On the Relationship Between Forgiveness and Attachment

On the Relationship Between Forgiveness and Attachment

It is the quandary of my life that I've been so respected by so many musical big-shots in the professional world, yet have never become a big-shot myself. I look at the level of talent that fills the number one spot in any of the areas where I have expertise (mainly violin, conducting, and composition, but also in the important realm of teaching), and I say to myself, “I can do that, I can sound like that! Why is it not recognized that I deserve the same respect that these people enjoy?”

The answer always comes resounding back out of the void in great black cartoon letters, spoken by the voice of grandmother God, “YOUR PERSONALITY SUCKS!!!”

“oh,” I say.

I have given so much thought to this problem, and have so many times stubbornly set my heels in the dirt against the pull of change, I thought I must ever remain  frustrated and cursed by a character flaw that I was powerless to transcend. Of the many things upheld against my father, his total failure to nurture a talent in his son that he really couldn't comprehend in the slightest, I blame my father for this personality trait because it is the exact same trait that plagued him all the time I knew him, and that eventually brought them down to the lowest possible professional level, that of a janitor. The short temper, the egocentricity, the always thinking I'm always right, the reveling in being the oddball, the superior attitude to the world, these all came from him. I loved and respected my father, and imitated him so well that it brought about our alienation and loss of contact. It is a terrible thing to have what you have had thought were significant gifts, and watch the world pass you by, and all because you can't control your obnoxious behavior in public or at home.

The big argument I kept coming back to over and over when I was refusing to adopt certain social conventions that might have made be more accessible to many, was that my best qualities in teaching and conducting are my spontaneity, my honesty, my caring enough to get personal right away; I thought if I started acting fake I would cheapen and deaden my aesthetic sensitivities--it would be like constantly feeling everybody's hands all over me, chains! chains! I've actually got better with the polite clichés recently, but the central problem remains, the central problem remains, the central problem remains.

I believe it must start with envy--coveting my neighbor's goods--the first ugly entangling vines from the seed of ATTACHMENT. I am in need of security, I'm in need of freedom from the fear of death, that my life will have net something, and I am so ATTACHED to the transitory delights of the physical world that I begin to interpret success in terms of material accomplishments. This leads to holding a grudge against the wall for not giving me what I deserve, starting at the top with the publishers didn't publish me, and the colleges that didn't hire me, straight down to the janitor who works in this crummy shithole where I work, where they are so desperate they have to hire me because nobody from Juilliard would touch this job. 

IshouldbeteachingatJuilliardIshouldbefamous….

What a realization! I am treating store clerks and secretaries like shit because I never got published!

I have started a campaign my life to forgive the world for not appreciating me and mistreating me. “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” Why not let them know what they do, let them know the person they are screwing by spreading vicious gossip, or forming step judgments that don't change for the next 10 years. Let yourself like people! Let yourself “give as before”. There is no ultimate value to any of the things we do on this earth, so why let attachment to a false value screw up your play time here in Eden?

The enormous pressure of pent-up tension and anger is released through the power of forgiveness. By letting go of my personal desire for fame I am thus able to forgive the world for not giving me fame, and am thereby made free to love and cherish the spiritual, the non-transitory realities of life. If I put myself in God's hands and trust Him to realize my potential at His leisure, I am happier, more confident, more powerful, more powerful, and even better equipped to create and handle success for myself than ever before. 

It is with this revised attitude I enter the new year. It is my sincere desire to remain a small part of your life. In any case we are sure to catch up with one another in the next life.

Yours,

RFT

A Musician Seeks His Own Level

A Musician Seeks His Own Level

When describing the potential for human achievement, it is often cynically and offhandedly stated that, where groups are concerned, 

“Water seeks its own level." It is my purpose, in this article, to do battle with this shallow truism, and to show that the average-seeking characteristics of water (i.e. the physical dimension) are not necessarily those of human consciousness—human consciousness is physical but also spiritual, and therefore it is individuality-seeking not average-seeking. It is a basic premise of this article that human beings are spiritual beings and do not need to be limited by the laws of the physical universe unless they choose to be; that by choosing to make more of themselves, people and groups can transcend the group-created self-limiting concepts and can become more than physical laws normally allow. By seeking his own level, finding and realizing his own unique spiritual identity, an individual contributes to group identity that is more than the sum of its parts—that is on a higher energy level than the average of its parts.

I recognize "pride" as a significant motivating factor behind my indignant attitude toward this statement. I'm exceptional, and have tried not to allow myself to let the lukewarm energies of my peers make the fires in myself burn less brightly, though this is not been an easy task; indeed, my struggle with making mediocrity (in the literal " middle seeking " sense of the word) is ongoing and seemingly endless. The story of my battle with mediocrity in various contexts constitutes the main body of this article. It is my desire to demonstrate, using myself as an example, that it is not necessary to submerge one's uniqueness for the sake of a group identity; rather, that the group identity is enhanced, by the raised consciousness of all the members of the group, of their own beautiful, singular individuality.

I do not represent myself as an ascended master holding the secrets of divine power. I'm just a man struggling to find himself in a society where self’s widespread alienation from self has not only become accepted as normal, it has become a moral standard for proper social behavior. Where I am concerned, I find that even when I get free of the mean-finding tendencies of social organizations, there is still the mediocrity in myself which I must unceasingly attempt to transcend; I am still quite far from achieving that great goal. Oh well, this is not such a terrible thing from the standpoint of this article, because I'm not attempting to write some fascinating account of my personal confessions, nor am I attempting to make the reader want to be like me (much is my petty ego might like that). I am attempting to make the reader aware of a materialist social consensus; this consensus is materialist because it treats man as though he were merely physical, and subject absolutely to laws governing the material world. I wish to describe (also to condemn) the social phenomenon that works against the integrity of the individual as a social being and is a spiritual being endowed with the infinite potential for achievement, for the creation of good. The expression “Water seeks its own level”, suggests that human organizations can only achieve ends determined by the desires of the average of the members of the group. It is a self-limiting concept that is blindly accepted by millions, when it might, by an act of will, be overthrown, thus freeing individuals to seek their own unique level, and revolutionize the quality of excellence that people and groups normally experience.

I admit it, I'm a musician, and the personal experiences I'm about to relate come mostly from the contexts of professional music-making; that makes this article of interest primarily to musicians, in a way. I would hasten to add, however, that the fundamental issues of this article are not about music, and I beg the non-musician to be patient and try to see that the psychological patterns I'm describing are by no means specific to music. Although I will be describing situations that musicians will be able to relate to most easily, is my hope that the reader will perceive the musical context as microcosm of the way people in all kinds of groups perform their social functions; the inspiration I seek to offer to apply to the process of serving on a Parks and Recreation planning committee, just as well as the process of playing in a string quartet.

It was somewhere during grade school that I embraced the philosophical attitude that individuality was good. I think I learned it in school, it might of been from television, I might have just known it intuitively. Anyway, the idea being my own person, doing my own thing came naturally to me. My father was not the slightest bit interested in my doing things my way, but he was very interested in doing things his way, so I was provided with a model I would come to emulate more and more as time went on, my different drummer thrum- thrumming louder and louder.

It was not really until junior high that I began to realize the tragic paradox that was to become a major theme of my life, namely, the individualist, much-glorified in word and song, was, in daily life, a much-maligned social entity. Almost every element of my public education was in some way self-contradictory on this point. We would read Thoreau, that magnificent phrase-maker, then be instructed as to exactly what to think about him, and what school-speak phrases we were allowed to write about him. It was during an oral report on Brave New World, that rhapsodic lament on the death of individuality, that the teacher actually said to me, “Who are you to criticize Huxley? " "I am me," I replied, ungrammatically. The teacher was unconvinced. Whoever heard of someone that wasn't famous having a valid opinion about anything? To her, I was a slot in a great book, and my application for a poetic license (among other things) was denied on the grounds that there was no room to notate such irregularities in my slot. “Why, " I wondered, "do they give us this stuff to read if they consider the content to be untrue? "

In music class there was a different atmosphere. There, my talent and leadership abilities were appreciated and nurtured by the teacher, who thought that it was so good to have someone who could play and keep going, that any quirkiness in my personality was indulged as a fair trade for my positive impact on the class. I realize, now, that I was lucky in this respect, for I have known many tremendously gifted music students who have been shot to pieces by less-gifted teachers.

So, lucky me, I came to consider music a haven from the hypocrisy of society and the educational system. I progressed rapidly and developed many strong soloistic qualities, which distinguished my playing from those around me. I was also singled out of a pack of kids at music camp, to be taught privately by a world-famous teacher, who happened to be a great genius and a great pioneer. His influence caused my playing to become more individualistic than ever, because of certain technical innovations he had created in his laboratory. It was agreed by all, that, by the time I finished college, I played "pretty good".

So, I jumped out of the ivory tower nest and tried my wings in the professional world; almost immediately things began to go bad. I was hired as a "ringer" in various community orchestras, did a fair amount recording, and was fairly well respected by a number of contractors, so that I kept getting hired; but an annoying pattern began to emerge, a pattern that began to get more telling every time it happened: I would be playing my heart out, making beautiful sounds, when, out of the blue, someone would tell me to tone it down. There were variations on this theme, some more polite than others, but all of the same underlying message: I was doing something that was different enough to be noticed by the players (by no means would this differentness be obvious enough to be discernible by the audience, except, perhaps, visually) and they wanted me to stop it. There were never any real musical complaints, it was more like an aura of confidence and superiority that they didn't like; they wanted me to be one of the guys, to fit in, to seek their level.

Once I was actually kept out of an orchestra that badly needed strong players on the instrument, because the conductor thought I was "too flashy", that I would alienate the other weaker players around me. I've already admitted that he was right, in a sense, and will continue to cite further examples of how right he was, but, in a larger moral sense it was wrong that he was right; he should not have been right, it was bad for him, the orchestra, and me that he was right; and I later proved him wrong about what he had been right about, by joining the orchestra later  (under a different conductor) and eventually by playing under him, and receiving the unanimous approval of the orchestra and lavish praise from the conductor himself.

Another time I had a section leader tell me, “You’re section leader material, but you do not have a section leader position,” ergo, I should stop playing like a section leader, i.e. with confidence, tone, and personality. The idea was that it was okay for him to play well, but not me—I was a follower, a little tin soldier, and I should know my place. A covert implication of this whole line of reasoning was that this section leader didn't want anybody else sharing the spotlight, and this, not even out of any particularly egomania, but merely because this is "the way it is done".

Here, we begin to arrive at the crux of the matter. In musical organizations, and, if I'm correct, all social organizations, a group consensus is arrived at, unconsciously, as a consequence of an averaging process (sort of like democracy), whereby the average energy level of the group comes to be interpreted as the standard energy level, such that all significant deviations from the standard are taken as socially obnoxious. Through inference, "socially obnoxious" comes to be interpreted as "musically obnoxious", even though the only musical offense may be merely this stepping outside the established social boundaries.

To be more specific: there are, in the music world, certain geographic areas where a certain style of playing predominates over other styles which are to be readily encountered and accepted in other geographic areas. These styles are, after all, mere variations on a theme, with no fundamental differences; however, the exponents of these various styles cling to their specific eccentricities with passionate intensity, and, like devout churchgoers, proclaim their style to be the only true style. Therefore, when a social deviant from out of town arrives on the scene, there will naturally be some ruffling as the new man seeks to integrate himself into the system. If the home folk recognize the out of towner as a legitimate player, with something to contribute, there is an enriching of the two styles as their energy amplitudes are added to each other. Sadly, prejudice and religious fervor all too often eliminate the new player and the richness before has had a chance to gel. 

There have come to be elaborate rationalizations ("schools of thought ") to justify this average-seeking phenomenon as proper musical behavior:

One word that is much bandied about among the mediocre is “blend". The term “blend" has come to refer to the depersonalization of the individual sound quality in favor of a group sound that is even, neutral, and usually bland and innocuous. The theory is pretty simple-if you play without any personality "you will fit in with a bunch of other people playing without any personality. When you sound very nearly like everybody else you are "blending", and when you sound different you are marring the “blend".

The idea of “blend” refers primarily to sound quality, which is the single most personal aspect of playing an instrument; to reject a musician’s sound can be thought of as the most personal rejection a musician can experience, and it is on a personal level rejection is felt, causing the sound-offender to suffer great loss of confidence and personal motivation.

Now, no reasonable musician would promote the idea of people playing a piece in contradictory styles at the same time-the idea of a section is to sound like one big instrument— but the definition of contradictory styles has become too narrow in many people's minds, such of the sound that is different is automatically considered contradictory, even though it might, with a modicum of acceptance, be seen as truly complementary, and in a glorious, truthful way.

Style is not the same as sound in the vast majority of orchestra playing contexts (excluding musicological efforts with original instruments, etc.); therefore the questions of sound and style are very separate issues; very many different sound qualities are acceptable within a given style, as can be demonstrated by the recordings of great masterpieces produced in widely divergent geographical locations, and (now, in 1988), several different time periods. A largeness of mind on the subject of sound quality will result in an attitude of acceptance toward sound variations, since no connoisseur of discography can reasonably reject the playing of Elman or Kreisler in favor of Heifetz, Oistrakh, or Perlman, though serious examination of these artists will reveal more fundamental disagreement in terms of sound than of style.

The element of style most critical in section playing is to be seen in the area of rhythm and nuance; if these elements are uniform throughout the section, the ideal of sounding like one big instrument will be achieved regardless of the level of richness of sound. In terms of style, the extent to which a musical performance is correct is the extent to which it remains faithful to known musicological facts having to do with articulation, embellishment, tempo, etc.; however, the extent to which a musical performance is alive is wholly due to the personal commitment of each player to giving his best self to every moment of the piece. I am, in this argument, attempting to show that just by making yourself sound like everybody else, you do not necessarily make the section sound like a single instrument, as you can, by undercutting your own energy, make the section sound like a wimpier instrument; by lowering your personal energy level to accommodate the group level, you rob the orchestra of a dimension of its potential group identity.

There is a long list of great conductors who encourage their players to play like soloists. These conductors have been big enough themselves to see that the music gets its life from inside the hearts of the people playing it; these conductors have recognized that they will only reach their own level of peak artistic expression by allowing the players to achieve their own level of peak artistic expression. I'm not saying that playing music is all cathartic fun and feeling, no, the Apollonian constraints placed upon musicians are numerous and necessary, since the mind is often the round-about road to the heart; a musical group must be led to a piece of music through a keen intellectual alignment. But the SOUND is where the player’s soul meets his instrument in a glorious Dionysian revelry that cannot be understood or controlled intellectually without repression of energy.

Let us examine the term repression a little more closely. Since art is understood largely in psychological terms, the idea of repression, as an element in the truthful representation of the human condition, must play a part in developing an attitude toward repression in the interpretive act of playing. The music, the composer is often objectively describing the feeling of repression; just as often the composer is actually feeling repressed himself, as he struggles to overcome some personal issue which is the subject matter of his composition. In either case, the end result, the finished piece, is expression. Even if the repression in the piece is a consequence of unconscious psychological processes, the notes on the page are an expression of repression (as opposed to a repression of expression—ha ha.). The player, therefore, must always be expressing (out + pressing) repression, not feeling repressed; at least not feeling personally repressed. He may create the feeling of repression in himself as he acts out the drama of the piece, but to feel repressed by forces external to the forces of the music can only result in distraction, lack of focus, and frustration.

Frustration is a natural consequence of repression, because to be made to be less than you are is the most unpleasant, insulting violation of basic human freedom a person can experience; to be less than you truly are makes you feel like nobody. Indeed, the frustrations of anonymity are the single most published complaint of orchestral players in the world; whenever professional musicians are interviewed, they bitch and moan that they don't feel that it matters whether they play well or not, as they are part of a huge depersonalized machine. It is true that the fight for identity is fierce in large social organizations, but so many people attempt to deal with the problem by giving in to the situation--by giving up their personal identity before all the votes are in. By admitting at the outset that you will make no difference, you ensure the fact that you will make no difference, and obliterate the possibility of your ever making a difference. Consequently, in a system where conformity is a conscious goal, the strong players become weak, and the weak players, without the inspiration and example of their betters, become weaker. No one takes any responsibility for the music except to make sure that no one else takes responsibility for the music.

Another argument against the enforcement of average-seeking is the fact that some players are just plain better than other players and naturally play with more personality because they have more personality. In a situation like this, there is a tendency for the better player to "stick out", but this is not necessarily a bad thing. First, a soloistic sound, singing above a more bland section sound, can give a clarity and punch to the sound, an added harmonic that is very pleasing. This is a common trait of the great concertmasters of the world, and “sticking out " is precisely how they lead their sections. If more players in the section "stuck out" the sound would be even more brilliant. Secondly, the better players, if accepted by their peers, can have an inspirational effect on the weaker players to raise the energy the section. I've seen this happen again and again, especially among younger, more innocent professionals who are more willing to be influenced by positive energy around them, and anxious to imitate that which their hearts identify as "good". It is usually the older pros, set in their ways, who resist the influence of the new, and who actually resent soloistic playing. Is the old pros who band together during the intermission to collectively repress energies of the offender. I think they may be thinking that they are "keeping the niggers down", but they are really committing a crime against heaven, the orchestra, and themselves.

I've heard vocal ensembles (where the term “blend” is most often used, and where there is a greater variety of sound qualities than any other musical context) consisting of singers whose voices sounded very different from each other, but whose “blend” was a truly glorious milkshake of sounds. Each person’s best self harmonized with the others to create a synergistic whole that was unexpected, and unconventional, but truly beautiful and exciting, precisely because of the richness of the sound palette. If the sounds agree with each other in terms of objective criteria, like intonation, rhythm, dynamics, etc., the more subjective quality of sound can only be enriched and energized by individualistic contributions. Every rose does not have to be red to make a garden. To play with your heart and to give to the orchestra your best self is a most beautiful and courageous humanitarian act. It is such a shame that musicians insist on undercutting each other's individuality and constricting their musical reality. Then they complain about anonymity. Dumb.

An even more serious consequence of musical conformity is a habit I've encountered very often in orchestras who suffer from a lack of confidence; the problem is that of playing behind the beat. In groups where people are afraid to take a chance, there's always the question of “Who is going to play first?” To my mind, when you're supposed to play has always been a fairly uncomplicated matter-you play when the conductor's baton hits the bottom of its trajectory; the rhythm in the conductor's body becomes the rhythm of the group. However, I have played in so many orchestras where all the players are so afraid of making a mistake, of sticking out, that they have developed a style of waiting for the baton to fall and bounce back before they play, so that the visual effect is what you get when you listen to music outside, from several thousand feet away-you see the baton go down a second or two before you hear the sound. Orchestras play this way because they wait for each other to play rather than trusting their own ability to play with the conductor. As a conductor, I'm always searching the orchestra for uplifted eyes to make contact with; for this reason, I've always been appreciated by other conductors when I'm playing in the section, because they can always rely on my eye when they search the orchestra for contact.

It is my understanding that the role of orchestral conductor was invented when ensembles got too large for chamber music ensemble playing (hearing) to keep people together; rather than listening to things happening (sometimes over an area of 100 feet and more), the visual impulse of the conductor was used to keep people together. No doubt, it is more difficult to play music from a visual cue rather than an aural cute, because, rather than the immediate feedback of the physical sounds, the playing takes on an inner quality, as the individual player draws the sound out of a kind of silent void; granted this is difficult, but it is the price we pay for the creation of large ensembles, and anyway, it develops faith and character. The system of visual cueing really does work if the conductor is clear and strong, and is able to convince the people that they must follow him and not each other.

The unfortunate fact is that everybody doesn't follow, especially in the back of the orchestra. Time after time I've heard rhythms radiate outwards from the podium like a row of falling dominoes, such that by the time the guy in the back figures it is safe to play, the guy in the front is already playing the next note. The conductor complains “It's late! It's sounding late!" to which the back bench player pathetically replies, “But we can't hear!" I say, in all humility, ha ha, “You're not supposed to hear! It is assumed you can’t hear, that's why where paying this conductor so much money, so you don't have to hear! If you would only have the courage to play with what you see, you would all play together!! !”

In this kind of group, a strong player in the back can make a section sound very off-the-beat because he will be playing ahead of the people in front of him, and sometimes even ahead of the section leader, if the section leader subscribes to the "behind the beat" philosophy. Such a player, playing with the conductor and not waiting his turn in the line of dominoes, will sound like he is making a mistake, and everybody will jump on him for "rushing", etc.; only he and the conductor will know his secret virtue, and even the conductor will have to say, “Folks, it's not together."

There is a further complication concerning section leading that deserves mention. I have sometimes been accused of playing ahead of the section leader. This is always a shock, because I felt certain that I was playing with conductor, and assumed the section leader was too. I hang back and check out the situation, I usually find that, yes, the section

leader is playing behind the beat. What a dilemma-to play with the conductor or play with the section, every one of whom follows the late section leader with sheeplike devotion? This really should not be a problem, since it is understood by all that, in the orchestral hierarchy, the conductor is the final word; yet, it is a problem because people have such an underdeveloped sense of their own ability to do their job that they are always, at every turn, looking to someone else for guidance. Consequently, there is often a situation where the various sections of an orchestra are perfectly together as sections, but are not playing anywhere near together as an orchestra. There would be no argument from the players that this is the wrong situation, but in actual practice, it is clear that they would rather be one of the 6 to 10 wrong people than the one right person. Dumb.

The problems of playing behind the beat are most acutely felt in situations where the tempo is changing. More rehearsal time is lost rehearsing ritards (slowing down) and accelerations than any other single musical effect, because the players will simply not trust themselves to respond instantly to the conductor signal; because they must hear the effect first, then repeat it by rote, tempo changes must be rehearsed twice every time they occur, whether they are surprise changes or extremely conventional things like ritarding the end of a piece. The operatic literature tends to be very easy music, technically, but because of the rhythmically erratic nature of dramatic music, or, indeed, any music where there is a rhetorical emphasis, an orchestra can spend hours getting it together by rote, and then if the singer feels it differently in the performance, runs out of breath, etc., it still won't be together. often, in such rehearsals I lament the Toscanini “A curse on Guido d’Arezzo for inventing music notation!"

I find it interesting, as I consider what I've just written, that the two main areas of orchestral individuality-repression that I have described, i.e., sound quality and rhythmic strength, are opposite each other on the right/left brain model of mental functioning that has come to be generally accepted over the past 10 or 15 years. Specifically, sound quality is the creation of the right brain, subjective sensitivity to space and emotion, while rhythm is clearly a left brain, objective, small- information-byte-processing function. It was seen then that what I have said is true—that the better players play both with a better sound and better rhythm; they are simply more conscious—in that both halves of their brains are more active when they play music. I will not go so far as to say these people are more awake mentally in all areas of life; we can readily cite examples of very mentally awake people, like Einstein, for instance, who were mediocre musicians, and we can also see excellent musicians who get overwhelmed by the idea of balancing a checkbook, or taking a simple telephone message for their wives. Neither can we categorically ascribe superior playing to superior training, because I've seen many superb musicians succumb to the herd propensity toward average-seeking tone quality and falling-domino rhythm.

At the level of consciousness of which I am speaking, the problem is not one of intelligence, or training, but is more a disease of the will. There develops, in any group, a consensus; it's a mind-set that comes to be accepted by all unless it is stubbornly resisted by those who refuse to let their personal energy level be dictated by an impersonal democratic process. I speak of a disease of the will because the mind-set is not a function of talent, it is a learned thing, and can be changed by an act of will. A person can achieve on a level several quantum leaps higher than the average, merely by wanting to. The wanting is critical. From wanting all else will follow.

In order to refute the idea that the water of man's collective consciousness necessarily seeks its own level, I must make some strong statements about the relationship of man's mind to his will. The mind as a physical machine that is prone to habitual repetition of similar functions. Yet, because the mind is also a vessel for the translation of spiritual realities into physical manifestation, the mind can be taught to respond, with superhuman energy, to suggestions of the will. There is so much about music that is not of this world anyway, that even the slightest suggestion can trigger thought processes and physical acts that are unearthly-impossible, according to the materialistic expectations of science and common sense. Wanting something is an act of will. Imagining something is an act of will. If there is faith in the will, there can nearly always be a material manifestation of a consciously expressed desire. Hence, by wanting to achieve an artistic effect, a person who believes in the power of the spirit to change the physical world, can change not only his own energy level, but the energy levels of those around him. Mind is dumb, and slow, but it is also obedient to the will, so by merely ordering the mind to reach up, the will can cause the mind to be filled with light from heavenly sources.

If other minds are reaching up for the same divine truth that will be, not an addition of their power to each other, but a geometric (or hyper mathematical) multiplication of their energies by each other. This is the truth. This is what can be.

This, patient reader, is why consciousness does not have to seek its own level— because consciousness is infinite, incalculable, and ultimately singular in its identity. The minds of a group of orchestral players can become one in a singular act of will. When this happens, there is no question of leading, following, sticking out, blending, or any such physical considerations. When people become of one mind, that divine mind equalizes everything-all individuals are perfectly harmonized in a divine symphony of joy and power.

At the beginning of this article, I referred to "pride" as a serious stumbling block for myself. I consider pride to be a very serious problem for most people, professional musicians possibly more than others. Performers must develop their ego-consciousness more than most people, because performers routinely put their best selves on public display. The ego, thus constantly exposed to the critical eye of society must be tough and solid, or it will buckle under the pressure. However, this toughening all-too-often results in a hardening of the arteries of the heart, and emotional responses which once were spontaneous and authentic begin to become automatic, calculated, and false. Pride becomes merely a self-limiting concept, a false self image. This is an on-going process that can continue to take place over many years; it is the main reason young players are so much more flexible and enthusiastic than "seasoned" professionals. This is my prayer: “Oh God, please never let me become a "seasoned” professional! Let me always find the new and fresh in music! Let me give life-support to an endless stream of newborn feelings and ideas, let me animate the paper notes with my single, unique, best self. Let me bury my pride and resurrect my single, unique, best self. Let me bury the pride and search the depths of my soul for that divine source from which all power and individuality spring!”

It is my conviction that man is a spiritual being, and that making music is a process of manifesting spiritual realities in forms that can be appreciated by man in the physical dimension. Music, being a kind of message-in-a-bottle from a divine source, draws on human powers and understanding several levels deeper than normal day-to-day living consciousness. Unfortunately, the attitude of devotion necessary to achieve this level of understanding is sadly lacking in the practice of music-making in the professional world. For the "seasoned” professional, music-making becomes a "normal” activity, like grocery shopping, and the magic wears off and is not renewed. Thus, as I have complained about all through this article, when someone comes along whose heart is still full of youthful enthusiasm and derring-do, his antic attitude is looked on with suspicion and fear, and his "inappropriate energy" is squashed by those practicers of the blasé who have forgotten, or never knew, how to be young.

Verily, verily I say unto you, it is possible to stay young. At a meta-level of self-programming, an individual can learn to, 

1. prevent the critical left brain from automatically responding to every new or unusual energy with negativity, and, 

2. to allow spontaneous self-created energies to overflow to overthrow the tyrannies of the petty ego, and fill the individual’s being with the light from a higher-than-normal level of consciousness.

At this point in my article, I wish I could follow through with the lengthy, detailed, rational description of the method of consciousness raising that would make better musicians out of everybody who tried it. I confess I cannot, not because there is no such method, but because for every musician, every person, the method is different. Learning to exercise the will in consciousness-raising is both the simplest and yet most impossibly complex thing that can be done. The power to make music live is found along the pathway to the heart, and every pathway to every human heart is different. This is the dilemma and this is the joy, that every human heart is and must be different. This is not a cop-out, because every heart shares, at its source, the same divine identity, so that the general description, or, you might say, roadmap to the heart is the same; but only the wildest fit of arrogance could persuade me to prescribe for others the techniques for awakening their spirit consciousness that I have used. Nevertheless, I will say that the first step along the path is to want to take a step. I cannot point the way any further than wanting to take the first step inward. From there on, "where your treasure is, there is your heart also."

Every musical performance should begin with an invocation of divine power, a turning of the consciousness inward, toward the heart. When this happens, many unusual and sometimes terrifying things can happen, because the supernatural worlds express themselves in our world in many unusual and terrifying ways. The reason for the terror is that they are never the same—the flow of time down the cosmic river provides endless variety of manifestation, and because we evolve and change with every second, we never get a chance to familiarize ourselves with the experience—everything is new every time. Because of this we must have completely anomalous aesthetic responses to same piece every time.

The key concept, for me, is acceptance; to accept who I am, to accept the rich and strange aspects of myself that come out when I dig deep, and to accept those around me, who, on a fundamental level, are a part of me. It is my hope that more people will learn to identify with the common thread that joins them to other people, and to stop being so quick to deny the humanity of, and to repress the energies of, those who are different from themselves. If you are a victim of repression, it is my hope that you will find the courage to continue to fight the good fight, and never stop believing in yourself and the power from God that is yours simply by wanting it.

7/8/88

Laus Dei

The Conductor:Medium of Divine Communication

The Conductor:
Medium of Divine Communication

Music is spoken of as the universal language. All people understand music. However it is precisely the fact that all people understand it, that indicates that music is not a language at all, but something higher. A language is a system of symbols with refer to tangible things. Although there are logical identifiable symbologies present and music of all times and places, the archetypal forms underlying these linguistic eccentricities do not refer to physical realities. These archetypal forms are divine realities manifesting in the physical—the spirit made flesh (or something like flesh-sound). These forms are not symbols for things, but actual spiritual truths brought into an objectification as sound in air.

The higher mind of man perceives and vibrates sympathetically with these truths and sends impressions down to the lower mind (what we call the conscious mind, although it is only a tiny fraction of total consciousness), where thoughts or ideas are created. In the sense that these thoughts are created in response to music, music may be thought of as a language, but it is a language removed by one; initial appreciation of music as a spiritual (therefore universal) reality has nothing whatever to do with linguistic references. The experience of music, before it becomes objectified in the lower mind, is the alchemical process of spiritual energy acting on the soul to create change, and spiritual advancement.

Nevertheless, to create the experience of music, there must be a constant dialogue between the higher and lower mind, as the individual elements of the experience are combined and mixed like chemicals in a laboratory. This is where the conductor of a musical organization comes in. The conductor is, in a real sense, the medium of communication between the higher and lower mind of the group. In fact, the conductor is the grand central station through which are channeled the higher and lower minds of the composer, the players, the attending divine Angels (angels, guides, etc. ), the audience, and himself. At a certain point in the composition’s life, the composer was the window through which the light of God's truth shone down on the earth; however, when a piece gets to the performance stage, the conductor becomes this window through which are reflected all the complicated energies that go into the creation of a human social event. The truth of the piece must shine through the conductor into the hearts and minds of his players (choral conductor substitute singers for players), and his players’ truth must channel through him into the hearts and minds of the audience. Thus, mystery and change attend every step in the process of music making.

One of the exciting things about music is that: as unique as each human soul is, that is just how unique the experience of music is to each participant. This gives a richness and majesty to the light of God's truth as it glints through the many facets of his created beings. However, since the dualistic nature of man's physical existence creates opposites, certain aspects of man's physical vibration tend to get out of phase with each other and cancel each other out, thereby diminishing the experience for all. One of the conductor's most important jobs, therefore, is to focus all the little lights of the players into one great ray, with all its constituent aspects in phase with each other, to create the brightest possible light. This is an heroic act of courage, for to become such a lens, to withstand the onslaught of so much accumulated power, requires great strength and breadth of character.

It also requires humility, for only by sacrificing ego to the higher purposes of God’s manifested truth, are the energies of all the players maximized and synthesized. Too many conductors make the mistake of imposing narrow interpretive ideas on the players, causing them to restrain or repress their own God-given energy; this is a tragic loss, and is the bane of the orchestral player, and the orchestra itself.  The razor's edge the conductor must walk is that of finding a way to get more out of his players than they thought they were capable of, while getting them to contribute this energy to a selfless group energy. The magic of the conductor's contribution to the music-making process is in his creation of a group consciousness that synergistically transcends the sum of the individual consciousnesses. This is accomplished by lighting a fire in the players’ minds for a single truth, and getting them to work together toward manifesting that truth. 

The relationship of thought to feeling determines the character of the group identity. Feeling is the link between the lower objective mind (where literal meanings are stored and manipulated), and the higher subjective mind (where there becomes less and less distinction between thought and reality). The feelings expressed in music are the universal truths which make music understandable to all men; as such they have a constant or static, unvarying quality; but, as mentioned before, the interpretation of these feelings by the lower mind results in mental structures, thoughts or ideas, which are as various as the individual minds interpret and him. Thus, the conductor’s first step in creating artistic unity is to take a single feeling and objectify the residual thought patterns into terms which do not neutralize each other either by contradicting each other, or by causing repression of energy among the players.

One tragic flaw one tragic flaw that too often mars the education of serious music students is that: teachers tend to become aligned with one or another of a variety of interpretive thought patterns, and then pass on this alignment (prejudice) to the students, preaching it as the gospel. This dogmatic approach to music teaching is so sad because it teaches students to think of music as thoughts rather than the larger feelings behind the thoughts. Nothing is so tragi-comical as two musicians from different schools of thought trying to argue out their “po-tay-toes” and po-tah-toes”, and then finally (in the words of Ira Gershwin, “Let’s call the whole thing off”; this, when they might have, by focusing their attention on the larger issue of feeling, found the common ground of higher understanding. The conductor’s job is to find this higher ground, and convey the sense of it persuasively to his players. He was make them understand that no artistic aspect of musical interpretation (tempo, style, sound quality, etc.) are matters of choice, and that, just as there is feeling behind every thought, there is life, a legitimate reality, behind every choice; that, and creating unity, choices must be made that sometimes contradict one's training, but are not, therefore, to because considered wrong.

Indeed, the whole issue of right and wrong (which is a subject for a separate article, if not a book) can too often come between the player and his enjoyment of his task. There are so many small decisions to be made in shaping a piece, and there are so many different attitudes toward each one of them, that squabbles over the “right” way can cause divisiveness and estrangement among the players. The conductor neutralizes this tendency by becoming the final decision-maker, dictating which way all the players must do their job. He must impress on them that there is no “right” way, there are only “good” ways, and good comes from making the best of every situation, even if, on the surface, it goes against the grain. There is a sense in which every literal configuration of meanings can be true, and it is never difficult for an open mind to find truth in a statement that, in another light, may appear false. The selfless player must subdue the petty ego, expand his consciousness outward to embrace the unity of group consciousness  consciousness outward to embrace the unity of group consciousness, and join with the group consensus shaped by the conductor.

“Good” is everybody's best effort. “Good enough” is an expression that has nothing to do with GOOD. “Good enough” is an objective standard created at different times by different individuals, today by the recording industry, pointing the way toward a level or type of perfection which may very well be “good”, but may also be, instead, merely “ right”. Conductors striving for a level of “good enough” that sounds like somebody's record, but which is not inherent in the temperaments of the players in hand, does not maximize those players potentialities, but rather, dehumanizes them and makes them resent both “the good enough” they cannot achieve, and the conductor for wanting them to be something they are not. Now players are always capable of giving more from a broader push from a broader spectrum than they think they are, but people are also individuals and should not be asked to parrot back somebody else's sound or phrasing when they may have a legitimate weight of their own that, for the person rings truer than the “good enough” way. The conductor should seek to bring forth the good inherent in the players in hand, probing into each player’s soul for the best that player has to offer. Rather than imposing some objective standard on the group, the conductor should reveal the group's own subjective reality to itself. Let the didactic conductor be warned, mismatching ideals is a deadly game, bringing much heartache and disappointment for all; it is like the poor tourist we find weeping brokenhearted on the steps of the church because he did not find the Mona Lisa anywhere inside the Sistine Chapel.

How does the conductor bring out the best in his players? First, he must get their attention. People do not automatically walk into a rehearsal revved up and on fire for the music; it is the conductor’s job to light the fire. Many conductors are so passionately in love with the music that they are shocked and insulted when the players do not immediately share this enthusiasm. Thus, emotional scenes and bitchiness ensue that have a tendency to awaken the lower minds of the players to concentration, but shut the doors to which spontaneous feeling must flow. The players become concerned with getting the conductor off their back, instead of finding the music. The annals of conducting are filled with tales of bitchy, even vicious conductors who were able to bring along unfocused players to a level of higher-than-normal intensity; but the price you pay for this kind of excellence is so dear, and it is so unnecessary to pay it.

There are many paths to higher consciousness; fear and grief are viable paths to higher levels, but they have a limited range of positive benefits; they also create a very unhealthy drop in energy when they wear off, so that a conductor may intimidate a group into performing one musical moment at a high vibratory rate, then pay for it with low vibration playing the rest of the night. Fear is a very unstable energy-it can cause things to go well, or it can cause things to get worse and worse. 

There is a story (true or mythical) of an orchestra rehearsal where a conductor publicly humiliated the principal flutist by making him practice a solo over and over in front of the whole group, meanwhile making rude comments about the flutist’s musicianship, intelligence, character, etc. That night of the concert, the flutist played the solo brilliantly, evoking a great smile from the conductor. Then the flutist rose from his chair, drew a gun from his vest, and shot the conductor. 

It is true that the conductor who is namby-pamby about giving direction, is not a good leader, and will not inspire respect or trust from his players; but it is also true that the great genius assholes of the art world, by any other name, are still assholes. The intensity achieved through impatience, arrogance, and intimidation is a shallow thing, and holds no promise for future growth. The apostle Paul points out that love, among other things, is long-suffering.

So how does a conductor get intensity from a cold group without yelling at them? A rehearsal is an intense thing, and must become intense immediately; but insulting the players’ ability, or denigrating their level of commitment (guilt tripping) only causes repression and contention. To get intensity from the players, the conductor must draw the players out, get them interested in the music for what it has to offer them, get all their minds focused on the concrete goal which feels and sounds good when it is achieved. Intensity comes from focus, focus comes from something to focus on. Thus, to literally objectify the goals, of the rehearsal, is the first task in beginning a rehearsal.

The word "objectify" is very important, especially since we have already spoken at length about the overriding importance of the “subjective reality " that a piece of music creates in the physical. The key to understanding is is to be found in the relationship of the objective meaning to the subjective state of being. For example, many times a conductor may desire a certain sound quality, or a certain style, which he hears clearly in his head, but not in the rehearsal room. He will begin to rhapsodize and poetic terms about the sound, describing it with onomatopoetic expressions. Most of the time this subjective treatment may mean something personal to the conductor, but usually relates personally to a small fraction of the players. Efforts to convey subjective realities through verbal means to those who did not already share the subjective reality higher-than-verbal level always fail. The players may try again, but since they have failed to understand, they fail to realize the conductor’s vision. More poetry, more failure, then insults, fits, frustration, anger, etc.

When describing the big picture (subjective content) fails to communicate the conductor's intentions, she should break the image down into smaller pieces. By breaking the subjective image down into pieces he is objectifying the image, reducing the high spiritual truth to a system of literal meanings which can be apprehended by the lower mind. Any sound or gesture can be so broken down; a crescendo, a ritard, a phrasing may consist of many discrete elements which can be rehearsed one at a time. This progressive building of an idea into a living gestalt can be grueling work, but a conductor should be man enough to teach his players, patiently, (no matter how good they are, or are supposed to be) what he wants down to the gnat’s eyebrow, because once a particular link is learned in a microscopic context, it is much easier for the players to extrapolate the information and transfer to other contexts. A conductor who can only generalize, and cannot explain what he wants in technical terms, this just an air beater. Even if his heart is full of enthusiasm, his mind alight with an inner vision, he must express enthusiasm and vision in terms that can be shared. To be sure, objective understanding is not the highest level of musical understanding; however it must be remembered that a vast chasm spreads between normal consciousness and higher subjective consciousness, and objectivity is our only pathway to the divine. Objective insights act like little links in a suspension bridge, which, when completely assembled, allow subjective insight to flow across from the higher mind and light the lower mind with truth and power. The objective analysis of a spontaneous gesture may momentarily drain some of the life out of the gesture. As the gesture is dissected, a synergistic unity is destroyed; but when the pieces are put back together, the conductor will reap the rewards of patience and insight which our joy and accomplishment, rather than the rewards of impatience and pride which are disappointment and anger.

Now, the use of imagery in directing the players’ attention toward a subjective reality is not always as ineffective as the preceding arguments may have implied. To tell the horn player that his solo should sound like “the rising sun", can give him insights that telling him to “play louder” cannot. However, the conductor should not just mention the rising sun, he should mention getting louder as well. Intangible, poetic quality should always be objectified by including direction toward getting the players to do something.

The physicalization of emotional qualities is the most crucial creative leap in music-making. Through physicalization, the word is made flesh. The conductor physicalizes the music through his movement. In this sense, his movement becomes a poetic image of the music as much as his verbal instruction; however, unlike his verbal instruction, his movement was always attempt to look like what the players do (to their instruments) to make the music. The conductor should dance the music for the players, taking care that his gestures are directed toward inspiring the player to perform specific actions. Many conductors’ movements degenerate into indistinct flopping and waving which, again, contain only subjective meaning. The conductor should never, for an instant, lose sight of the responsibility of the players to make them play better. The music comes from the players, not the conductor; when this fact becomes confused in the conductor's mind, petty ego takes over, and there is a breakdown of energy for the group; but when he loses contact with the group, and dwells on his own emotional investment in the music, the flow is interrupted. Therefore, the most selfless act the conductor can perform is to stop listening to the music, and focus himself on leading the players through their parts, moment by moment, letting the audience listen to the music. The conductor can always listen to the tape

There is an aspect of imagery which is para-physical, but which is nevertheless an instruction from the conductor to the player to perform an act. This is the act of will demanding than normal consciousness reach up into higher realms for insight and power. Most of the time the conductor’s plea for concentration or intensity is merely a plea for the player to  consciously enter a paranormal mind state. We do it, we all know how it feels, but somehow, in a materialist culture, we have neglected developing techniques for consciously entering higher mind states; therefore, we must rely on chance, or gargoyle-like fits from the conductor, to scare us into the divine realms.

Actually, it is very easy to get a group to raise its own consciousness, but it does take courage—for certain materialist predispositions, which, unfortunately are ingrained social attitudes, must be dispensed with. 

1.The first step in this “dispensing process” is to adopt the assumption that: the human personality is not confined to the human body-that we all, as holistic entities, take up more space than just our bodies do. 

2. Thus,we must then realize that, by reaching out with our senses, we can encompass much more space than our bodies might tell us we can. 

3.Lastly, we must realize that we can share space with other people. 

This sharing space is crucial to developing a group and identity. The senses that are reaching out are not physical senses, and the space shared is not physical space; but the registration of this experience in lower consciousness is just like the physical sensation of touching, only it is somehow more intimate than touching because we can feel the presence of the other person or persons through and through. The subjective experience of sharing a group consciousness can provide more unity of feeling and expression in any other single technique. Through this technique, sounds are blended, differences are unified, and energies are compounded. A moment of silence before the downbeat (preferably with eyes closed) can do more for her performance than anything in the world.

Now the conductor must take up more "space" than anyone else. The conductor must surround the entire group with this personality. He must have more confidence than anyone else (for the concentration and strength to reach out so far is enormous), but he must also be more selfless than anyone else (because to disperse his ego so far, he must give himself up completely to divine influence, and, on conscious and subconscious psychic levels, convey direction too many people at once.

We may speak of imagery in this regard because mental imagery is the technique most commonly employed to bring these energies into manifestation. The conductor may imagine the group enveloped in a cloud of pink light, or he may imagine rays of white light coming out of the top of everyone's head, joining in the central vortex above the group. Whatever the visualization, it is important to realize that the visualization makes it real. What our eyes cannot see, our spiritual eyes can see very well. Thus, through an effort of will, the conductor can create a divine reality, and if he asks the players to join him in the effort, the effects become exponentially enhanced.

Music is divine reality manifested in the physical. The goodness of God is that singular impulse which binds us together. Oneness is the object of all human endeavor; as such, music holds a special place in human activities, being such a perfect link between lower and higher mind functions. The conductor, more than any other person involved in a musical performance, is responsible for creating an atmosphere in which oneness may be achieved. This is a weighty responsibility indeed, and can reap, for him, great spiritual rewards. It can also load him down with tons of Karma (sic) if he allows ego and pride to come between him and the music and the players. God can change the world through music, and since the conductor is the high priest in this ministry, he must be tireless in his efforts to make himself a more and more perfect open channel for divine inspiration.

Laus Dei

November 17, 1987

Valentinus – Introduction I

Valentinus – Introduction I

It is interesting that the three very different ministers of the Basin Bible Church have all been moved to explore so many of the ancient extra-biblical religious texts of the Western World—I suspect that there are few if any other Christian churches in Alaska that are indulging such curiosities. Thus it is that, in keeping with this predilection for fringe Christian material, and consistent with my interest in the ancient Gnostics, and their powerful influence on the accepted Biblical Canon, we come to Valentinus. Today we will take A Brief Summary of Valentinian Theology, by David Brons, as far as the Principle of the Mother-God; next week we will examine the PROCESS of Gnosis.

Valentinus is one of those historical figures who ALMOST made it into the mainstream of theological thought—by that I mean, although his influence was deeply felt during his own life-time, his fringe philosophy was rejected by enough of a margin among the church fathers of the burgeoning Christian Church of the post-Apostolic Age, that he was eventually expelled from the mainstream and denied a lasting influence; thus Church history developed along lines that might have otherwise led to very different Catholic doctrines.

For good or ill, I think we have Paul and his disciples to thank for this. Even though, as we will read below, Valentinus is linked directly to Paul through Paul’s student, Theudas, we must remember, as we have seen quite often in the Gnostic texts, Jesus’ teaching was always on two levels—the level of the parable, (which was invented to give the layman a taste of the higher spiritual truths, but also to protect him from the truths he couldn’t handle), and the level of the secret truths, which were reserved for the initiates. In his letters, Paul dwells on the parabolic truth, to benefit the people, but, apparently, his other more esoteric teachings were passed on to a select few, the “spiritually mature”. It seems reasonable to conclude that these secret teachings were unwritten, perhaps because they COULD NOT BE WRITTEN. The Church Fathers, in choosing the accepted Biblical Canon, for reasons we have discussed several times before, favored the layman’s truth of Paul—thus consigning most of the more abstract scriptures, and scriptures of dubious authorship, to the consuming fires of time, and denying all of us the opportunity to ponder these higher level UNWRITTEN truths. If this was a good thing or a bad thing, you can decide for yourself after I read you some material on Valentinus, beginning with: 

A Brief Summary of Valentinian Theology

by David Brons

The Secret Tradition 

“According to Valentinus, there are esoteric teachings which originate from Jesus that were passed on in secret. When Jesus spoke in public, he used metaphors that did not disclose his complete teachings. He only passed them on to his disciples in private. He referred to this when he said: 

Luke 8:9-10:

"The knowledge about the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but to the rest it comes by means of parables so that they may look but not see and listen but not understand." 

Similarly, when Saint Paul encountered the risen Lord in a vision (2 Corinthians 12:2-4; Acts 9:9-10), he received the secret teaching from him. Valentinus claimed that he learned this secret teaching from Theudas. According to Valentinus, this secret tradition provides the key that is essential for a complete understanding of Jesus' message. One of his followers put this in the following words: 

Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:2:1:

"The scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."  

The Valentinians claimed that the secret teachings are meaningful only to those who are spiritually mature. If a person was not ready to receive them, they seem like nonsense "because their value can be judged only on a spiritual basis".

 Corinthians 2:14-16:

“14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 

15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”

According to the Valentinian tradition, Paul and the other apostles revealed these teachings only to those who were 'spiritually mature’.

1 Corinthians 2:6-8:

“6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

With this, we return to our often-broached conversation concerning parables and the Unforgiveable Sin; remember that Jesus spoke in parables to protect the uninitiated from themselves. For a warning, we have this passage from Hebrews to recall:

Hebrews 6:4-6:

“4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 

5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

Continuing with this subject, I now turn to Swedenborg and his Heavenly Secrets: Whenever I read Swedenborg, the mad 18^th Century Mystic, I am struck by the use of archaic language mixed in with perfectly contemporary, very clear and very simply expressed thoughts, quite readily accessible to the modern mind. Remember the section of Heavenly Secrets I am reading is concerned with interpreting the very first passages in Genesis. Related to Original Sin and the Expulsion from the Garden, Swedenborg has this to say on the subject of the parable, secret knowledge, and their relationship to the Unforgiveable Sin:

“The other secret is that if they had learned the mysteries of faith, they would have been destroyed forever. Such is the meaning of the words:

now perhaps people will put out their hand and take from the tree of lives as well, and eat, and live forever. “

[Sidebar: For the sake of clarity, I must insert a little word of explanation, an explanation which Swedenborg supplies himself, later on, but which I think deserves some attention right now—otherwise what follows immediately may not make any sense. The point here is that, when Swedenborg points out that a sinner may live forever, this is NOT a good thing. Souls unprepared for enlightenment will profane the divine and thus permanently bar themselves from Heaven.]

“The situation is this:

People can reach a point where the structure of their life is turned upside down; they have no interest in receiving life or wisdom from any other source than themselves and their own powers. Under these circumstances,

when they hear anything about faith, no matter what it is, they debate in their minds whether it is true or not. Because they make

themselves—their sense impressions and the facts they have learned—their authority, they cannot help denying; and when they deny, they blaspheme and profane. They end up with no concern about whether they are intermingling profane and holy things.

If this is what we become, we are so utterly damned when we enter the other life that no hope of salvation remains; and this is because things that are mingled together through profanation cling to each other in their mixed condition. 

As soon as an image of something holy comes to our minds, the attached image of something profane appears, preventing us from keeping company with any but the damned. 

(People in the next life—even the spirits in the world of spirits, and more so the angelic spirits—keenly perceive what is present in, and linked with, the ideas that make up our thinking. Their perception is so keen that from a single thought they can tell what we are like.)

Profane things attached in this way to holy things cannot be wrenched apart from them without the tortures of hell—tortures so intense that if

we knew about them, we would stay as far away from profanation as we would from hell itself.

That is why the mysteries of faith were never revealed to the Jews, who were like this. So little was revealed to them that they were not even told plainly that they would live on after death or that the Lord was

going to come into the world to save them. They were (as they continue to be) kept so deeply ignorant and oblivious that they had no idea (nor do they yet) that we have an inner being or that an inner plane even

exists. If they had known it (and if they knew it now), to the point of acknowledging its truth, they are such that they would have profaned it, removing forever any hope of salvation in the next life.

These are the things the Lord meant when he said in John 12:40:

“He has blinded their eyes and closed off their heart to prevent them from seeing with their eyes and understanding at heart and turning and being healed by me.”

The Lord also spoke to them in parables without explaining a single one to them “so that seeing, they would not see, and hearing, they would not hear and understand,” as he himself says in Matthew 13:13.

For the same reason, all religious mysteries were hidden away from them and veiled in the representative acts and objects of their religion. For

the same reason again, that is what the Word’s prophetic mode is like, too. But it is one thing to know and another to acknowledge. When we know but do not acknowledge, it is as if we do not know. If we do acknowledge and then we blaspheme and profane, we are the people the Lord refers to.

We build a life through all the things whose truth we persuade ourselves of, that is, the things we acknowledge and believe. What we are not

persuaded of—what we do not acknowledge and believe—has no effect on our mind. As a result, we cannot profane holy things unless we are persuaded to the point of acknowledgment and yet deny them. . . . .

Genesis 3:24. And he threw the humans out. And he caused guardian beings to live on the east of the Garden of Eden, and the flame of a sword

turning itself, to guard the way to the tree of lives.

Throwing the humans out is completely depriving us of all the will to

do good and all comprehension of truth—so completely that those faculties

are withheld from us and we cease to be human. 

Causing guardian beings to live on the east is making sure that we cannot enter into any of the hidden wisdom of faith; the east of the Garden of Eden is a heavenly quality from which an intelligent understanding comes. The guardian beings symbolize the Lord’s providence making sure that if we are like this we do not pry into the ideas that compose faith. 

The flame of a sword turning itself symbolizes self-love with its mad desires and the delusions that grow out of them. These desires and delusions are such

that although we want to enter there, we are carried in the opposite

direction, toward bodily and earthly preoccupations. This is done to

guard the way to the tree of lives, or in other words, to prevent us from

profaning holy things. Several passages in the Word mentioning the guardian beings, though, show that they symbolize the Lord’s providence making sure we do not incur death by profaning the mysteries of faith, through an

insane exploration of them that relies on our own powers, empiricism, or mere facts.

Those who do not acknowledge are capable of knowing, but it is as if they do not know. They are like people who know things but whose

knowledge amounts to nothing.

Now, back the Brons Valentinius summary:

“God

Valentinians believed that God is incomprehensible and cannot be known directly. Therefore he defies accurate description. He is infinite, without beginning or end and is the ultimate origin of all things. He encompasses all things without being encompassed. Everything including the world lies within the deity and continues to be part of it. The Godhead manifests itself through a process of self-unfolding in the subsequent multiplicity of being while maintaining its unity.” 

[Sidebar: Here we get into one of the more fascinating details of Gnosticism—the Father/Mother God of the Pre-Christian, (probably Pre-Judaic) Period. Our own Creation myth includes the idea of male and female being created in God’s image:

“[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

It was suggested to me, when I was in Jr. High, that the use of the “Royal We” in “Let us make humankind in OUR image,” is not confusing, if you only understand 18^th century English grammar; but if you are looking to argue about a scriptural reference to a plural, or Male/Female, creator— there it is: male and female were created in God’s image—male and female images intertwined and inter-dependent.

Swedenborg has a completely different interpretation of the expression “PLURAL GOD”:

“Genesis 3:22. And Jehovah God said, “Here, the human has been like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now perhaps people will put out their hand and take from the tree of lives as well, and eat, and live forever.”

The reason Jehovah God speaks at first in the singular and then in the plural is that Jehovah God means the Lord and at the same time heaven with its angels. The fact that the human knew good and evil means that people became heavenly and so became wise and understanding. . . . 

In Genesis 1, for instance, the only name used is God, and he speaks in the plural there as well—“let us make a human in our image.” Not until the next chapter, which treats of heavenly people, is he called Jehovah God.

He is called Jehovah because he alone is, he alone lives; the name comes from his beingness.

Human beings are also called gods by virtue of their power, as in Psalms 82:6; John 10:34, 35. Moses was called a “God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). For the same reason, the [Hebrew] word for God, Elohim, is plural. Angels have no power at all on their own, however (as they themselves

confess), but only receive it from the Lord. Because of this, and since there is only one God, Jehovah God in the Word means the Lord alone. But when anything occurs through the ministry of angels, as in Genesis 1[:26], then the plural is used.”

So much for the “Royal WE”:

Back to Valentinus:]

“Valentinians believed that God is androgynous and frequently depicted him as a male-female dyad. This is related to the notion that God provides the universe with both form and substance. The feminine aspect of the deity is called Silence, Grace and Thought. Silence is God's primordial state of tranquillity and self-awareness. She is also the active creative Thought that makes all subsequent states of being (or "Aeons") substantial. The masculine aspect of God is Depth, also called Ineffable and First Father. Depth is the profoundly incomprehensible, all-encompassing aspect of the deity. He is essentially passive, yet when moved to action by his Feminine Thought, he gives the universe form.” 

The idea of Feminine Thought giving form to the universe reeks of hidden mystery; indeed, the idea of a Mother-God, in some ways, contradicts the whole Monotheistic-Patriarchal paradigm that dominates the Judeo-Christian image of the Divine. I quote below a selection of previously presented comments on the subject of the Male/Female God. 

My favorite is this one from The Gnostic Account of the Fall and the Creation of the Material World. It gives an account of the “Little Wisdom”, a very heavy wisdom indeed, because it suggests that the wisdom of death is the impulse behind material creation:

“As a result of the new harmony established by "Christos and Holy Spirit", a new, unpaired Aeon, Jesus, is created, who is the "perfect fruit of the Pleroma", and expresses in his being the attributes of all the other Aeons.

The Christ-Aeon meanwhile shapes the "formless entity" into a new Aeon, called Achamoth (from the Hebrew Hokhmah, "Wisdom"), who becomes a kind of lower Sophia.

Achamoth, realising she is outside the Pleroma and unable to return, experiences emotions such as grief, fear, etc. Jesus then descends from the Pleroma and separates her from these emotions, which then become the substance or primal matter of the Cosmos, i.e. Psyche (Soul/Mind) and Hyle (Matter/Darkness). 

The material world is thus derived ultimately from a projection of the sufferings of Achamoth.  Inasmuch as Achamoth (like Sophia above her, and the Demiurge below her), is in many respects a mythological macrocosmic counterpart of the human ego, she is tormented by the longing for ultimate truth only able to produce a sort of bastard rationalism that has to be "crucified away" before she can be redeemed [E.R.Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, pp.19-20]”

The next excerpt is from The Nazarene Way of Essenic Studies.

It defines the Holy Spirit in its Feminine form:

Shekhina; The Feminine Aspect of God ~
The Esoteric Teachings of Jesus and the Nazarene Essenes:

“The Shekinah is held by many to represent the feminine attributes of the presence of God (shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew), based especially on readings of the Talmud and the Kabbalah. The word 'Matronit' is also employed to represent this usage. Comparative Religionists suggest a comparison to shakti, the female energy of Hindu gods, and to the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit.

Judaism and Christianity are both monotheistic religions, strongly connected to a patriarchal God - Yahweh. However, it may surprise many to discover that a goddess was associated with Judaism from its conception, and continued to play an important part, in various forms, to the present. The goddess is best known as Shekhina, a Talmudic term describing the manifestation of God's presence on earth. 

While the Bible does not mention the name Shekhina, she is nevertheless bound to extremely old traditions, and closely relates to the ancient goddesses. Particularly significant is the Canaanite goddess Ashera who, at the beginning of the Israelites' settlement in the land of Canaan, was often referred to as Yahweh's Consort. 

The literature also calls her the "Holy Spirit" which, in Hebrew, is also a feminine form.”

This next one tells another of the many creation stories that swell our world mythologies:

The Babylonian Creation Story (Enuma elish) 

“Like the Greek Theogony, the creation of the world in the Enuma elish begins with the universe in a formless state, from which emerge two primary gods, male and female: 

“When the skies above were not yet named Nor earth below pronounced by name, Apsu, the first one, their begetter, And maker Tiamat, who bore them all, Had mixed their waters together, But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds; When yet no gods were manifest, Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed, Then gods were born within them. (Dalley 233)”

Apsu, the male "begetter," is the sweet waters, while Tiamat, the female "maker," is the bitter, salt waters. Sweet and salt water mingle together at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, site of the origins of Mesopotamian civilization.”

[Sidebar: When I read these myths (including Eve’s disastrous interview with the serpent) I can’t help thinking of Pandora’s Box—that box that contained all evil and suffering, which she inadvertently released into the world; somehow these stories all have a female doing something bad that, nevertheless, sets the world in motion. Surely life in Paradise must have been a very quiet, still, timeless experience, and it took original sin to get the clock ticking. Much to think about.

Back to Valentinus:]

The Son

“The origin of the universe is described as a process of emanation from the Godhead. The male and female aspects of the Father, acting in conjunction, manifested themselves in the Son. The Son is also often depicted by Valentinians as a male-female dyad. The Son manifests himself in twenty-six spiritual entities or Aeons arranged into male-female pairs. The arrangement and names of the Aeons will not be discussed here. They represent the energies immanent within Son and were seen as part of his personality. Together they constitute the Fullness (pleroma) of the Godhead. 

The Fall

The Aeons who are manifested by the Son are conceived as having some degree of psychological independence. They lie within God but are separated from him by a Limit or boundary. As a result, they do not know the one who brought them into being. The Aeons sensed that they were incomplete and longed to know their origin. 

This longing passed to Sophia (Wisdom), the youngest of the Aoens. On behalf of the whole Fullness, she took up the quest to know the supreme Parent. She attempted to know him by thinking alone, something that is impossible. As a result, she became separated from her consort and fell into a state of deficiency and suffering. Through the power of Limit, Sophia was divided in two. Her higher part was returned to her consort but her lower part was separated from the Fullness into a lower realm along with the deficiency and suffering. This lower realm is identical with the physical world.”

[Sidebar: This account of the Fall is identical to the one I read just a few minutes ago: I particularly like this summary:

“Sophia was divided in two. Her higher part was returned to her consort but her lower part was separated from the Fullness into a lower realm along with the deficiency and suffering. This lower realm is identical with the physical world.”

[Sidebar: It took a while for me to realize the blatantly obvious connection between the story of Sophia divided in two, and the story of Adam and Eve. When you think of the Garden of Eden as INSIDE the Pleroma, and their expulsion from it as OUSIDE the Pleroma, (an expulsion, by the way, motivated by the FEMALE), it is easy to see the analogy, as Adam, having been evicted from Paradise, spends the rest of his days trying to return Home. It is almost as if he was expelled from the Garden and THEN ate of the tree of knowledge. Ha! Parenthetically, the idea that the material world was generated from deficiency and suffering is in accord with the description of the physical world as a ‘veil of tears’. ]

St. Augustine makes some relevant comments about the Male/Female dichotomy in Book 14 of The City of God:

“But we, for our part, have no manner of doubt that to increase and multiply and replenish the earth in virtue of the blessing of God, is a gift of marriage as God instituted it from the beginning before man sinned, when He created them male and female — in other words, two sexes manifestly distinct. And it was this work of God on which His blessing was pronounced. For no sooner had Scripture said, “Male and female created He them,” Genesis 1:27-28 than it immediately continues, “And God blessed them, and God said to them, Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it,” etc. And though all these things may not unsuitably be interpreted in a spiritual sense, yet “male and female” cannot be understood of two things in one man, as if there were in him one thing which rules, another which is ruled; but it is quite clear that they were created male and female, with bodies of different sexes, for the very purpose of begetting offspring, and so increasing, multiplying, and replenishing the earth; and it is great folly to oppose so plain a fact. 

It was not of the spirit which commands and the body which obeys, nor of the rational soul which rules and the irrational desire which is ruled, nor of the contemplative virtue which is supreme and the active which is subject, nor of the understanding of the mind and the sense of the body, but plainly of the matrimonial union by which the sexes are mutually bound together. . .”

Notice the dichotomous pairs:

spirit — body

rational soul — irrational desire 

contemplative —  active 

understanding of the mind — sense of the body;

In each case, the element of mind (spirit, rational, contemplative, understanding) are to be viewed as feminine, and each physical element (body, irrational, active, sense) is to be viewed as masculine. More on this below.

Back to Valentinus:]

“Valentinians envisioned the universe as a series of concentric spheres. The innermost sphere is the world or deficiency where the lower Sophia was exiled. Enclosing this is the Fullness (pleroma) where the Aeons are. The Aeons are enclosed within the Son. The outermost sphere which encompasses the Son is where the Father (Depth and Silence) is. There is a boundary or Limit between God and the Fullness. There is a second boundary or Limit between the Fullness and the deficiency. Just as the Fullness is a product of the Godhead and lies within it, so also the realm of deficiency is a product of the Fullness and lies within it. The deficiency arose as result of ignorance and it will be dissolved through knowledge (gnosis). 

[Sidebar: The image of the universe as a series of concentric spheres appears in a number of ancient scriptures. For instance in Ezekial: 

Ezekiel 1:15-21: 

¹⁵As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. ¹⁶This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like topaz, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. ¹⁷As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not change direction as the creatures went. ¹⁸Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around. ¹⁹When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose. ²⁰Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. ²¹When the creatures moved, they also moved; when the creatures stood still, they also stood still; and when the creatures rose from the ground, the wheels rose along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

Ezekiel 10:1-14:

“1 Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.

2 And he spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubims, and scatter them over the city. And he went in in my sight.

3 Now the cherubims stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in; and the cloud filled the inner court.

4 Then the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Lord's glory.

5 And the sound of the cherubims' wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when he speaketh.

6 And it came to pass, that when he had commanded the man clothed with linen, saying, Take fire from between the wheels, from between the cherubims; then he went in, and stood beside the wheels.

7 And one cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubims unto the fire that was between the cherubims, and took thereof, and put it into the hands of him that was clothed with linen: who took it, and went out.

8 And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man's hand under their wings.

9 And when I looked, behold the four wheels by the cherubims, one wheel by one cherub, and another wheel by another cherub: and the appearance of the wheels was as the colour of a beryl stone.

10 And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness, as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel.

11 When they went, they went upon their four sides; they turned not as they went, but to the place whither the head looked they followed it; they turned not as they went.

12 And their whole body, and their backs, and their hands, and their wings, and the wheels, were full of eyes round about, even the wheels that they four had.

13 As for the wheels, it was cried unto them in my hearing, O wheel.

14 And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.”

This scripture is packed with archetypal symbols which resonate in our unconscious minds; it is referenced in C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra: (chapter 16 p227): in this scene, the Gods of Mars and Venus are preparing to show themselves to the new King and Queen of Perelandra; they are trying out various physicalizations, on the hero Dr. Ransom, to try and get the right shape; one of the forms they tried looked like this:

“And he looked with some reluctance, and far off between the peaks on the other side of the little valley there came rolling wheels. There was nothing but that—concentric wheels, moving with a rather sickening slowness one inside the other.”

“This vision had to be inspired by Ezekiel Chap. 1 vs. 15-21, where the prophet writes of oddly designed wheels beneath the "living creatures" (angelic beings). Lewis wrote elsewhere that this "wheel within a wheel" vision closely resembles a modern dynamo, an electric generator. Although Ransom is impressed by the hugeness of the wheels, the vision has no meaning to him. It might as well be the biggest ferris wheel as far as he is concerned. 

On the third try Malacandra and Perelandra get it right. They assume humanlike form. Giant and sexless, but human shaped. Yet even without sexual characteristics, Malacandra appears masculine and Perelandra seems feminine:” 

[Sidebar: this commentary mentions not only the concentric circle idea, but the opposition of Male and Female modalities of cosmic structure. Notice that the commentary mentions, “Yet even without sexual characteristics, Malacandra appears masculine and Perelandra seems feminine.” By sexual characteristics this author must mean PHYSICAL characteristics; as you know I have been making a case for masculine and feminine attributes that have nothing to do with physicality. To me male and female are qualities of spirit more than body, and thus, when it is necessary to use the word “sex” I prefer to use the more non-specific term “gender”. Here is the section from Perelandra:

“Both the bodies were naked, and both were free from any sexual characteristics, either primary or secondary. That, one would have expected. But whence came this curious difference between them? He found that he could point to no single feature wherein the difference resided, yet it was impossible to ignore. 

One could try-Ransom has tried a hundred times- to put it into words. He has said that Malacandra was like rhythm and Perelandra like melody. He has said that Malacandra affected him like a quantitative, Perelandra like an accentual, metre. He thinks that the first held in his hand something like a spear, but the hands of the other were open, with the palms towards him. But I don't know that any of these attempts has helped me much. 

At all events what Ransom saw at that moment was the real meaning of gender. Everyone must sometimes have wondered why in nearly all tongues certain inanimate objects are masculine and others feminine. What is masculine about a mountain or feminine about certain trees? Ransom has cured me of believing that this is a purely morphological phenomenon, depending on the form of the word. Still less is gender an imaginative extension of sex. 

Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply one of the things that have feminine gender, there are many others, and Masculine and Feminine meet us on planes of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless. Masculine is not attenuated male, nor feminine attenuated female. On the contrary, the male and female of organic creatures are rather faint and blurred reflections of masculine and feminine. Their reproductive functions, their differences in strength and size, partly exhibit, but partly also confuse and misrepresent, the real polarity. 

All this Ransom saw, as it were, with his own eyes. The two white creatures were sexless. But he of Malacandra was masculine (not male); she of Perelandra was feminine (not female). Malacandra seemed to him to have the look of one standing armed, at the ramparts of his own remote archaic world, in ceaseless vigilance, his eyes ever roaming the earthward horizon whence his danger came long ago.”

The concept of masculine-vs-feminine is one to which C.S.Lewis often returns; here is a deep section from That Hideous Strength:

“She took it for granted, half-unconsciously, that the Director was the most virginal of his sex; but she had not realised that this would leave his masculinity still on the other side of the stream from herself and even steeper, more emphatic, than that of common men. Some knowledge of a world beyond Nature she had already gained from living in his house, and more from fear of death that night in the dingle. But she had been conceiving this world as "spiritual" in the negative sense--as some neutral, or democratic, vacuum where differences disappeared, where sex and sense were not transcended but simply taken away. Now the suspicion dawned upon her that there might be differences and contrasts all the way up, richer, sharper, even fiercer, at every rung of the ascent. How if this invasion of her own being in marriage from which she had recoiled, often in the very teeth of instincts, were not, as she had supposed, merely a relic of animal life or patriarchal barbarism, but rather the lowest, the first, and the easiest form of some shocking contact with reality which would have to be repeated-- but in ever larger and more disturbing modes-- on the highest levels of all?”

That does it for today. Next week we will continue with the Brons article; at that time we will reprise some of the information about the Male/Female God because it leads directly to the SON, and the Gnostic sacraments that help reveal His presence to Man.

Let us pray: Jesus we thank you for the promise of Wholeness which we find, and find, and find in the closeness of your warm embrace. Amen.