Anti-Job, Pro-Freedom Quote Of The Week 65
Comment:
A friend pointed out the further abuse of women in calling the Roman Catholic Church “she.” Mother church! I think with a century’s update, Mark Twain may have revised his emphasis on “men.” That a group of greed-based violent males, with their slaves, overran goddess-based agricultural Europe, set up and ran an institution of power and dominance to slaughter (millions of women), torture, make slaves of and bore people, not permitting the ordination of women, called their institution “she” and “mother” is perhaps the black irony of doublespeak through the centuries—
--Jack S.
There you see the hand of that awful power, the Roman Catholic Church. In two or three little centuries it had converted a nation of men [sic] to a nation of worms. Before the day of the Church's supremacy in the world, men [sic] were men, and held their heads up, and had a man's pride and spirit and independence; and what of greatness and position a person got, he [sic] got mainly by achievement, not by birth. But then the Church came to the front, with an axe to grind; and she [sic] was wise, subtle, and knew more than one way to skin a cat -- or a nation; she invented "divine right of kings," and propped it all around, brick by brick, with the Beatitudes -- wrenching them from their good purpose to make them fortify an evil one; she preached (to the commoner) humility, obedience to superiors, the beauty of self-sacrifice; she [sic] preached (to the commoner) meekness under insult; preached (still to the commoner, always to the commoner) patience, meanness of spirit, non-resistance under oppression; and she [sic] introduced heritable ranks and aristocracies, and taught all the Christian populations of the earth to bow down to them and worship them. Even down to my birth-century that poison was still in the blood of Christendom, and the best of English commoners was still content to see his inferiors impudently continuing to hold a number of positions, such as lordships and the throne, to which the grotesque laws of his country did not allow him to aspire; in fact, he was not merely contented with this strange condition of things, he was even able to persuade himself that he was proud of it. It seems to show that there isn't anything you can't stand, if you are only born and bred to it.
Mark Twain,
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
A friend pointed out the further abuse of women in calling the Roman Catholic Church “she.” Mother church! I think with a century’s update, Mark Twain may have revised his emphasis on “men.” That a group of greed-based violent males, with their slaves, overran goddess-based agricultural Europe, set up and ran an institution of power and dominance to slaughter (millions of women), torture, make slaves of and bore people, not permitting the ordination of women, called their institution “she” and “mother” is perhaps the black irony of doublespeak through the centuries—
--Jack S.
There you see the hand of that awful power, the Roman Catholic Church. In two or three little centuries it had converted a nation of men [sic] to a nation of worms. Before the day of the Church's supremacy in the world, men [sic] were men, and held their heads up, and had a man's pride and spirit and independence; and what of greatness and position a person got, he [sic] got mainly by achievement, not by birth. But then the Church came to the front, with an axe to grind; and she [sic] was wise, subtle, and knew more than one way to skin a cat -- or a nation; she invented "divine right of kings," and propped it all around, brick by brick, with the Beatitudes -- wrenching them from their good purpose to make them fortify an evil one; she preached (to the commoner) humility, obedience to superiors, the beauty of self-sacrifice; she [sic] preached (to the commoner) meekness under insult; preached (still to the commoner, always to the commoner) patience, meanness of spirit, non-resistance under oppression; and she [sic] introduced heritable ranks and aristocracies, and taught all the Christian populations of the earth to bow down to them and worship them. Even down to my birth-century that poison was still in the blood of Christendom, and the best of English commoners was still content to see his inferiors impudently continuing to hold a number of positions, such as lordships and the throne, to which the grotesque laws of his country did not allow him to aspire; in fact, he was not merely contented with this strange condition of things, he was even able to persuade himself that he was proud of it. It seems to show that there isn't anything you can't stand, if you are only born and bred to it.
Mark Twain,
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
posted by Jack Saturday at
8:09 AM
4 Comments:
As Robert Lowell says of modern life, "a savage servility slides by on grease."
I guess the church did have something to do with the creation of the contemporary state (both meanings) in which we live, though I would have thought it's just as much an elaboration of the animal pack mentality (look at the parallels in ape society). Perhaps brave intelligent mutually-supporting individualism is the NEXT evolutionary step...the next place we go when our minds have developed beyond the primitive instincts that make us hide behind chauvanism and unexamined prejudice. Not that I want to disagree too strenuously with Mark Twain, whom I love as a writer and thinker.
By
Bruce Hodder, at 10:07 PM
Hi Bruce--
Thanks for the words, here's some thoughts:
you wrote:
As Robert Lowell says of modern life, "a savage servility slides by on grease."
Whatever he was referring to, there is black irony in its application to the working poor, in North America dying in huge numbers from American grease- (fast food) because their time has been stolen from them, so cooking nutritious meals is out, along with the joy of bicycling or hiking or kayaking (rather than “exercising,” a kind of dutiful puritan notion). Savage is an exact assessment— plenty of rage in that oppressed group, rarely politically applied. That violence is actually of quite considerable benefit to the "overall economy."
you wrote:
I guess the church did have something to do with the creation of the contemporary state (both meanings) in which we live, though I would have thought it's just as much an elaboration of the animal pack mentality (look at the parallels in ape society).
Can you point me to other primate behaviours comparable to the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, the burning alive of millions of their own species as a regular act, for which medals are distributed and on which fortunes are made? Orangutans or chimps don’t seem to build extensive and elaborate institutions with the purpose of keeping millions of their kind in slavery.
>Perhaps brave intelligent mutually-supporting individualism is the NEXT evolutionary step...the next place we go when our minds have developed beyond the primitive instincts that make us hide behind chauvanism and unexamined prejudice.
Yes— but if the mutually supporting part turns out hard to find, you can get it from fellow travelers in books and other culture.
In the tapestry of stories of the west, the idea of the individual quest appears, according to Joseph Campbell, something like 800 or 900 years ago, though he gives examples of the European idea of the individual from ancient Greece, in which many men [sic] agreed they were citizens, not subjects. The idea of democracy has always carried the figure of societies applying the synergy of large numbers of people in co-operation to serve the development of talents and bents of “the individual”. What makes us similar to other primates is our endless mimicry— in our case TV and movies provide the models, the fashions etc. Of course the market wants “market individualism” in which you declare loyalty to your chosen brands, teams, bands. To find your little individual voice in the hubbub and attend it is the Quest. Joseph Campbell gives the story of the inception of the Individual Quest in western mythology (audio clip posted a couple of posts above this.)
you wrote:
Not that I want to disagree too strenuously with Mark Twain, whom I love as a writer and thinker.
I support disagreement with people you admire, it means you will probably strive to be respectful in your disagreement.
Thanks, Bruce.
Jack
By
Jack Saturday, at 9:26 AM
Hey Jack,
I think the Lowell line is referring to the kind of aggressive conservatism often found in those presumed to be oppressed by those who wish to liberate them. "Hardhat prejudice," as someone called it, in big cars.
As for the primate reference, all I meant was that the instinct to fall behind a strong leader might be an animal one. The habit of deferring to the will of the group because in groups one survives etc. I have no basis for this theory; I'm just talking off the top of my head. But those tendencies in human beings might contribute to the perpetration of atrocities such as--of course--only human beings have so far achieved. I'm not knocking apes or denying the human being's special capabilities in the atrocity department...
By
Bruce Hodder, at 3:18 PM
Right— thanks. Here’s the poem: having read it, of course I see the even blacker irony:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1295.html
I recommend the book Rogue Primate, by John A Livingston.
I think you might enjoy Robert Anton Wilson’s words:
As civilization has advanced, the pack-bond (the tribe, the extended family) has been broken. This is the root of the widely diagnosed "anomie" or "alienation" or "existential anguish"... the conditioning of the bio-survival bond to the gene-pool has been replaced by a conditioning of bio-survival drives to hook onto the peculiar tickets which we call "money."
Robert Anton Wilson,
Prometheus Rising
By
Jack Saturday, at 2:19 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home