The Mysticism of Rivalry
Posted by anthonynorth at 10:49, 06 Apr 2008Rivalry is good. We are all aware of this. A rival ‘ups’ your game; demands that you try harder - takes away the cosiness of your comfort zone, your satisfaction that you’re trying your best.
Often rivalry improves more than your own standards. Take debate. Ideas are thrashed out, leading to all sides being heard, and a balanced view arising. In politics, such debate is how societies are regulated, proving the importance of such rivalry.
Yet rivalry can be a religious thing.
Some elements, here, are obvious. God verses the Devil – an understanding of good and evil. Indeed, mystical traditions such as alchemy are grounded in rivalry.
Alchemy is about opposites, best symbolized in the alchemical image of the face of the beautiful young woman on the reverse side of the face of the wise old man. Rivalry, it seems, is more fundamental in the religious sphere.
The idea of good verses evil led to western ideals.
Fundamental to our way of doing things is the idea that things can be normal or abnormal. What is ‘normal’ is whatever we see ourselves as being. Everything else is abnormal, or wrong. This is rivalry in concept, in philosophy, in our very bones.
Yet this form of rivalry can also lead to persecution, to conflict, and is maybe the wrong way of looking at it. In eastern philosophies, rivalry is seen in terms of influences towards preservation and destruction. Yet they are held together by a life force which provides balance.
Maybe this is how rivalry should really be seen. For in balance, each side is weighed, but the conflict is stopped. I think we could learn a great deal from eastern mysticism – the west’s rival, as it were.
(c) Anthony North, April 2008
Bookmark/Search this post with
- anthonynorth's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
East-West
Philosophy is one thing, daily life is another. Daily life on a family level, village level, and all the way up to big government.
Eastern philosophy may preach harmony, but the eastern societies are just as disharmonious as the rest of them. So I guess that eastern philosophy is further removed from reality than western philosophy. Maybe that is why some people that that westerners have no philosophy.
I say the main difference is how the winner justifies the victory. In the "western" cultures - we were the moral superiors. In the "eastern" cultures - harmony was restored.
Normal
You comment about what is considered "normal". I have found that in North America (well, Canada and the US), being normal is not required in society. That is in contrast with European societies mainly.
As long as you don't bother other people, you can do pretty much what you want here. That is quite different from places like England, Germany, Romania, and a lot of other places.
Two
Only two?
Ths kind of discussion is usually about the difference between "western" and "eastern". But where do we place the Arabic view? It is western if you ask Tibetans. It is eastern if you ask Germans. It is a unique point of view if you ask Arabs.
How about Persia? Here is a culture that has been strong as long as China and Egypt, like them or not.
For that matter, how about Africa? Their cultural benefits and troubles are still with us.
And I am sure there are many more. I don't know how much of the ancient religions and cultures survive in Latin America. But my best guess is that it is not all Spanish. Old cultures, and different immigrant cultures.
Probably the reason why we can't resolve differences between the two opposing vies is that there are 5 opposing views, or 17, or ...
[Edit - sorry for the longish post. I should tell why I update :) ]
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
Hi Earthling,
True, how we live daily or political life can differ from the philosophy that created the society we inhabit. This is mainly due to love, in the former, and ego, in the latter - both influences that can transcend philosophy. But I think the underlying ethic remains.
Generally, I think there are only two central strands of philosophy - the cyclical east and linear west. There are many variations, true, but they all fall into one of these two. For instance, both communism and fascism - polar opposites in one sense - were both the result of continental rationalism - just a different interpretation of dialectical history.
I think the western tradition traces back to monotheism, in that this placed the idea of history and advancement into consciousness. As such, Arabic philosophical forms would be closer to western than eastern.
As for 'normal', we can do pretty much as we like in the west, provided we try to maintain the central ideological tradition of consumerism. Okay, if you don't, you're not arrested or tortured, but you are scorned.
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
Perhaps you have not lived in america, but being "not notmal" is not even scorned upon. It has nothing to do with consumerism.
It has to do with being average, along maybe two or three lines of being "normal".
In Europe, being outside the norm is considered bad. Not by the government, but by "normal" society.
In the Americas, it is considered interesting. Unless you hurt someone.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
Hi Earthling,
As for America, I think two words explain what I mean:
Trailer Trash
White and poor just ain't seen as 'normal'. I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in parts of England you just have to put your head above the parapet to be criticised - behind your back, of course. But this is gossip. Not a philosophical condemnation, just an inability of some people to find enough to do.
...
I'm certain of only one thing. Nothing is certain
Anthony North
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
Really man, have you ever been here?
I don;t think so.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
No, I haven't. Is 'trailer trash' a myth?
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
"trailer trasdh" esists, but you forget that North America is about 450 million people, if you include Mexico.
And it is about as diverse as all of Europe.
You really should do yourself a favour, and visit for a few months. For a year even. I know you are interested in learning about cultures and peoples. You should come here for a while.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
31 January 2008
5 years 6 weeks
6 months in America and yes, its easier to be not-normal, apart from the hills around Seattle when, dressed in flares, flowery shirt and long hair we got "get out of town you ####### freaks".
Not so easy going here in the UK but the fear of the unknown (cultures) is subsiding and I dont find it a particular issue as it may have been say 10 or 20 years ago. I suppose it depends on where you hang out and from what generation you come from (expectations can dictate how you percieve.
Rivalry i agree is more balance than deliberate conflict. Rivalry is part of the natural evolution which seems to progress towards balance and maybe it is only human interpertaion of rivalry that sees it as anything else, but then maybe its human interpretation that also defines our idea of balance which may turn out to be wrong. Good and evil could both be forms of structured existence. The opposite of structured existence could be chaos making good and evil not so unalike. Then again the opposite of both chaos and structure could be nothingness so maybe it again all depends on the perciever.
I might have come away from America with a different impression.
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
Hi Earthling,
I'd be interested to know what percentage of whites are 'trailer trash' - this will decide if being abnormal as a white is being poor or not - i.e. against consumerism.
Another area of 'abnormal'. What percentage of the US electorate vote 'socialist', I wonder? Is there a party they can vote for? Or have they totally wiped out this abnormality?
Hi Loop,
Yes, Britain has an over-culture - disappearing fast, by the way. But it was always a con - a way to keep up appearances. Multi-culturalism always thrived beneath it. In the height of the Victorian, London had more brothels than any other city. Eccentrics had always existed, only shunned nowadays when we're supposed to have more freedoms.
Britain used to glory in its eccentricity.
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
There are many cultures in the US, and even in a small (population-wise) country like Canada.
No my friend, you are not the one to decide. History will decide, not you or me.
You do not know anything about America, it seems - just the stuff you see in the media. And that is quite inaccurate.
That being said, I admit that I do not know much about Asia, or Africa.
I do know about Europe, and North America.
Really, you should travel more. We all should.
Have you been to the former communist countries? Go see the wrecks that the communists left behind. Go look, really.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
Hi Earthling,
I didn't say I'd decide. I'm asking what are the statistics. I'm asking, is there a strong socialist movement in America. The reality of such factors is the evidence. I'm asking. As I see it, you're ducking the issue.
My theory is that the predominant freedoms you can have in the west revolve around the ideology of mass consumerism. If you don't conform, you're abnormal. As for worldwide travel, if only I had the money. Your automatic words that I should travel more take it as said that it is normal that I should be able to afford to.
Interesting.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
I am not ducking anything.
Why would anybody in their right mind want socialism, as prescribed by Marx and company?
The predominant freedoms in the west are about being allowed, and able, to do what you want.
As opposed to being able to do what "society" tells you what is "normal".
Many poor people from all over the world have been in Canada and the US. If you are a UK citizen, you can be here for less than US$800. No special visa deals, you can just go.
Don't tell me you dont have the money, I don't believe you.
But really, this is not an angry exchange from my point. I just want to make you, and the rest who read this, think about this.
Do you really think that sitting at home, getting all your information from the internet and the mass media, that you will understand other parts of the world?
Travel is cheap. Don't be lazy, take it out of your tea or beer budget. Just go.
If you live in the UK, you can go to France, Germany, Netherlands, for the price of a good lunch.
Go.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
Hi Earthling,
What has anger got to do with it? I'm not in the slightest angry. I'm enjoying this. Don't mistake an opposing view as anger. Abnormal to your views, maybe, but don't denigrate rational debate with emotionism.
Society never tells anyone what to do. The prevalent ideology does. And my argument is that there still IS a prevalent ideology - that mass consumerism is good and normal. Everything else is bad.
I would dream of having a spare £400 in the bank. As for travel, I've spent much of the last ten years housebound, unable to travel up the road, never mind to another country.
By the way, 'why would anybody in their right mind want socialism'?
Think about what you said, there.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
My anti-socialism statements are based on what I have seen in Romania, mostly, Go there, it is cheap. And on what I have seen in East Germany. And so on. See the wrecks, the pollution, that socialism has produced. I know some of the victims personally., I have seen the damage, and the damaged persons.
It is too bad that you cannot afford to travel. For you, or anywone for that matter, it really limits the information you can find.
I get much informal information from the people I meet in my travels. Simple people, simple travels. I just talk to people.
And that tells me that the world is not what the media tells us, and not what the internet tells us.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
Hi Earthling,
I don't disagree with you about socialism - in the extreme it is terrible, and I'm certainly not a socialist. I'd class myself as just right of centre, and a definite capitalist. But anything can be taken too far, and I feel we now have a super-capitalism that is an ideology and fundamentally against freedom outside the consumer ethic.
Of course the world isn't how media or internet portray it. That's why we have minds to work out what is closer to reality. And as I see it, the west denigrates anything outside this consumer ethic, to the point that the average western citizen cannot tell that it is an ideology, and cannot conceive of anything other than the consumer ethic. In other words, through subtle media manipulation, they have perfected the idea of the abnormal to such an extent that it doesn't even register on the radar.
Hence, no socialism in America. Full Stop!
Anyway, it's past my bedtime here in gossip-ridden Britain. We'll have to continue this tomorrow.
...
Nite, nite
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
Real socialism has been attempted in quite a few places.
It has lead to economic ruin, and to brutal totalitarian governments. Every time.
Every stinking time.
Why on earth would anyone propose to try it again ?
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
Good morning everyone,
Earthling, every concept has some good in it. It is the extremeness that is bad. If we take Britain, a socialist ethic is at the heart of its modern existence.
This is the idea of 'cradle to grave' assistance, paid by a national insurance. It provides healthcare free at the point of use, a social safety net for those who are ill or out of work, and a universal state pension when you retire.
Yes, the ideal holds problems in practice, but is the ideal so terrible? But my point is not to do with why people would want socialism. You're raising a red herring there. The simple fact that the idea exists means it would naturally have a following amongst any population, and a degree of representation in parliament.
In Britain, I'd say some 50 MPs are openly socialist. If the others told the truth, it would be about 200. That's almost a third of the British Parliament, including the 'esteemed leader', Brownski.
Where is that socialist representation in America? How has an 'idea' been totally wiped out? I'd say because of the power to control by devising ideas of normal and abnormal, and placing it into an ideological system. That system is mass consumerism based on super-capitalism. It isn't the 'natural' way to be. It is an ideology, just like all the others.
...
I'm certain of only one thing. Nothing is certain
Anthony North
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
You say that socilaism does not exist in the US. That is not correct. There are powerful trade unions, and many special interests groups that are socialist in their orientation.
There are no political parties that have "socialist" in their name, but that does not mean that the socialist views do not have any influence.
You see, the US is not a top-down society. It is not bottom-up either. But Europesns, and I include Britain here, are used to top-down.
As for the red herring stuff - you do not dispute the disasters that socialists, fully in control, have caused in all of Esatern Europe. Do you? Or in Cambodia. Or in Cuba.
Do you really think that was just coincidental?
Tell us please.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
12 April 2007
3 hours 15 min
Hi Anthony, I've been reading the discussions between you and earthling; but I wanted to come back to the original topic of the post and ask you: what do you think is the inffluence —if any— that persian manicheism had in the shaping of western mysticism?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
Hi Red,
Quite a bit, I think. Mani was influenced by Zoroastrianism, which had its own slant on the good verses evil system. And later, the Church Father St Augustine of Hippo, dabbled in it before becoming Christian.
Hence Mani, as well as Neo-Platonism, played its part in his The City of God, which was the main influence in raising Christianity above any Earthly authority.
In this way it survived the fall of the Roman Empire. So maybe, without Mani, Christianity could well have died out with the Romans.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
22 November 2004
1 hour 40 min
Actually, I wanted to come back to another point, that is perhaps more interesting.
Why do we usually discuss things in terms of 2 opposing philosophies? There are many more views.
It starts with simple western politics - why should there be a "left wing" and "right wing" view? There are many separate issues, and reasonable people have views on each of these issues that don't fit the one-dimensional spectrum.
And then there are the many cultures, why is there only socialist-capitalist, western-eastern? I say this is not true, there are many more dimensions.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
12 April 2007
3 hours 15 min
Maybe the reason for this 2-sides tendency is that people always rely in the power of numbers: the fewer the options, the more people they will have on their ranks.
Take the republicans and the democrats for instance —and everyone reading this, please take in consideration that this is the opinion of an outsider— I would think that many of the people that either vote for the dems or the reps do not ENTIRELY agree with every single aspect of the parties' politics, nevertheless, if there were to be a multi-party democracy in America, we would find that the voting would be much more dilluted; that is what happens in Mexico, where currently there are 3 strong political parties (PRI, PAN and PRD) along with many other small parties that join forces with one of the bigger ones if it favors them politically —and economically, of course.
In fact, I remember reading that when the independentist politician Ralph Nader announced that he would run for President yet again, that many democrats were angry by his decision, since they feel he was responsible for the defeat of Al Gore in the 2000 election. So I guess that in America they like to have a two-side antagonism in politics; in fact not just in politics: take creationism vs evolution, pro-life vs pro-choice etc, etc.
Blame Mani for that, I guess ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
13 April 2007
4 years 48 weeks
Of course full socialism is a disaster, as, I think, is full capitalism. They are both fanaticisms, extremes, and they are always wrong.
The Brit establishment keeps the myth going that Britain is top-down. Brit people usually ignore that and do what they want. Just look at our political satire down the centuries.
Trade unions do not necessarily mean socialism. People will always get together to demand better standards, conditions, etc. You can trace them back to the Medieval guilds, long before socialism. I certainly cannot see a major US party being socialist.
Of course there are only two opposing philosophies at any one time. It is as inevitable as light and dark, night and day, hot and cold, up and down, left and right. It is a two sides world. But, yes, there are infinite variations and definitions within this duality, certainly.
It is correct that most people are not automatically left or right politically. But parties do tend to be. I am actually aganist political parties as such. I'd prefer far more independents in a parliament. They would lead to better debate, and in diluting the power of a party in office, they'd lead to more rational policies.
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North