it is important that we not view fundamentalism in an improper light; for by 'fundamentalist' in its colloquial usage, we often mean to simply imply an 'extremist,' and by 'extremist,' to take an extreme stance. in this layout, however, things are unfortunately distorted from the inside out. for we still view an extremem as a bilateral product, a position that is necessarily accompanied by a remote and more often than not dialectic converse, an opposite extreme. we view the extreme this way instead of as the nuance of an extremity, a line of growth projected outward from an indeterminable center of an asymmetrical body (indeed, indeterminable precisely due to this asymmetry). that is, not as a choice between the left and right hand, as (more or less mistakenly) posited on nearly all forms of modern globalizing governmental structures, but as the protrusive skeletal framework to one of multiple fingers, or manner of excess, like the penis or the nose, that shows no resemblance even to branching. while we have split the brain in two to further attempt to explain away our everyday behavioral functions and peculiarities via centralizing them in either one or the other half, we have maintained the heart’s basic holism, even allowing its oddly nonbisymmetrical shape and location on the left side of the chest. the circulatory system’s excessive faculty, serving the function of that name. the timelessly depicted rendezvous point for excessive emotion and stir for mobility. it is in fact the heart, not the head, that better portrays the nature of the extreme, to which the negative connotation in ‘extremism’ may be attributed where the results appear violent or undesirable. make no mistake, though, that we are all necessarily extremist at some frequent points in our lives, climatic stages to an unraveling storytelling and process of reasoning.

this more realistic portrayal of extremism is the only way through which to properly view fundamentalism. for in deriving the concept from the term’s ethnological roots, we understand it as an extremist adherence (which may or may not be conservative) to the most base literary fundamentals of a schooling. the Universal Darwinists are cemented to the principles of natural selection, with signs of their extremism appearing in the disregard (if not complete denial of) the other essential functions to evolution – ‘survival of the fittest’ is the world’s Absolute creed. the Sunnies and the Shi’ites now continue to dispel their rage of their political differences through violence and war sponsored by their each absolutely infallible version of Islam – despite that the Islamic doctrinal differences at the base of the politics is so trivial that such hatred and killing could hardly be proclaimed to have religious purposes in mind. and there are of course those Christians, most renownedly labeled fundamentalist Christians, who have perhaps spanned the course of history longer than any other form of fundamentalism (albeit in a wider variety of manifestations). it is also perhaps the most formidable fundamentalism, second to only one other in the world (which i will get to in a minute) but at the same time invariably linked to it. for Christianity, in its fundamentalist form, unlike the structure of Islamic fundamentalism which is foundationally religious and stems into a disparate but inseverable political arena, is political throughout; that is to say that the religion and its contextual political environments have since its propagation been so interwoven that the differences between them have by this day and age become inscrutable. thus why the insistence of a separation between church and state has nevertheless mostly resulted in its failure. thereby, the number one fundamentalist operation, so covert and widespread now that few would not hesitate to call it that, is the adherence to an American-based ultracapitalist model around which all developing conformist countries and globalizing societies revolve, beset from the start with past colonialist influences and reformations to thus be so conducive to this way of (the more subtle and thus perhaps more dangerous) neocolonialism.

if we approach these real world schemas with the left-hand-right-hand gestalt of extremism, we can, however painfully, justify these courses of theory and action as a very far right wing affiliation (the Son sits at the right hand of the Father), just another sort of manifestation within the diverse spectrum of beliefs. as such, it deserves the respect and toleration that all sorts are due, especially amid the ever growing awareness and necessity for international, intercultural cooperation. but that is precisely what throws fundamentalism outside of the categories for belief systems at the pragmatic stage – for Christianity rises among Christians, but fundamentalism is itself blind to the veracity of its host beliefs except as to whether or not the conditions of the host are sustainable – for it is at its rudimentary praxes uncooperative, unnegotiable. fundamentalism is not any kind of belief; it is a function by which a system of beliefs can assume a tyrannical or at least dominant position against other systems. and what is partly so dangerous about this is that it does not retain itself within the order from which it originated but breaches all manner of diplomacy, protruding further and further into eventually raping the substances of other intermingling orders – überChristians are captured by the fabricated rhetoric of politicians raving world progress in the name of the Father and are at once moved to challenge, and respond to being challenged by, the sciences, in converting by forgery the observations of their religious reality into those of a scientific one (i.e. Creationism); Universal Darwinism not only confounds the sciences (for it is not itself a science but an approach to science) by castrating of them their necessary degrees of complexity and permanently vague teleological conclusions (wherever they have any), but also destroys God. it is thus not anything so innocuous as a choice of the right versus the left (which is itself too limiting a model by which fundamentalism can operate), but an uncompromising literalism with solely proselytizing intentions, a forceful insemination by a distorted and relentless intercultural phenomenon.

miss truth

One of Science’s main contentions with religion is in its handling of the truth. For in this day and age, only religion can hold a person’s appreciation for lies, for this is most often how it reveals to us the truth. Indeed, some truths can only be understood through lies, which are not really lies so much as mistruths, imaginary elements that provide the contrast that is sometimes our only means to perceiving an important aspect of the real. As such, both conservative sciences and fundamentalist Religion (what we can call the ‘pseudoreligious’ in the same way that we call methods and institutions sub par of the natural sciences pseudosciences) make the same mistake in assuming that all knowable truths are explicit – with conservative science belaboring the attempt to make what is knowable explicit, and fundamentalist Religion what is explicit knowable. Both miss entire dimensions of reality, dimensions that are real as that they are manifest in the physical and mental and spiritual aspects of human being, and that are missed due to this myopic, monist and even violent assumption concerning the nature of truth. Only the spiritually healthy perhaps can develop an experienced appreciation for mistruths.

“Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.”

-- Thomas Paine

a supposition for spirituality

involutionary niche 1: conservative ritualism

this is the most stagnant of the niches in spiritual development and is primarily a top-down determined expression of a religion's or culture's (mostly past) intention to incarnate the spiritual into symbolically meaningful praxis. the ritual performed from this niche in its relationship to one's spirituality greatly resembles the crossword puzzle or riddle to one's mentality, or even masturbation to one's physicality, in that at most it sustains or merely stimulates the faculties of the respective aspect of human being. change in respect to the ritual is mostly passive, derived from custom or ruling (thus the top-down scheme), and in fact the conservatism of its application requires a minimal of internal reflection or external informative influences.


involutionary niche 2: symbolistic institution

this requires knowledge of the ritual, if not the ritual itself, but expands it into the symbolic order of the religion or culture, as the responding procedure to the event of inquiry regarding the ritual -- the consensus to the inquiry 'why do we do this?' as it might possibly be answered with regard to the nature of what is spiritual. manifest ritual is explained through its relationship to the world.

(here is born the misconception of disparate worlds of being, that is, not that different modes of being [that accompany the diversity of perspectives and responses a person or a people may have to the world] occupy one existence ["we're all in this together!"] but that separate dimensions of existence [e.g. the divine and the natural] mysteriously occupy different times within one's singular mode of [potentially eternal] being. thus, we can also see from this the drive to submit oneself to [supposedly] unending occupation by forms of a separate existence as a goal to one's spiritual development [i.e. the invitation for the presence of christ to never leave me throughout my temporal Earth-based life].)

thereby, ritual is signified, made significant, by the education of its indoctrinated meaning. this niche is occupied by the greatest number of those whose vocation or inclination is to share doctrinal information ('spread the "Good News"') as it is by those who relate a tradition's signifiers to life as the final significance (or aspect of the final significance) to living.


involutionary niche 3: spiritual roundedness

the conditions of this niche have undoubtedly been most affectively experienced (though perhaps not yet sufficiently explained) by the world's most sincere mystics. however, most of these have likely failed to fulfill the niche, as i believe it requires as much a growing religiopolitical awareness as (if not more in the beginning than) the full-fledge impression of the real upon the sensible. for we must understand here that the real does not contain distinctions between the aspects of human being, and so the mental is as essential to pronounce in the symbolic order as the physical if the demands of the niche are to be met. human history and cosmology are quickly becoming active ingredients to this awareness and seem to promise to resolve the ritual to the most necessary praxes per individual or people, to suffice and sustain the remaining priorities of the spiritual that institutionalized religion and culture (qua State) cannot. (it may even require a further breach in consciousness that characterizes the stereotypical enlightenment of mystics, and scientists or artists.) among the terms of its range of perspectives is a dissolution of the human/divine dichotomy, and may include the same of the staticity to the self/other, Self/Other binaries. in any case, i believe it entails a consecration of the All, with oneself as fundamentally divine and Natural, as opposed to a consecration of merely one or the other. in a sense, it is dialectic, but to posit it in its explanation as merely a dialectical process is to miss by far the elements of its verity.

just the other day....

The Church

and the Word

the

tatemae & honne

of the West.

To stress

works

but give little

signification

to what they

imply;

to judge without

knowing someone.

I

say to you now,

that there is

no

better human.

A function

a

function

-- add the element

of

love

but don’t forget

the variety of

our effects.

There is
surface
and there is depth.
The
waters bow
under in
some

the universe

caves in on itself

bends

in

at the center

to see

another part.

Where in space

and

time it does this

we attribute

everything;

we

foolishly wish

not to see

the absolute arbitrariness

of

it.

We tie
all significance
to the
face

like a line

to a bobber

-- is this
a good spot?

--

unaccustomed to

the fact

that it simply happens
it
must
happen.

That which pulls

us in

isn’t hidden

; it

just

isn’t

seen.

By all means

love the

face: plucking

out our eyes

is to throw away

a Go
d-gi
ve
n

miracle,

a furtive center
to so
many joys.

And yet,
couple your sight
to your
sensitivity

and witness

the

unbearable

simultaneity

of the
Many-face and the

One-.

as such

how can
anyone
love
and
hate

?

A person seeking inner development must first of all make the attempt to give up certain formerly held inclinations. Then, new inclinations must be acquired by constantly holding the thought of such inclinations, virtues or characteristics in one’s mind. They must be so incorporated into one’s being that a person becomes enabled to alter his soul by his own will-power. This must be tried as objectively as a chemical might be tested in an experiment. A person who has never endeavored to change his soul, who has never made the initial decision to develop the qualities of endurance, steadfastness and calm logical thinking, or a person who has such decisions but has given up because he did not succeed in a week, a month, a year or a decade, will never conclude anything inwardly about these truths.

-- Rudolf Steiner



whether or not this altering of the soul by one's "own will-power," this lifting oneself by one's bootstraps, is a metaphysical possibility is against the point. the power of self-discipline, in both the effects and process, is a remarkable thing. there is also, as is obvious here in steiner's last statement, an incredible amount of faith that is required that these things will come with time. but such is the importance of the means, the process, even sometimes over the ends.

"Teaching is only demonstrating

that it is possible. Learning is

making it possible for yourself."

-- Paulo Coelho

「指導というのはなにかの可能性を

学習者に示すことだ。そういう可能性から

できるようになれる行為は、学ぶといわれている。」

－パウロ・コエーリョ

(my translation)

repe(a)t(ition)

globalized song

Death teaches us, not

that we should do as much

as

possible

while we're alive,

but

that we,

within the span

of

our lives, must

discover

what is meaningful

for us

to do

.

in the parks of chuo

in the early morning

the cry of the cicadas is

deafening

The only thing that bothers me more than retracing my steps is to find myself tracing them again.

The
second
most difficult
thing for
human beings
is to treat
and
remember
every thing
as
sacred.
As
we grow
old into
our
habits
we make
the regrettable
mostly uncon-
scious
mistake
of
taking
things
for granted.

What do you do if you
don't like
the person you're be-
coming?
Send
your self
back
and hope that
you receive
again
a better
model?
The most difficult
thing to accept
for a human being
is that
there is
no return address
for the
mis-
used
life.

The deigo flower has blossomed, and it has called the wind, and the storm has arrived.
The deigo flowers are in full bloom, and they have called the wind, and the storm has come.
The repetition of sadness, like the waves that cross the island.
I met you in the Uji forest.
In the Uji forest I bid farewell to Chiyo.

Island song, ride the wind, with the birds, cross the sea.
Island song, ride the wind, carry my tears with you.
The deigo blossoms have fallen, soft ocean waves tremble.
Fleeting joy, like flowers carried by the waves.
To my friend who sang in the Uji forest.
Beneath the Uji, bid farewell to Yachiyo.
Island song, ride the wind, with the birds, cross the sea.
Island song, ride the wind, carry my love with you.
To the sea, to the universe, to the gods, to life, forever ride on this dusk wind.
Island song, ride the wind, with the birds, cross the sea.
Island song, ride the wind, carry my tears with you.
Island song, ride the wind, with the birds, cross the sea.
Island song, ride the wind, carry my love with you.

translation provided by
bradr14 at www.jpopasia.com
(some corrections made by me)

Language does not convey a person's intention -- its usage only provides evidence that there is one present in a person. Thus we are only half right to believe that a person's 'words and actions' must match up or correspond to each other. In truth, they are inseparable, but we are mistaken to think that they must overlap one another, identify with one another, to have any credence. Were we to recognize them as different aspects of the full spectrum to one's person-ality, we might come to realize that one's character is far deeper than 'words' or 'actions' or their occasionally apperceived consummation.