Quentin S Crisp

Passport to Pimlico

Wednesday, 9. September 2009, 14:03:51

I've been thinking about the Zeitgeist:Addendum film. I appreciate the spirit in which it's made, but I think it's too much presenting one unquestioned view. Anyway, this is just by way of saying that the guy in the film uses the large number of religions as a criticism. It's seen as a bad thing that there are however many billions of different kinds (and they can't all be right). I actually want there to be more religions. I think people should declare independent religions on a daily basis in a Passport to Pimlico kind of way.

I might write more about the film later. I'm sure everyone's already seen it and I'm late in only seeing it recently.

I formally reject Buddhismexpress yourself

Comments

solid copper # 10. September 2009, 11:00

I am quite sure it is the opposite, that you are ahead of many not behind.

Quentin S Crisp # 10. September 2009, 12:22

But the question is, in what?

solid copper # 10. September 2009, 12:24

seeing the film.

Quentin S Crisp # 10. September 2009, 12:38

Ah, in that sense, well, ahead of some. I do tend to catch the tail end of these kinds of things, though - media events and so on.

Anonymous # 11. September 2009, 23:00

Anonymous writes:

I think the criticism is more about the seperatism of religion. Not so much religion itself.

Peter Joseph (the creator of Zeigiest) notes that we are all essentially connected to this planet as one. We all rely on the planet and its resources for survival. We should all take care of each other if we want to live in a peaceful world. Otherwise, as John Perkins noted in the film, we're going to have major problems.

The problem with seperatism in religion is same problem with seperatism based on race, political ideologies, sex, or different orientations. It wouldn't be a bad thing for people to have different religious beliefs, the problem is when people see themselves as being superiorly different than someone of a different religion, just like when someone sees themselves as being superior because of the color of their skin.

What Peter tries to point out is how stupid this is since no religion can be proven to be true anyway and he points to the origins of most religions to show how they are all basically based on much older myths.

I hope that might clear things up a bit.

Anonymous # 12. September 2009, 03:35

Anonymous writes:

I also wanted to point out about the "established" versus the "emergent" aspects of nature. This is an important part of the film and I think it also connects with his criticism of religion. People shouldn't try to establish themselves as being Christian, or Atheist even. Ideas should never be established, they should always be subjected to change when new information arises. People label themselves based on ideas because they are trying to establish what they are... but as long as we allow ourselves to grow we are constantly changing. We are constantly in a state of becoming.

Quentin S Crisp # 12. September 2009, 08:13

People shouldn't try to establish themselves as being Christian, or Atheist even. Ideas should never be established, they should always be subjected to change when new information arises.

I personally agree with this. At the same time, I feel, at least, ambivalent about saying to other people, "You shouldn't call yourself Christian or Atheist." I mean, I've expressed this view on my blog, and I suppose what the film is doing is also expressing that view. But this is also a view, and the view doesn't exist independently of people. To privilege this view over others is to privilege a particular person's view over others. You might say then, "Well, how are we going to get anywhere, if we don't privilege any particular view?" I'm not saying it's easy, but I think the point is - for me, at least, and at the moment - that you can't change people by opposition.

For instance, if someone is a fundamental Christian, I don't think I'd persuade them not to be (if there was a problem because of their beliefs causing friction with other beliefs). If it were up to me to do something, Id say, "Well, God also made atheists, Muslims, etc. and wants you to love them, doesn't he?" Or something like that. In other words, I think you have to work with what's already there.

But this in itself is not a system I've worked out. It's just how I see things at the moment, and, in fact, I do 'believe' in emergence, too. I'm always ready to change my views. Emergence, of course, as accepted in the film, doesn't stop those participating from asserting particular views as if they are established truth rather than temporarily useful (or otherwise) truth. One of the most interesting things in the film, to me, was the assertion that what will save us is technology. This is quite contrary to views I've held for a long time, but was presented in such a way that I re-thought my views. This is a good thing. Actually, I still think that the way technology is presented as our saviour is a bit simplistic, but I'm entertaining that idea now more than I would have in the past. I just wonder what the makers of the film will think when certain aspects of the emergent also turn up further problems with technology (after all, technology has been presented as a saviour before).

Quentin S Crisp # 12. September 2009, 08:30

Maybe this will help to explain my attitude: For a long time I've felt myself inclined towards individualism (since childhood). Individual identity is what I value, in the singular and the plural, where it becomes what is called 'plurality'. I've also long been interested in Buddhism (since young adulthood) in which there is emphasis on the idea that there is 'no self' and all is one. I have undergone a long struggle with this. On Wednesday I felt that struggle come to an end. The Buddhist assertion that there is 'no self' is one-sided dogma. It is even self-contradictory dogma (literally), since to assert "there is no self", is both a logical contradiction and a contradiction in terms of attitude. "Is" is a linguistic plus sign. "no" is a linguistic minus sign. Therefore to assert that there is no self is to propagate a minus as if it were a plus. That's the linguistic contradiction. The contradiction in intention can be pointed out by the question, "Who is asserting that there is no self?"

Therefore, at the moment, I feel like I am rediscovering the value of something that has long felt to me as wrong or sinful, despite my own instincts to the contrary - that is, the value of individuality and diversity.

I find this to be celebrated much more, incidentally, in Taoism than in Buddhism.

I'm writing a whole essay on this. This is not mere casual wool-gathering on my part. I've been engaged in this particular inner struggle for many years. Finally to reject Budhism has been a great relief to me.

I'll give an example of why I formally reject Buddhism: I went on a retreat recently, to spend ten days in Vipassana meditation. Vipassana, we are told, means "seeing things as they are". The question, to me, is, as they are according to whom? I don't believe in objectivity. I can quote quantum physicists on this if necessary. "Things as they are" changes according the the observer. There is not one "things as they are". For this reason amongst many others I formally reject Buddhism, and am prepared to formally reject it again whenever necessary.

Quentin S Crisp # 12. September 2009, 08:50

What I've just written both agrees with what sentiments in the film, and, I think, differs from them. I've got to have breakfast, though, so I won't write more just yet.

By the way, I would recommend the film to those who haven't yet watched it. I think I've mentioned my reservations more than anything, but to me there was far more plus than minus to the film. I suppose I just wish that they had given critics less leverage to undermine the film. Because of its subject matter people will wish to undermine it, and because it's an independent film, they will find it easier to do so. They will especially find it easier because some of the assertions in the film are not sufficiently explained and backed up, and because, for long periods, the views presented are those of one particular person. I see these as flaws in a film whose fundamental intentions I approve of. I'm afraid that they might tend to weaken the message. However, I also have a notion that the film has enough power that it will not be entirely dismissed. I think - if anything makes a difference - then the film's contribution to the world will be a good one.

But please forgive me if that's gibberish, because I've only just got up.

Anonymous # 12. September 2009, 19:24

Anonymous writes:

"For instance, if someone is a fundamental Christian, I don't think I'd persuade them not to be (if there was a problem because of their beliefs causing friction with other beliefs). If it were up to me to do something, Id say, "Well, God also made atheists, Muslims, etc. and wants you to love them, doesn't he?" Or something like that. In other words, I think you have to work with what's already there."

Well, I think you're absolutely correct - you can't persuade people through arguing in opposition, that only leads to conflict. The idea is that the ennviorment determines human behavior. We can make war, racism, and other abhorrent behaviors obsolete if we change the environment. If the monetary system was erradicted people wouldn't make profit from war anymore; human behavior would change dramatically if we built a system based on human concern like the one Fresco envisions. The monetary system will not be eradicated through debate or argumentation, but when the system fails and disenfranchised people lose their homes and demand the change.

"I just wonder what the makers of the film will think when certain aspects of the emergent also turn up further problems with technology (after all, technology has been presented as a saviour before.)"

I'm not sure the problem is ever with technology, the problem is the people who use the technology. Today technology is being used for many abhorrent things such as building nuclear weapons for war. You basically got the UK transforming into a police state with cameras all over the place spying on people. It's crazy and scary. We're basically living in an Orwellian world now in some places.

"Therefore, at the moment, I feel like I am rediscovering the value of something that has long felt to me as wrong or sinful, despite my own instincts to the contrary - that is, the value of individuality and diversity."

Individuality and diversity are great. However, there's nothing wrong with being uniformly sane either. If everybody was against things like war, racism, sexism, etc... it would be a very positive thing. We would have so much more liberty and freedom in a world where people weren't afraid of one another.

Quentin S Crisp # 12. September 2009, 21:43

By the way, to clarify my above point about Buddhism, as I wouldn't wish to be misunderstood, there is only 'no self' in the sense that there is also no 'no self'.

However, there's nothing wrong with being uniformly sane either.

I agree. I would say - and perhaps I'm wrong - that plurality is precisely this very difficult sanity. That is, the sanity not of everyone being exactly the same, but of all being able to tolerate each other's differences.

I'm not sure the problem is ever with technology, the problem is the people who use the technology..

This is precisely why I'm unsure about technology being 'the solution'. That is, technology may not change those who are using the technology, something else has to happen first, so that the technology can be turned to more productive ends.

I was interested in this angle, however, as it's clear that we cannot go back to a pre-industrial society, but that technology currently poses problems, so it's seemed to me for some time that what we actually need is different technology to that which we have. Of course, a huge part of this is simply making technology efficient, having clean energy and so on.

I'm also interested in this angle because I'm currently reading the Republic, in which Socrates is making various comparisons between leaders and 'technicians'.