[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[merudanda]

Thank you for prompting me to look at this again

The Word of God shines bright in human form,
And thus we shine with him,
Building up the limbs of his beautiful body.
(Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis,
Et ideo fulgemus cum illo,
Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis)

Kéeps gráce: thát keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is—
Chríst—for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men's faces.

That final metaphor in the poem is an intensive one introducing both the
metaphor of 'play' (seems the verb 'plays' here is intransitive ) in
something, as well as the further one of doing so under the approving
eyes of a father (play 'to" like in  a rap, in music-' interestingly not
'for' the Father )

The earlier version of the last two lines in Hopkins's poem was :

Lives in limbs, and looks through eyes not his
With lovely yearning

Using the earlier imagery (Lives in limbs, and looks through eyes not
his
With lovely yearning ), however, can help us towards the basic idea in
Hopkins's poem - that the presence of Hopkins's Christ may be found in
play in other human beings, and so guided towards the Father.
...
just a playful thought....forgive me
only the thought of something bright and precise, that must have somehow
zigzagging back to the sky, its image too soon blurred to an idea after 
you open your prayerful hands to see what you have caught, that has been
tickling your palms with wings or feeler  reading your postings



The Large Family 1963 Rene Magritte




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> lol
> You MZ lives in limbs,
> And looks through eyes not yours
> With lovely yearning?
> "Keeps grace," (abiding in the "sanctifying grace"):
> "that keeps all his goings graces"?
>   And denying now the "instress"ness, the shaping force within
creatures
> of nature and art at FFL, in contradiction to your previous insistence
> that "inscape" was the essence of the postings at FFL  "landscape" by
> quoting  Hopkins then and there?
> Then and there the "inscaped" landscape markedly holding its most
simple
> and beautiful oneness up from the ground through a graceful swerve
below
> the spring of the branches up to the tops of the FFL timber. I saw the
> "inscape" freshly, as if my mind were still growing, though now the
eye
> and the ear are for the most part shut. And instress, the "doing-be"
of
> turquoiseb(ee) the positing or pitching of his whole self in his
> "selving" act of artistic will and "thisness"...  now cannot come.
>
>
>
> Is there is one notable dead tree . . ? [:D]
>
> Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis,
> Et ideo fulgemus cum illo,
> Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis.
>
> Hildegard von Bingen: "Ordo Virtutem"
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > The Barry Wright Syndrome
> >
> > Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja
is
> trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club
> members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent
> of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he
has
> to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a
> kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point
> of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to
convince
> even himself that what he says is true.
> >
> > This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but
> refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in
stating
> a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to
demonstrate
> the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is
> quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged
emotional
> reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the
> purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism.
> Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never
> thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really
> believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my
> point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it,
corroborate
> this opinion?
> >
> > But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to
> ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own
> experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and
> opinion that Barry expresses—we are mostly talking here about
> matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e.
> what has first drawn us into posting at FFL—is worth considering,
> examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his
> negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and
lets
> that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post
here—happens
> is that someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a
> whore." The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized
> wonders: "Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she
prostituting
> herself?"
> >
> > But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely
repeats
> his insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his
> post—as if this description of the person does not need
explanation
> or defence; Barry Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true.
> >
> > Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it
> out as so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself
that
> what he is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the
> merits of his point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively,
> reflexively ignores even the theoretical possibility that there is
data
> contradictory to his point of view; he merely ignores the very idea of
> another, competing point of view. Barry is thus selectively biased in
> this sense: Barry decides it serves his psychological needs to believe
a
> certain thing is one way; or rather he has a strong emotional need to
> have the world appear a certain way to him. If he can pretend that it
> does seem this way, then this enables him to project onto the world
what
> is most convenient for the perpetuation of his own undisciplined
> predilections. Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. I
> experience x to be a certain way 2. I will insist that x must be the
way
> I experience x.
> >
> > Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere
> fact that you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to
> your need for them to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort
> required to go from being predisposed—compelled somehow—to see
> things a particular way, to deciding well, they must be that way. We,
on
> the other hand, have to see how it is reasonable to draw the same
> conclusions as Barry has. But he deprives us of this opportunity, and
> makes his own subjective consciousness the only arbiter of the matter:
> we either trust him on this, or else we are unable to enter into the
> context within which he has come to believe what he says is the case.
If
> only Barry Wright would contemplate: I despise anyone on FFL who tries
> to argue on behalf of a point of view which is at odds with my own
point
> of view. Therefore I am just going to attack that point of view as if
it
> is stupid and indefensible—but I will never explain why this is
so.
> I will just go on repeating my own judgment, without ever attempting
to
> persuade, convince, much less convert, others to my point of view.
> >
> > Is this not clearly a dereliction of moral and intellectual duty?
> Barry Wright doesn't think so. He has said that most persons here in
FFL
> behave like jealous, intolerant Monkees Fan Club members—who don't
> want to hear any other kind of music. Well, Barry has said this. The
> question is: Is it *true*?
> >
> > Well, Barry has not permitted any freedom within which he has
> expressed this judgment for there to be any discussion as to the
degree
> of truth in his claim. He has determined—simply by stating his
> opinion—that in fact reality must vindicate his opinion. But he
> offers not one shred of evidence for this; he does not move through
any
> kind of process of reasoning and argument. It is enough for Barry to
> say: You are all Monkees Fan Club idiots and you won't (as it were)
> listen to [we must suppose] the Beatles.
> >
> > I think most every intelligent and sophisticated person on FFL
cannot
> even bother to take Barry seriously in what he says here. Not because
of
> fear of having been confronted with the truth (and therefore not being
> able to defend oneself); but because this characterization of persons
at
> FFL simply comes off as blind, wilful, spiteful prejudice. Anyone
> reading Barry's post today senses this immediately [there maybe a few,
> either active or temporarily in exile, who will, as a point of honour,
> go to bat for Barry; I am speaking here of the majority of readers and
> posters at FFL] that, Oh, it's Barry Wright; let's see if he can
control
> his hatred and contempt. [FFL reader gets to the end of Barry's post.]
> "Too bad; Barry's at it again. No point dwelling on the possible truth
> or falseness of what he is saying, because Barry is just doing therapy
> here. Getting out his feelings." That's good for Barry; but it doesn't
> mean we should take him seriously. We can't. Barry himself does not
> think his opinion worth arguing out through reason and evidence. And
if
> Barry is just tossing one of his IEDs into a crowd of people—and
> then fleeing the scene—should we assume he has performed a
creative
> and sincere act of constructive criticism?
> >
> > We can't do this. Now I don't say that there is not a case to be
made
> which more or less perfectly confirms the merit of Barry's accusation
> and judgment. But he refuses to make it. And this must be because,
when
> it comes to these topics of discussion, Barry always thinks it enough
to
> express his opinion—never going any further so as to bear the
> responsibility of finding out that it might not be true. Or,
> even—ironically enough—that it *is* true.
> >
> > Is there anyone out there who can, sincerely and honestly argue
> against how I have interpreted the Barry Wright Syndrome?
> >
> > You see, in saying what I have said here, I am quite prepared to
find
> out I have misread Barry, that there is another point of view [let us
> please be spared the burden of having to listen to someone who only
> wants to defend in principle Barry's Wright to act this way, all the
> while ignoring the very point that I am making: there are such persons
> out there on FFL]; that indeed I am wrong. But just saying this,
without
> going through the ordeal of proving it, will not provide me the
> opportunity to see that I have made an error in my analysis of Barry
> Wright, and in my subsequent judgment of Barry Wright.
> >
> > I simply reject the truth of Barry Wright's Monkees Fan Club
argument.
> If there potentially is some truth in it—conceived in the
> abstract—Barry had vitiated the opportunity for us to find this
out,
> or intuit it, based upon the animus he brings into his post. For the
> post represents not really a substantive point of view; it is merely
> Barry Wright 'getting his feelings out'—which, from the point of
> view of his psychotherapist, may be beneficial to Barry. But why
should
> we consider that Barry has said anything of merit here? For he will
only
> answer those whom he senses are sympathetic to him—those whom he
> opposes (who might say something in reply to the Monkees Fan Club
jibe)
> he must ignore—or abuse with a sense of self-impunity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one
that
> I
> > > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching
> for a
> > > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
> with
> > > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along.
> Consider
> > > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor. 
:-)
> > >
> > > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
> Monkees
> > > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
> glory
> > > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
> argue
> > > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
> esoteric
> > > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
> because
> > > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not
the
> > > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the
> Monkees
> > > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
> other
> > > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as
the
> > > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club
is
> > > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years
> after
> > > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> > >
> > > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > > place.
> > >
> >
>