Saturday, June 24, 2017

Las Cosas de Amores

This song is really about how evil "god" is, a villain who ever threatens to destroy not only them he made, BUT EVEN THEIR LOVE. Otherwise this is not sincere. For if their love is something which is a good gift from God, then it it would seem very unfitting, bad, and in essence damaging for it ever to be taken away, let alone as "punishment". It supposedly should be something they could sincerely feel is truly "of God", and so for it to be noteworthy it must be because such a Being gives this especially Good Gift, and is Himself the Best Being. Otherwise,  what's he selling with this song's metaphors? So he must mean to say "even from God the Greatest, this Greatest Gift". Well, that's supposed to reflect on how awesome and generous this God is, isn't it? It isn't just "good" but it's "Divine" and "Sacred". That point is established as plainly evident or the song makes no sense at all anywhere it refers to God, and it does that a lot and in key ways. But that it makes some sense is also already plainly evident, and so we come down to a matter of interpretations which in the end can be of only one of two kinds, which I'll get into later here. 

But for now, why would such a being ever take such a gift AWAY, as the singer fears may happen? Only, one supposes, if the person demoted from Grace were guilty of SACRILEGE. But to commit such an evil act, truly, requires one be incapable of any noteworthy love, let alone any genuine appreciation of it, since in the first point it was established that such a Gift is of the Nature of, and given by, The Best Being. So therefore, while he says it is something by which God might rightly punish them by taking back, he doesn't thereby imply that it was much to begin with, since they were sacrilegious. So since he sings so amorously, and with such spiritus, such gusto, we must conclude that he is not sacrilegious, and hence a 'man of god', perhaps a priest bemoaning his obedience to his oath of chastity when coming to meet someone who makes him want to break that oath. Hopefully an adult woman of excellent beauty and great character. Is that not an attraction supplied handily so that "god's gift" may manifest in the first place, as an offering of some phenomena seen as so fulfillingly pleasant? 

But then why require of anyone to forebear of such a gift, and in essence to take it away from them, for otherwise they cannot be considered "holy"? That is an absurd situation. It's like making something out of mud and then saying it fails to be sacred, or as sacred as "holy" implies, if it is not something else, perhaps hay. But mud and hay are two different things. And if both are within the power of the god to create as conditions of a being's reality, why set up such a being for failure, if being holy is such a "good thing" which gives such "good gifts"? 

So also with such a dubiously beneficent "The Best Being" as, say, the author of this world "as a whole" and the condition of man in it with all the corruption, evil and suffering that this implies. Indeed, fiendishness and devilish evil are easily found in man as are the sufferings they produce and the corruption they spawn, and he delights in making art concerning this fact, dressing himself, as it were, in his own mind's eye as a confession of his own essential nature. And that nature must be essential to him, or else its opposite would be, as they cannot coexist as the essence of any character, or anyone with any character worth calling more real than a stage prop's. Only they can exist, and only one per being, and either one of them MUST exist.  How they exist and what that means is how they are distinguished, just as we seek the nature (or meaning) of the tree in its fruit, by its "essence".

This cannot bode well for the men of mud or hay, but reflect on what it says about their god in that case, who made them this way, and who doesn't apologize for it, but blames his creation.  How petty. But this guy singing (or the character he's singing as), and perhaps his gal also, adores this awesome, blameless god, so this script seems to say. We can discern this because they are appreciative of their gift, such as it is, and wouldn't dare throw it away.  They feel ecstatic pain because of it but cannot cease it, such is what it means to them. And such that all they fear is what only their god can do, whom they presume gave their love to them.

At least they would exclaim this about themselves, though it is probably an illusion in some way, as he also seems to dread admitting this even as a possibility. Perhaps it is true of them. But supposedly in the case of any serious "holy" man, at least one of the type of religion posited in the example of the man who suffers for being a chaste priest, this is definitely not the case.  He thinks he's done a good thing by NOT dreading this loss, and can only bemoan it as an irritating reminder that he isn't quite holy for even still feeling it.  Yet if that love is meaningful to him, so that he thinks it is a Divine Gift, and one that makes for a terrific sacrifice, how can it not be excruciating suffering to yield it as though to do otherwise would prove him dirty in the eyes of God, or "less clean" or "less holy" or "less sacred".  Otherwise, what do those terms mean, and why would anyone care, let alone sing as if anyone would?  It must be that it is "bad, very bad" to be those things. You should suffer a lot, it seems to say.

How radical!  Also radically inconsistent with True Love and Generosity.  It also doesn't even seem like generosity at all, let alone Divine Grace, but instead it seems like manipulative stinginess and cruelty.  And in the philosophy which concerns such things, we are therefore proven to be spared the problem of figuring these things out "as such".  As such, we already know them, if we simply use common sense and a good heart and mind, such as those have who understand the difference between real generosity and sheer manipulative coercion combined with sadistic torture.  At least most "religious people" seem to think they've hit it right out of the ballpark on this understanding.  They usually aren't even IN the ballpark and certainly not if they think the love of the "god" in this song is is any better than his cruel mind and hand are.

Indeed, heard in the right tone of interpretation, this man is singing of this "god" in pleasant tones only to fool him, and trick him with a spell of flattery, so that he doesn't "jinx" his profession of True Love.  For he knows that is seen as sacrilege in the eyes of his "god", and he knows that he doesn't even deserve to claim that such can come from his own essence, but rather as being totally a production and manifestation of The Best Being who is all and full and everything, while he, the little man, is no one, and empty, and nothing.  Or at least he lets on this way, poetically.  But this song's lyrics are possibly really a code, to hide the Sacrilege within the crypt of false profession of worn platitudes about god which, absurdly enough, yet ironically and therefore in a strangely bemusing way funnily, make out the definition of this god as a fool as well as a brute, dolt and thug.

If one is right about this, then it SHOULD be amusing.  And if one is in this mode, one may laugh to oneself whilst cribbing these lyrics as a poem, but one should not do so loud enough for the evil thug to hear it, not like he does in places of his worship, with subwoofers blaring and big wheel rims spinning, not dare to show off and represent and make others eat the fat bass one drops, whilst admiring the thick gold chain and other ornamentations of the Best and Most Blingy Being, because one truly wants the message to be heard by the Beloved, and this requires not revealing any slip of contempt to the MOST BESTEST BEING who is IN NO WAY contemptible.  

As I said earlier, but as was said a long time ago, one knows the tree by its fruit, so anyone who has tasted of "his" gifts knows that they are merely baited hooks leading to a true and soul-destroying hell. He even warns them himself that he would come "as though The True God". Told them himself, right there.  The foolish mud and straw beings were simply doltishly fawning on their dreaded master as he said it, perhaps having no meaningful inkling that he may be referring to himself as though he were The True God saying it about someone else, namely himself.  Just no inkling at all. Not even a bare and unexpanded notion that such a thing is logically possible.  Maybe their god is a master of dolts, foremostly.  

But this singer is no dolt if he thought he could scribble some code on the wall that his Beloved could see but that the evil god of dolts couldn't.  He knew he had to sing doltish praises to the bestest one, so that he'd either be pleased and actually help them along, or else ignore them (best, actually), and he gives token admission to the fact that if he were to pay too much attention to them and find them displeasing in some way, then this gift could be taken from them as punishment. This, rather automatic, "gift" of being born from something one must recapitulate in one's own being and, expressing that in recapitulating it, reproducing the cause of himself as effect, and through this, repeating that original cause by causing the next generation of effects, in some due proportion. If that awesome "gift" were taken away, that would be like being neutered or spayed within one's very soul, yet it also looks like what happens all the time, everywhere, and in each and every case of human being, always.

So surely he doesn't view the "bait" of True and Enduring Love as something contrived by the god he's appeasing, who could never invent such a bait except as a provoking imitation. Rather, he must view it as something inherently Good, and that this is why he came to believe in the Goodness of the seeming giver, or at least he pretends that is adequate justification for proclaiming that the "giver" was greatly beneficent in the deepest possible way, not because of the gift, but that the gift was so great actually because the giver is so great... which is extremely flattering to be sure.  But he should be honest, with himself at least, and realize that it comes from within himself, and not from the fatuous circumstances which bring him into proximity with another animal of the same species but of the other gender. Because as to his own essence, if it is any Good, it couldn't be used nor construed as "given" as a gift, but rather felt as an Expression of His Own Essence. That can't be mistaken for some other way of experiencing Love, because it is the only way it can be experienced.  The fruit becomes the tree from which it descended, and IS that tree in essence.  This is not a "gift", this is simply the nature of what that tree does.

But far from truth to say such a being as depicted here is Supremely Good, or is the Supreme Good, rather it is actually sacrilege to conceive of such a being as doing anything more than lying in wait so as to ambush man and his Love, having kept them apart in the first place, since this was apparently in his power to do through various devices deliberately utilized.  And it is simply a concomitant result upon his relenting or failing to do this, that the Love is expressed, and it is not his to give nor take away, but is simply always there, manifesting more brightly the more this "god" recedes from the picture.  It is the same as when one receives something of value from someone who neither produced it nor can appreciate it, but simply manifested an opportunity for you to come across it by, as Heidegger might say, "disclosing" it.  Yet the only reason it is "disclosed" is that it before was nefariously closed off from direct expression.  This in that it was concealed in artificial forms which are actually split off little parts of his own foolish, evil mind.  Like a virus invading a "host", this "gift giver" can use his hand to promote opportunities which its other hand had been used to take away. But these opportunities for Self-Realization, which are not "in" time and space, but "in spite of" them, are basically what are meant by "matter".  Any honest physicist who isn't simply a lying fool will admit at least this much.  But if he is a lying fool who could never express True Love for anything or anyone, then he would of course pretend that he doesn't understand.

But time-space, or space-time, really are the coordinates which measure matter-energy, energy-matter.  It is simply the measurement of a being, namely a mind, which manifests a form and produces changes.  That process is understood as cause leading to effect, an effect which may or may not also be or become a cause and, if so, perhaps or perhaps not cause to an effect which, like itself, is like its own cause and doomed to procreate further causes-that-are-first-effects.  And this is all understood in terms of the Golden Ratio.  That's old knowledge.  But it is simply the case also that there is more than one qualification of "energy", in that it is directed in either a "good" or in an "evil" way.  And it is well-known that evil effects proceed from evil causes, and that the "fruit", the material forms and their states and changes, reveal the spirit aback them as only one or the other of these sorts of minds which exist and which produce those sorts of effects. The more powerful, the more "profound" the effect, the more powerful the force, the more profoundly of the essence of that form is the source of that manifestation, the more powerfully effective at expressing such an essence is that cause.

This does not, therefore excuse a being, no matter how grand it may be or perhaps merely seem, for being evil in any way.  All the more, a fortiori, it makes him more culpable.  So surely someone who could appreciate this would whisper his love song and not shout it, and he would cloak it in a veneer of disguise as the adoration of tyranny, so that he could experience once more, perhaps evermore, Union with the True Love which expresses, in one important aspect, as the Love of Truth.  One Truth, as Socrates tells rightly, is the knowledge of what it is that is more shameful. That is, of that which it is better to be ashamed.  So should one be more ashamed to lose life, or to lose virtue?  That is the question.  The truly Courageous man knows that the inevitable is unavoidable, and that the only choice is to face it Rightly or be a coward in the hopes of appeasement to a tyrant.  He would give to this tyrant only obvious and unfelt mockery, but reserve the Sincere Meaning only for Himself, and whisper it only under the cloak of a cipher.  But this all again depends upon one's tone of interpretation, and that is one's own secret and inner reality.  For as the singer says in the same song, "no one can know and speak of such things". Some for being too drunk of illusions and delusions, and others for being bereft of any sympathy with such things, being murderers of them who come in the guise of generous but stern benefactors, and others for simply cherishing them too much.

And yet here I have spoken of such things, just as Jose Alfredo Jiminez sang of them.  So there is perhaps a deeper layer of the phenomenon which cannot be revealed in words, but manifest only in actions.  In the end all such things will head down the river of Judgement and be sorted, and go to their appropriate destinations, as is Just.  "Suum Cuique".

No comments: