Happy Days?

Until the recent death of “Joannie” (Eran Morin) from the TV series “Happy Days“, I didn’t really make the connection between Scott Baio’s appearances as a Trump stalwart and the TV series he’s most associated with that depicted America in the 50s as a time of happy innocence.

Do people really associate the slogan “Make America Great Again” with “Happy Days“? That would be bizarre. That would definitely be surreal. The 50s were, in reality, nothing like the idyllic time portrayed in the TV show. It was probably more like what was depicted in the movie Revolutionary Road, judging from my reading of the history of that decade. If people get their ideas of actual history from a TV sitcom, isn’t that the meaning of “post-historic man”?

If that’s the case, it’s no wonder we have a problem with “fake news” and “post-truth” — which might be equivalent to “post-literate” society. But it would underscore the significance of Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, (as well as his Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology) and especially the cogent critique of Neal Gabler’s Life The Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality.

It certainly might account for the “bubble of perception” we seem to be witnessing today. I’ll have to go back and re-read these books, I think.




48 responses to “Happy Days?”

  1. Scott Preston says :

    Please, God, say it ain’t so!

    Yet, who the hell is Scott Biao? An actor? That was my first question when getting him to so publicly endorse and pump Trump was apparently considered a coup by the Trump campaign. It was only recently that I learned he was “Chachi” in “Happy Days”. (I didn’t pay much attention to TV as a youngster). So I didn’t connect the dots there until now.

    Well, bowl me over with a feather. It seems “lefties” Richie and the Fonz were just not available or agreeable.

  2. Scott Preston says :

    I had to try and follow up on this, so I googled up Tump and Happy Days together to see what would come up.

    This, which I initially thought was intended as caricature, parody and satire, actually isn’t. It concludes as an homage to Trump and to Happy Days, and I sort of felt, so to speak, the Earth slipping out from under my feet when I realised it wasn’t intended as parody at all

    This guy, at least, really does connect “Make America Great Again” with the TV show Happy Days and it’s actually a perfect example of something quite fearsome — the impossibility of parodying a reality that has already become a parody of itself.

    That got me thinking that there wasn’t really a whole lot of difference between Justin Trudeau’s “Sunny Ways” and Donald Trump’s “Happy Days”.

    I’ll have to dig it up, but a while ago someone in the Guardian noted a peculiar connection, too, in relation to Brexit, and between the Leave sentiment and a popular British TV series that idealised British life in the Fifties. Again, very unhistorical. I didn’t pay it much attention then, but now it seems important. I’ll try and locate that again.

  3. InfiniteWarrior says :

    If people get their ideas of actual history from a TV sitcom

    History? These are our times, friend.

    People get ideas from a lot of things, e.g. the very books you mention, but also from TV sitcoms and other contemporary forms of art and entertainment as well. Witness the most popular phrase of the year. “Precious Snowflake” is, of course, the best “insult” the conservative side of the equation can come up with to shut down dialogue in retaliation for the ofttimes undeserved insults that have been emanating from the opposite side of the “social” spectrum for as long as any of us can remember.

    And people wonder why “politics” are the most ignored, abhorred and disdained of all human endeavors. The (historical and otherwise) “divide and conquer” tactic crosses all boundaries and is so deeply ingrained in our cultures — worldwide, obviously — I suspect it’s there for the duration of our species’ tenure on earth. So, you know…. Good luck in the quest to turn that one around.

    Nonetheless, I further suspect this is not something that should worry us, given the impression that it’s a tiny minority of us who are even remotely interested in what passes for “politics” at any given moment in history.

    Seriously, Scott, what passes for “politics” is a very far cry from everything we’ve got going. Let’s not forget that.

    • Scott Preston says :

      These Happy Days are yours and mine, Happy Days!

      (This friggin ditty has become an ear-worm since I looked it up).

      The Chryalis isn’t principally about politics. It’s about culture, and the shape of politics isn’t a far cry from that at all, any more than the form of economics can be isolated from culture. The culture, in its totality, is “The Mundane Shell”. It’s the “Cosmic Egg” that Joseph Chilton Pearce wrote about in The Crack in the Cosmic Egg”. The bubble of perception is the walls of the chrysalis.

      In the larval stage of the chrysalis, the walls of the chryalis are protection and security. In the pre-butterfly stage, though the same walls are a prison and an “iron cage”. And if you are the butterfly, you search for the weakest point of the wall in order to break on through to the other side — Pearce’s “crack in the cosmic egg”.

      The walls of the chrysalis are the Matrix. The Matrix is the cultural milieux. Rosenstock-Huessy’s “cross of reality”, with its four fronts facing backwards, forwards, inwards and outwards, represented by prophetics, politics, poetics, and philosophics respectively, maps the cultural milieux — the walls of the chrysalis. “disintegration” means that these no longer function together harmoniously, are divergent or in a condition of dissension — what we call “culture war”.

      Gebser is primarily a cultural philosopher, as are all pretty much the others we raise in The Chrysalis. That’s primarily because consciousness and culture are not at all easy to segregate and isolate from each other. A consciousness structure is also a cultural matrix.

      In those terms, the cultural milieux and the chrysalis are pretty much the same thing, and that altogether is what is described by “the Matrix”. Even Rosenstock-Huessy calls his cross of reality a “matrix”, and his grammatical method a “matrix form of thinking”.

      All quite significant becase “matrix” pertains to mater and mother, ie, the womb. The chrysalis is a womb, and so is culture. The very word “culture” is actually a verb — “to culture” — to reproduce, procreate certain ideal and preferred historical types of human beings: magical culture the Magician (or shaman king), mythological culture the Hero (or Saint), mental-rational culture the Intellectual or the Genius. These are, in effect, the “Zoas” of Blake’s poetry, or aspects of the archetypes of Jung’s “collective unconscious”.

      All that, though, is also politics — inescapably so. It’s a question of what kinds of human beings a culture should idealise and reproduce and how it should go about doing it.

      • mikemackd says :

        A coincidence re your crack in the comic egg comment: here’s the second of the three quotes from Transformation of Man in “The Never Ending Quest’ :

        p 176
        At all these stages in the development of the self, only a small part of man’s potentialities were consciously represented in image or idea. Fortunately, the repressed or neglected aspects, even in primitive society, were not effectively excluded from living experiences. However well fortified the inner world, some of the outer world is constantly breaking through, making demands that must be met, offering suggestions that, even if unheeded, producer a certain effect. So, too, however heavy the crust formed by external nature, by human institutions and habits, the pressure from the inner world would produce cracks and fissures, and even from time to time explosively erupt.

        • Scott Preston says :

          Yes, indeed. Very pertinent quote from Mumford. That is Gebser’s “irruption” which he pretty much described there, but also the nature of the apocalyptic or revelatory. A good description of it, in fact.

  4. InfiniteWarrior says :

    The Chrysalis isn’t principally about politics.

    Could’ve fooled me. 😉

    Seriously… know that. I wonder, however, how many actually do. Um-hmm. Yes, indeed. Keep on keeping on’, my man. You’re doing great.

    My point, though, is that “politics” (as they are currently known) is a very far cry</em. from what you have in mind. Just that. Nothing else.

    • Scott Preston says :

      To culture is to nurture. This nurturance of certain preferred or ideal historical types is the function of culture. It is also what is presently referred to as “privileging” certain types or a type. The word “privilege” has the meaning “private law”, but could also mean special nurturance of a preferred human social type. Culture war is basically a dispute over what ideal type should be “privileged” or nurtured in that sense. this is fairly significant especially if implicit notions of what is “human nature” are undergoing radical transformation. So “culture war” could very well signal a “mutation” in that sense.

  5. InfiniteWarrior says :

    It’s a question of what kinds of human beings a culture should idealise and reproduce and how it should go about doing it.

    Alright. Now…

    Incomplete HTML tags aside…. Just who is to decide that?

    Personally, I don’t think a culture should “idealize” (or idolize, as they case may be) human beings (or, especially, a) human being. Period.

    I learned that (oddly enough) in that Southern culture in the US once “idealized” (or, “idolized,” as the case may be) — of all people… Elvis Presley. Naturally, when he died, I had to wonder why that was.

    You can’t seriously suggest that any of us should determine what “kinds” of human beings a culture should “reproduce” and “how” it should go about “reproducing” it.

    Scott, that is as machine-oriented thinking as machine-oriented thinking can possibly get.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Incomplete HTML tags aside…. Just who is to decide that?

      Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

      I don’t think too many people really grasp the meaning of that, but it’s relevant here. It’s not just a critique of what we now call “economism” or the Megamachine, but also bears on the meanings of vox populi, vox dei or Rosenstock-Huessy’s “god is the power that makes men speak” or that “enthuseth man so that he speaketh”.

      Yes, the brandmeisters are attempting to engineer a preferred cultural type — especially via archetypal branding and “branded behaviours”. They are succeeding to a certain extent — or we wouldn’t speak of “consumer culture”.

      But Gebser’s “irruption” hasn’t got much to do with that exercise in social engineering. It has to do more with that quote mike issued above from Mumford, too, Quite spontaneous. And for a while it won’t know itself for what it is, and probably only gradually will it become the new ideal — the integral consciousness of the whole man or woman.

      In fact, who would want less than wholeness?

      • InfiniteWarrior says :

        Yes, the brandmeisters are attempting to engineer a preferred cultural type

        Nice aside. (Thank you, mikemackd.) But…what “preferred cultural type”, exactly, are you referring to in your previous comment?

        • Scott Preston says :

          Not sure what your question pertains too, since we already mentioned that magical culture nurtures shamans, mythological culture nurtures heroes, mental-rational culture nurtures genius. A liberal economic culture nurtures entrepreneurs, and so on. Or, you can put it another way: a liberal culture nurtures liberals, a conservative culture nurtures conservatives, a socialistic culture nurtures socialists, an ecological culture would nurture ecologists. A Christian culture nurtures Christians, a Muslim culture nurtures Muslims, a Buddhist culture nurtures Buddhists. And there are all sorts of “subcultures” which nurture other certain ideal types deemed “cool” or what not. In indigenous culture, it was the man or woman who “speaks from the centre of the voice” — the centre of the Sacred Hoop, which is Gebser’s “vital centre”.

          But most of this is just a sideshow, because it’s the “return of the repressed” that decides ultimately. The cultivation of certain types of historical humans (the various “transformations of man” in Mumford’s account) always involved suppressing some aspect of human nature (the human fourfold) and idealising other partial aspects. For Blake, that was often the Urizenic portion and the suppression of the other Zoas. That gives you “Urizenic Man” who is the bearer of the ego-consciousness (not just the mental-rational). The cultivation of the other Zoas as “normal” gives you a different human type. Jung calls those “psychological types”.

        • mikemackd says :

          Good to see you back here, I.W. I had been worried that you may have taken my last reply to you as a contradiction, rather than the affirmation it was. I couldn’t see how, but that didn’t mean there wasn’t a way.

          Something else I was reading lately pointed out the limitations of non face-to-face communication compared to face-to-face. Given the difficulties I have with even the latter (ask my wife!), that’s a worry.

          • InfiniteWarrior says :

            Not at all, and nothing to worry about. Just listening unless something about “popular culture” and its influence comes up. And, yes, I’m all-too-familiar with those limitations of non face-to-face communication. So much information is missing. A friend once termed it “the incomplete nature of communication via the Internet.” (I like that. It’s pretty much a dead-on description.)

      • InfiniteWarrior says :

        I take it, you’re referring to the “whole” type, of course, but considering the “slant” of this blog ( no offense intended), I have to wonder how serious you are about that.

        • Scott Preston says :

          I don’t know what you understand by “whole”, so I can’t respond to your comment without knowing that.

          • InfiniteWarrior says :

            Allow me to remind you where that impression comes from, then.

            In fact, who would want less than wholeness?

            Indeed. Who wouldn’t? “Wholeness” is peace, yes?

            But there is no way to “engineer” or, even, “nurture” that. It is or it isn’t. At any given moment, of any given day at any given “time.”

            • Scott Preston says :

              Pardon me? It’s been called “care of the soul”, and it’s been called “meditation” or “mindfulness”. That’s what is called “nurturance”. It doesn’t just happen. People are taught it. That teaching is nurturance.

            • InfiniteWarrior says :

              So…who learned it from whom in the first place?

              Regardless where you turn — family, friends, acquaintences… religion, science…history, future… or so-called “politics.” The answer is the same. A question: “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?”

            • InfiniteWarrior says :

              This is exactly what abdulomen,,,and pretty much everyone else has been getting at. No one can “teach” this. It’s personal experience or nothing.

            • Scott Preston says :

              No. It’s not like chicken and egg. It’s more like which came first, sperm or egg? Not even a question.

              Teaching has always been the way by which people attained to an “enlightened ego consciousness”. Asking where the light comes from that enlightens the ego consciousness is like asking which came first, the sperm or the egg.

              The original state of wholeness was the archaic consciousness. But it wasn’t conscious of itself as such. “Dreamlessly slept the first men” (Chuang Tzu) — or “when the soul slept in beams of light” (Blake). so it would be quite pointless to speak of “enlightenment” at all in relation to the archaic consciousness. There had to be a long period of wandering in darkness before we can even start speaking of “enlightenment” as a possibility. The transmission of that possibility is called “teaching” or the dharma.

            • Scott Preston says :

              This is exactly what abdulomen,,,and pretty much everyone else has been getting at. No one can “teach” this. It’s personal experience or nothing

              No, that’s not correct. The very word “education” means “to draw out” — e-ducere. To draw out what from where and into what?

            • InfiniteWarrior says :

              I disagree. As both yourself and abdulmonem have pointed out time and again, “education” is — and “educators” are — “pointers”… and nothing more.

            • InfiniteWarrior says :

              Speaking of pointers (and coincidences), perhaps this will help clarify the…point.

            • Scott Preston says :

              Well, Gebser has quite a bit to say about “points”. But in any case, it doesn’t matter. It’s definitely not what the word “education” means, whatever else might have happened to the meaning of “educate” over time, “pointing” clearly wasn’t its original meaning.Because pointing means”indicate” not educate.

            • InfiniteWarrior says :

              Of course he does, considering his entire thesis was about “points of view.” Differing “points of view” are not the ultimate “indication” we’re talking about though, is it?

              Logic, concepts and definitions are themselves pointers that can only take a person so far and absolutely no farther. You want to “debate” the “proper” definition of a word? Be my guest…with someone who thinks our entire experience of life is lived in words and speech.

            • Scott Preston says :

              “logic, concepts, and definitions” are the form of education as understood within the mental-rational consciousness. What makes that the whole meaning of education? A Zen koan is education. That’s what it’s intended to do. Buddha’s speechless gesture of twirling the Lotus blossom is education.

              There’s nothing wrong at all with logic, concepts, and definitions, because these belong to the mental structure of man and are part of the human psychic makeup — the latent potentiality that is literally “educated” — drawn out from latency.

              And that’s exactly what the word “education” bears witness to as e-ducere — to draw out or lead out from latency into manifestation. or from potentiality into actuality. This is why Rosenstock-Huessy makes teaching the essence of his grammatical method.

            • InfiniteWarrior says :

              Okay, then. I’ve grown accustomed to your using or alluding to the term “Logos” for that as opposed to Word, I guess. What I meant, however, in reference to what cannot be taught is the personal experience. There’s an old saying, “If you really want to learn (or “know”) something, you don’t need a teacher; only a guide.” (And, quite often, not even that.) My point is that all these teachers (and “teachings”) are not ends in and of them themselves. They can point a person in the right direction, but that person must make “the leap” him or herself — just as the “teacher” did –unless they just want a headful of a certain (and fairly useless in and of itself) kind of “knowledge.”

              This is what abdulmonem and said “teachers” (at least, the sincere ones) have in mind. They’re illustrating, indicating, pointing; not presuming to do the “students'” work for them or — worse — intentionally misleading them, if you get my drift.

  6. Scott Preston says :

    There’s another way to approach this, as example, and that is Nietzsche’s Zarathustra. Thus Spoke Zarathustra promotes Zarathustra as a cultural type — not the overman, but the one who prepares the way of the Lord, so to speak. Zarathustra is the equivalent of St. John the Baptist — not the overman, but an overture to the transhuman. Nietzsche promotes Zarathustra as the model of a new cultural ideal — “imitation of Zarathustra” is it were, but who is actually the old prophetic type — the one who builds the bridges to the transhuman.

  7. abdulmonem says :

    I am a late visitor and this is my contribution which represents an amalgamation of memory ,unseen inputs and the external diversified inputs I picked along the road. . History is the story of the well-guided and the misled. A eventual situation nobody can predict its outcome. The historical narrations show that the stay of the well-guided is short and the misled is the domineering trend, or to put in another frame the well-guided are few and the misled are the majority. It is the paint of the human domineering power save those who are independent enough to do their own paint in light of their awareness of the one. The forces of the unseen outweigh the forces of the seen ,that is why there is religion ( all prophets and wise sages ) to remind us of such unseen forces whose influence in the human conditions far surpass the seen. It is a process of drawing but the question is to whom we may be drawn and in this resides the dilemma of the humans who are called upon to be drawn to the center of our creation that is his internal center that is connected to the divine center and not to lose the precious self in the external waves. It is a personal experience or the void. It is a process of psychological engineering ever since the beginning , Adam let himself be engineered by another force and thus threw himself in the abyss. Intellectual maneuvering is fruitless without experience. The human has been provided with the necessary faculties to decide for her/himself and can not shed away his personal responsibility under the pretext of family society or etc. Who told the chrysalis that there is something behind the wall that she or he needs to break it to move to the lively other side. In the case of the humans the innate instinct is not enough but they need the conscious awareness to move to the other side. I have already quoted Schuon one of the awake mystics, saying that humans worth resides in their connection with the divine center. When the connection is broken the soul is stiffened by excessive external systematisations. Life can not be contained in books, books are only partial participation in the never ending drama of our life which the cosmos represents the living background that requires our attention in the evolution and reevolution of this drama. If we only remember the bond and the effective forces that engulf our journey from birth to death, I like to end with one question who has catered and continue to cater to our lively development in the well-walled wombs of our mothers or is it randomness that created all these artistic phenomena. Please let us be humble and be aware of his presence in us or did Huessy said, that God is the force that speaks through us in vain or is the call of Gebser to enter the realm of the ever present origin consciousness is a useless call. Thank you all.

    • InfiniteWarrior says :

      The historical narrations show that the stay of the well-guided is short and the misled is the domineering trend, or to put in another frame the well-guided are few and the misled are the majority.

      Historically-speaking, that is all-too-true, but this is something has been much on my mind these past few years. I’m not so certain this is the case in our times. You look at the “political” situation and it’s painfully obvious that every “side” is actively seeking out the worst of the worst examples of human folly to paint individuals, entire groups, cultures, nations and peoples as the “enemy” when the vast majority of the peoples of those cultures simply want the same thing everyone else always has: a happy, peaceful life.

      Further, while we’re on the subject, I sincerely get the sense that — despite (or, perhaps, even in spite of) all that — the vast majority of us actually may be on the right track. If you’re not watching TV or reading political forums (especially), you’ll notice there’s little to no “culture clash” going on anywhere else. If you’d ever worked on the Internet or played multiplayer video games, especially, you’d notice a nearly seamless “global community” has formed worldwide with no assistance from anyone in particular. It has no “leadership.” It just is. And most — not all — but most of these different peoples from different cultures and backgrounds have no problem with one another whatsoever. They get along just fine.

      What if the maturation, integration — or whatever you want to call it — of the human race in relation to everything else is proceeding along nicely with no assistance (or, especially, interference) from any particular human being or group? Might it be?

      I very often get the impression it very well might.

  8. abdulmonem says :

    I like to add that life has been divinely presented to the humans with challenging difficulties in order to test the performance and told those who have faith not to be discouraged in the the face of difficulties and not to be like Jonah who failed in the test and left in a state of anger only to face his fate in the bottom of a whale only to be recovered in order to be aware that life it is not a human choice only but a divine decree that need to be observed in the fulfillment of the human destiny. We are all co-creator of our stories but not the sole creator, as some try to assume.

  9. abdulmonem says :

    Another addition, it is who is on the top, if the occupiers of the top space are the crooked, the expectation is that the under, will follow suit if the occupiers are the good the followers will be inclined to be good. It is a human problem and not system or institutions problem. All system and institutions contains both good and bad and when we call them good or bad without distinction, we are missing the boat, that is way our talks are not bringing any concrete results but throwing us in deeper mess. We have a parable in arabic which says that if the head of the house is a shaker do expect that the household as a whole will be in state of shaking.

    • InfiniteWarrior says :

      It is a human problem and not system or institutions problem.

      I think we’ve determined it’s a human thinking problem that has been institutionalized. We most often call it “hierarchy,” an arrangement which no one but those supposedly at “the top” particularly likes.

  10. abdulmonem says :

    Yes it is institutionalized, what is pornography but sex abuse, what is banking but money abuse and what are propaganda and advertisement but language abuse etc but this does not absolve the abusers from responsibility. When justice is missed in this one another force will take over. I know most people do not respect such mythical stories and some do. It is the same old drama, our humanity has kept playing and replaying without good results. However despite all the pros and cons, we should follow the sages not blindly but, after doing our own deep personal pondering on the verity of the story that says that there is a divine referee that will give each player his/her negative or positive rewards., and do not give too much weight to the detractors. We are living in a time that governments are the great abuser, that is why they do not care as long as they remain in the driving seat. They are haunted by fear ,the natural outcome of their injustice and oppression, yet they are unaware of their blunders, and always pointing to the outside. All signs are pointing to a plausible scenario of a time that is moving fast toward closing, the humanity story that proved that it can not run the show properly , thus heralding that is it is time now for the active role of the long neglected, abused, belied and denied creator of the cosmos to settle the human differences and hands to every one his/her dues, in a collective manner or individually. Dialogue with Him and with oneself and others never stops until we move to our closing story in death and ends either up or down.

      • InfiniteWarrior says :

        Most appropriate and timely. Thank you.

      • InfiniteWarrior says :

        I’m compelled to return (specifically) to this for a moment:

        Consequently, the only common culture left was popular and our pop culture had a disturbing tendency to maintain its shock value and stimulation intensity over time by moving cumulatively downward toward the lowest common denominator of base impulses.

        Depends which aspect of “pop culture” you happen to be looking at. If you’re looking at the “downward [trend] toward the “lowest common denominator” [and nothing else] that’s likely all you’ll see. If, on the other hand, you’re looking at both dark and light aspects, you may be surprised at what you see.

        That’s all.

        • abdulmonem says :

          Pondering on the issues under the dialogue , new ideas enter the picture. It is reading not teaching is the main challenge that faces the humans in their self-realization journey, it is how the humans made of the teaching inputs in their personal growth. This is not to underestimate the teaching process but to emphasize the role of the reader in this process where the different students have a different grasp and contribution in light of the work of their inner teacher. The inner teacher that shows their intuitive revelatory contribution to the scholastic process that often time get hardened and lose its creative faculty in the world of innovation or divert its contribution to the degrading realm of the shackled mill of the machine.

          • InfiniteWarrior says :

            the scholastic process that often time get hardened and lose its creative faculty

            You can say that again. That’s what the current struggle in our public schools and institutions of higher learning is all about, as well as highlighted in some of our “entertainment,” e.g. Dead Poets Society and Mr. Holland’s Opus .

            to emphasize the role of the reader in this process

            How serendipitous is it that, moments after I read your comment, I came across a lady wearing a t-shirt with three varieties of flowers imprinted on it? The legend? “Grow your own way.” (I might add, “at your own pace.”)

            the different students have a different grasp and contribution in light of the work of their inner teacher

            This is a lesson some people will never understand, no matter how many times they come up against it.

          • InfiniteWarrior says :

            PS “or divert its contribution to the degrading realm of the shackled mill of the machine….”
            That’s precisely where it needs to go, just not as a servant of it.

  11. abdulmonem says :

    Thank you Steve, I always enjoy your positive contributions. I know this universal oriented human. He is one of our great humans in this world that has submerged itself in lowly base impulses. His greatness shouts through his great ideas and aspirations toward erecting human planetary culture away from the base impulses of our misled humanity. Thompson does not belong to a certain box but he picks the best of the content of each box that serves his goal in erecting the planetary culture that dovetails beautifully in the cosmos consciousness that is the divine consciousness the source of every organic lively beings and every inorganic beings which we mistakenly attribute non-life to it, despite the knowledge that some stones are more compassionate and more respondent than many human hearts. I think we are moving fast toward recognizing his consciousness in us and to know our true belonging away from the perverted boxes that are creating all these resentments hatreds and divisions..

  12. abdulmonem says :

    It is a well known truth among the sufis that our cosmos is nothing but the divine consciousness manifesting itself through forms and words from its origin to its end thus returning everything to the first cause that started everything. From Him we started and to Him we return. Human beings have a major role in this journey because they have been created to know him as the repeated story of the sufis advocates. Look how these beings have perverted the divine story and sent our oblivious humanity swirling to the abyss of destruction, despite the warnings of so many good voices. God does not play dice. Ascribing a lower position to the female, as our Schwaller try to postulate, does not fit with the equal responsibility assigned to both ,the responsibilities that are better performed by so many female in addition it does not ring well with divine justice. It is unfortunate that once the humans forget his source of his knowledge or for that matter everything they go astray ,some ascribe the start of knowledge to the greek and the roman, some to eygpt,some to mesopotamia. some to india and some to china etc concealing the real truth of its divine origin. The origin which all prophets that were sent to earth came to verify to it and to call upon the humans to go directly to him and to remember that the human program is fine tuned to vibration of the divine station, if only we direct our antenna,our spiritual feeler properly. This is well known for those who have thrown away the blinders thus moving from the language of the head to the language of the heart as our Schweller aspired to do. It is a difficult task since the boundary between the divine will and the human will is not clear that is how much is predestined and how much is under the domain of the human determination. This push the sufis to work to ward the unification of consciousness since the human consciousness ( the soul) is the divine breath, so said all scriptures and so it has been proven by all mystics. Knowledge is one and fragmented it all over different domains is not helpful in the way up.

  13. abdulmonem says :

    Thank you Dwig for the oneness of the mind that pours nicely in the sea of unification.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: