What? |
| You don’t even know
it? |
| Uh. |
| So what is it like now
you'vequit connecting with the love of God? |
| I didn’t say I quit.
--Did I
say I quit?
|
| Well. I thought you did
say you quit. |
| I didn't say that. I
definitely stopped thinking those words.
In fact this is the first conversation in a
million years where I’ve even used the
phrase. |
| Not even swearing? |
| Maybe. |
| Ok then. |
| For the love of God,
Erin, aren’t you
picky
today! |
| Yes I am picky, just like
you, actually. Basically we’re similar in
that respect-- iconoclastic. -- I too prefer
doing philosophy with a hammer. |
| Right. The claw end. |
| Then re-creating in
simpler or better terms. One can hope. |
| You think I’m angry? |
| Zo, this is how you
always get when we talk about religion. I’ve
noticed it before. You have a sharp edge here.
Sometimes it is obvious because it emerges in
such a weird contrast with your normal
playfulness. I’ll bet it is something about
the anger of God reflected in you, a relic of
belief in hell. |
| I don’t believe in
hell. |
| But you once did. That's
why its a relic. Why can't emotional states and
patterns be belief relics too-- and this could be
so even if not connected with explicit beliefs
anymore. So it is part of you too, but maybe
you’ve just been ignoring it. Same thing too
even in people who never did believe, a sort of
widespread cultural belief-relic, we could say. |
| Maybe. |
| By the way, maybe that is
why you totally factor out the anger
of God as part of the Judeo-Christian tradition
when you talk about it. After all retribution for
being on the wrong team is just as much a part of
the tradition--even deeper probably than the idea
of vast magnanimity. |
| Maybe. Maybe you are
right about that. There is an interesting,
complex package of ideas and attitudes. |
| Also why you only do
philosophy with a crowbar, Zo. Ripping up the
neighborhood. Come to think of it, you have
always seemed sort of angry when we talked about
philosophy. |
Actually this has been underlying
my art all along.
Of
course I have seen that in you, Zo.. You prefer to pull
arguments apart rather than build them and promote them.
This can make it harder to construct arguments because
one always is seeing where they fall apart just before
they get built. I had to work on this for my book.
Right.
Like I just have so little interest in what Nozick
describes as trying to coerce or compel belief. Partly
this is because I have so few beliefs to peddle.
But
its more than that, Erin..
What
is?
I
prefer creating something new to defending or protecting
the already established. Even if its simple and not so
useful, like creating a modal logic or coming up with
counterexamples. With respect to personal identity,
though, it is something else altogether, and so far I'm
just gesturing stupidly towards the void.
Zoe,
I have no idea what the connection was between the
sentences you just uttered.
The
crowbar!
oh.
See? Well, not
really. --Ok. When Uncle Fred talks about
doing philosophy with a hammer we always took it to
mean--
--the
claw end!
Yes.
Exactly. But we want to do more than that.
Well,
sure.
This
is so very clear, Zoe, when I think about my daughter. We
also want to live with wisdom, to build, to do something
other than wield a crowbar. To use the other end of the
hammer and pound in a few nails.
Like
Heidegger talking about building and
dwelling--
Yes.
But
I like the crowbar.
Zoe,
let me ask you something. If you don't want to deal with
the traditional big ideas--God, afterlife, etc-- why
don't you simply spotlight something like the reality of
stuff like the deep concentration? I mean, get more
focussed on the simple surprising realities. Just come
down to earth in that way. You certainly have convinced
me take seriously the potential importance of
concentration practice.
I
have?
Sure.
Of course.
I
did not know that, Erin.
Of
course you have.
Concentration
has to be supplemented by mindfulness. Concentration
gives you the capacity to focus clearly, mindfulness to
observe what is there. Of course we already have these
capacities. But they can be developed and refined.
Ok.
Right. It is not just concentration. Right. But that's my
point. Why not simply connect your points about refining
the capacities with all the amazing discoveries in
science? I know you can do that stuff too. For example,
connect up talk about concentration and mindfulness with
the way hemophiliacs can control blood flow if they
practice biofeedback-- mental focus and attention can
control capillaries. Or how it is being used in stress
management or pain relief or simple psychotherapy, a sort
of ongoing development of rational/emotive therapy.-- I
mean, instead of blurring everything together with all
your games about nonconceptual art and so on.
Are
you getting worried then about my influence on your
daughter?
No,
for God's sake!
Really
not?
--Oh.
You are just teasing.
No,
really. No. Maybe I am too cavalier with her.
No
I am not worried about that in the least. That is not it
at all.. --So?
So
what?
What
about my question?
What
question?
Why
not just bring it down to earth rather than all these
games?
Well,
I think I can answer your question to some extent. The
stories about the Buddha are relevant, I think.. The
Buddha knew about the power of deep concentration, of
course, and how pleasing and interesting and significant
deeply concentrated states are; all of that was widely
known in India during his lifetime. But he did not trust
the fact that they are powerful and pleasurable. So he
was doing the self-mortification practices, not eating,
etc. Now why do you think he was doing all that?
I
have no idea. He was afraid of life? Saying no
to life?
No,
Erin. Exactly wrong. Because he had the intuition there
is something better even than the refined pleasures and
power of deep concentration. He observed the tendency to
try to grasp experience, and the connection between
grasping and suffering even in the midst of refined
states. Later he realized pleasure itself is not really
the problem, and in fact one does not have to eliminate
or suppress or destroy it. Same with desire.
I
thought eliminating desire was central--
If
I understand correctly, the idea is not simply to
eliminate it, which would be supression, but at the same
time not to be totally wrapped up in it, that is, not to
hold to it, cling to it, be attached to the desire
itself. This might be indicated by the phrase
“abandoning” desire which can be used so as not
to entail repressing desire. It is sort of being aware
and being desirous, yet somewhat nonchalant about it.
Same with pleasure.
Hmm.
In
fact pleasing states like joy and rapture, delighted
interest, are said to be the doorway.
The
doorway to what?
Freedom.
Liberation.
Those
are sort of vacuous terms aren't they?
Freedom
from suffering, Erin. Perhaps we tend to be reluctant to
admit this is a problem, especially when we've come to
think we should be happy. So we can almost get in the
habit of pretending we are happy,
especially when we are comfortable, engaged with things,
but in the background there is this nagging discontent,
anxiety--
Ok
yes. I grant you that.
--stress.
Actually
it has been waking me up at 4 a.m. I wake up in a mild
panic.
Simple
mindfulness is the key-- whether in the midst of pleasure
or pain or neither. But this is sort of subtle. There is
an interesting sutra where Sariputta is talking about an
unblemished mind. He says one can have an unblemished
mind, but if one is not mindful of that very fact, then
one actually will begin to attend to the theme of beauty,
which process will in turn give rise to attachment and
greed and aversion, so that the mind is blemished again
and suffering returns. Freedom isn't there.
Zoe,
please. Look.
What?
I
guess I am familiar with these ideas. But can't you get
past the jargon about freedom? What are you really
talking about?
The
crowbar, I guess. You just asked me why not climb up on
the roof and hammer in a few nails rather than going
around ripping things up. The idea is that the mind is so
subtle that, no matter what has been accomplished, even
if one can imagine a mind free from greed, and even
experience it at times, and so on, if we are not right up
to the minute, --boom. we're
stuck again. Yes, I am fascinated by an ideal of freedom
here. We have to do more than build and dwell. Of course
the crowbar itself has to be subtle.
You
are on the nihilist fringe, Zo. You are like
Krishnamurti. Even your outlook on meditation reflects
that.
Maybe that is
true --I can see what you were saying. I don't think its
as extreme as you suggest, but I can see that: the
critical, evaluating mind. Constantly alert to tear
apart. Well -- but you are that way too.
| Well, I’m certainly
not denying that. Always evaluating others and
myself. Evaluating myself in relation to others,
and others in relation to me, we are just tearing
ourselves down relentlessly. Incessant constant
measurement. Even people who never ever have
thought about God seem to imbibe this as a
cultural inheritance. |
| We are drawn to
competitive sports because in the games
measurement normally can be so precise,
well-defined winners and losers. |
| The sheep and the goats,
Zo. Actually I discovered something interesting
about Uncle Fred that is related. |
| What? |
| My friend Edgar Landgraf
did a search of all the references Nietzsche in
his writings made to buddhism because I was
curious how much he really knew about it.
Remember, you asked me if his main source was
Schopenhauer. There is one passage he quotes
repeatedly, from the opening verses of The
Dhammapada-- |
| --so he probably
didn’t read it very far. Just the first
page-- |
| Possibly not. In any case
he seems to have thought that buddhism was just
another Nay-saying
religion like the western religions. So anyway
the passage he repeats several times is this: Hatred
does not cease by hatred at any time; hatred
ceases by love--this is an eternal law. |
| That is interesting. |
| It fits with his own
analysis of western religion steeped in ressentiment
--like the idea of christianity as a slave’s
religion, turning hatred of oppressors into love
as a way to cope with being oppressed. Rather
than acting on the hatred and anger and getting
free of the oppressive situation. Trying to turn
hatred into love. |
| Yet nonetheless he also
may have seen that the Buddha was offering an
alternative to a way of life totally and wholly
grounded in evaluation and judgment. |
| Possibly. Including
self-hatred |
| --yah, based on the idea
of original sin. --plus utopian ideas about how
we are really supposed to be. Actually even in
meditation one can simply stay caught up in a
guilt-based model where the basic assumption is
that one is screwed up and one really has to work
to get where one is supposed to be. |
In my opinion, Zo, your retreats
into silence are sort of like an angry pout. Probably
actually it is a way just to keep things separate. Just
like Joe.You devote a lot of effort to it, deepen
concentration etcetera, but mainly you just relish a sort
of elitist appropriation of aloneness--
Now
you sound like Dr. Laura--
that
is an insult!
No!
Its not an insult, you should listen
I'm
losing you.
yah
I'm just going in the tunnel.
[unclear]
[unclear]
--Right
over the phone?--
[unclear]
You
hit like a girl, by the way.
Oh
yah?
wait
a sec--
[file end]
|