So much to experience, so much to comment on. So much to write, so much to read. So much to make... so much to fix. Too much to do, and so many hours devoured by sleep. Ah, but it is the rhythm of life. From the beginning our days have been divided by nights.This evening, I would like to write about music, about A Whiter Shade of Pale and about the beauty of harmonies and melodies, and the complexity of lyrics that evoke moods despite their ambiguity. But it's not to be. Not tonight.
And I would like to explore the meaning of fanaticism. Today fanaticism is definitely a perjorative. Everything has a pro and con, a positive and a negative feature, as well as many interesting aspects. How is it that today being fanatical is now such a heinous attitude?
OK, I do understand the problematic side of fanaticism, but what is its opposite? Lifelessness? Apathy? If it is a crime to be too passionate, what does this do to our natural desire to yield to total immolation, total self-sacrifice to something more importasnt than ourselves?
Someone once said "Fanaticism today is as rare as the dodo."I knew an American who once wanted to meet a true Communist so he could encounter someone who was utterly all-out committed to something he believed in. Nowadays, we have a society of people who play it safe. Everything is calculated. Zeal is a posture, not a true heartfelt attitude for most.
OK, so Winston Churchill puts a different spin on it: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." This kind of fanatic is problematic, associated more with bitterness and intolerance than passion for a positive thing. Maybe the issue revolves around what we're fanatical about? Alas.... It would make for a good digression.
And I'd like to write about my screenplay Uprooted, which takes place in Estonia during WWII. And the history of aviation, Howard Hughes, the power of Hollywood, and the mesmerization of the masses.... and...
Well, here I am listening to Dylan and splattering ideas onto my blog. Maybe I should just close up shop and get the rest we all require. Don't let the bedbugs bite.
8 comments:
>>>>>>>>>>OK, so Winston Churchill puts a different spin on it: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." This kind of fanatic is problematic, associated more with bitterness and intolerance than passion for a positive thing. Maybe the issue revolves around what we're fanatical about? Alas.... It would make for a good digression.
I would say the issue is the important thing. Churchill himself was considered a fanatic during the 1930's because of his opposition to Naziism. He never got his dander up about sexual indiscretions among high-ranking people, though -- in fact, he defended the right of the Prince of Wales to marry the divorcee, Mrs. Simpson, and said he shouldn't have to give up his right to become King. This stand made him unpopular in his own Conservative Party (and his opposition to Hitler made him unpopular with all parties, during the '30's).
Now in the US, just the opposite has occured. Clinton's trying to cover up a foolish sexual indiscretion was deemed impeachable by some "moralists". Both those "moralists" and the MSM went on, and on, and on, about it endlessly. The Christian fundamentalists said that "sin has to be called out for what it is", with no let-up.
But, when the issues are war crimes, torture of uncharged suspects, indefinite detention of uncharged suspects, warrantless spying on millions of Americans (as if there are millions of terrorists in the US), and other violations of the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and other international treaties, it's hardly considered worth mentioning, except by certain "fanatic" bloggers -- though these crimes have caused untold suffering to millions of people. The people who were formerly so "moral", don't even lift an eyebrow about killing.
It's a classic case of "straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel."
Everything is weird with modern laws as they are. I think the response to Clinton was probably overblown, but if a CEO of any corporation did the same thing, he would lose his job. It is against the law where I work for a manager to take advantage of someone under him.
But impeachable offense... The Republicans certainly wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars on that one.
Clinton was not, on the other hand, immune from making bad decisions that cost people lives... missiles and bombs seem to be part an parcel of the American way of diplomacy these days. Sadly.
I should not have said "probably" in the second sentence. Nor should I have said, "I think..."
The sentence should read, "The response to the Clinton indiscretion was overblown."
I can't say that Bill used good judgment while in office.
>>>>>>>>>>>I think the response to Clinton was probably overblown, but if a CEO of any corporation did the same thing, he would lose his job. It is against the law where I work for a manager to take advantage of someone under him.
I would think it would also be illegal for a CEO or manager to start a war based on lies, against the vote of the United Nations. Or to order anyone under him to commit torture or any other kind of mayhem.
But evidently that would not be as well-worth discussing.
By the way, has poor, taken advantage of, innocent Monica written her book yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clinton was not, on the other hand, immune from making bad decisions that cost people lives... missiles and bombs seem to be part an parcel of the American way of diplomacy these days. Sadly.
In January or February 1999 there was a protest against Clinton's bombing of Iraq, on the front steps of the Federal Building. I was there. The bombing that I thought was unnecessary at the time was aimed at specific facilities, however, and Clinton had gone through the necessary legal steps of obtaining UN support. There was nothing to violate the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. No torture of suspects. No "extraordinary renditions". No five-year war killing, maiming, and displacing millions of people.
As fanatically vehement against Clinton as the right-wingers were, the ONLY thing they could come up with to try to impeach him, was that stupid Monica affair, in which she was a consenting adult, and quite obviously did her own share of taking advantage.
Overnight I've been trying to recall if there were even a single social setting during the '90's where it would have been considered improper to crack a joke about Bill and Monica. It was something that could be talked about anywhere, including church and family gatherings. Making a snide comment about how awful Bill and Monica were was never considered hateful, intolerant, or bitter. It was quite the fad, in fact. It was chic.
How the situation has changed, though, when the charges are very serious and easily verifiable.
A burning question in my mind and in many other people's minds as well, is: Are Americans clamming up because of fear, or because they support these murderous policies?
Hi there, "Ennyman." I came across your blog here and thought, My God! There are people on the internet who actually want to talk about something serious, that is, Fanaticism.
I can't help but notice that you don't define what fanaticism is. In what context are you placing fanaticism? What group of fanatics? What historical moment? Or, if not a specific moment, do you mean contemporary fanaticism?
Have you ever heard of G.K. Chesterton? He wrote a book called "Orthodoxy" from which this quote comes:
"A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large."
He is talking about the spread of skepticism and moral relativism as it was in the 19th century, but his words ring true today. It's mind-boggling how many people out there are talking in circles in order to avoid having to accept responsibility for something, or to place blame on someone else, or to present themselves as intellectually superior when in fact they are not. That, roughly, is one way that I view fanaticism. It can also be a positive force as well, but I won't go on and on. Have I made sense? Call me out if I have made no sense.
And regarding that last question in the 6:52 PM post, Americans are clamming up for many reasons; widespread, large-scale distraction being a particularly nasty one. Another is material excess, or "Too-muchness" as I like to call it. People are overwhelmed with so much, for lack of a better term, bullshit, that murderous policies become something impossible to consider and dwell upon in the day-to-day life. Who wants to feel that kind of burdensome guilt every day? One cannot ignore it without overwhelming, cathartic distraction. Again, have I made sense?
Anyhow, thank you. It's hard to find people who want to discuss topics that have relavence beyond one-hour blocks of time.
Nichts: You raise good questions.
First, re: Chesterton, yes, I have read some of his writing. He strongly influenced C.S. Lewis. By virtue of Lewis' later fame, many were introduced to Chesterton in following generations.
You are correct that I have not really identified fanatacism here. And perhaps that ambiguity is suggested in both the second paragraph about music, and the abstract art on the page...
In point of fact, the original comment (rare as the dodo) and the reference to someone wanting to meet a communist both implied a facet of fanatacism that is simply strong passion. Kierkegaard once said "Let others complain that the age is wicked, my complaint is that it is wretched, for it lacks passion."
So the discussion seems aimed at differentiating "good passion" from irrational mindless masses stirred to passion by propaganda, as in Hitler's Germany.
As for what context the discussion is identifying, well, we live in the present... and ought to learn from the past.
Fanatacism is, of course, the origin of the word Fan. I think our Celebrity hysteria and sports passions are over the top, but no one who benefits from multitudes of fans is complaining. Fans by pennants, posters, goods. It is a victory for Capitalism to create fans.
The circle illustration is an interesting one. What if the circle is infinitely reduced so that its area and diameter are equal?
>>>>>>>>>One cannot ignore it without overwhelming, cathartic distraction. Again, have I made sense?
Yes, you're making sense. I often wonder if there is a distinct moral line that can be drawn between "overwhelming, cathartic distraction" caused by having less than enough to live on, and the same distraction, caused by having had more than enough, for a couple of centuries, plus.
Is there any moral difference between begging/stealing because of starvation, and overpowering/plundering because of greed?
I, personally, think that there is a difference, that it is a big difference, and that the line between them is not really that hard to draw.
>>>>>>>>the reference to someone wanting to meet a communist both implied a facet of fanatacism that is simply strong passion.
Well, I'm living under the hammer and sickle flag in the Lao PDR here, so I guess I must have met several thousand Communists, by this time. They don't seem all that fanatical. For example, the police here don't shake tourists or citizens up in airports or bus stations, the way they do in the US of A.
Also, the hammer and sickle are pretty handy tools to know how to use, when the price of gasoline quadruples in a 10-year period. The price of food here hasn't hardly gone up at all, since just about most of it is grown locally.
>>>>>>>Fanatacism is, of course, the origin of the word Fan. I think our Celebrity hysteria and sports passions are over the top, but no one who benefits from multitudes of fans is complaining. Fans by pennants, posters, goods. It is a victory for Capitalism to create fans.
Yeah, I agree. I always would've just as soon the *game* be turned *off* on Thanksgiving and New Year, but I never insisted on my druthers, even in my own house, when I used to have one. I've never been a sports fan, but other people were enjoying the game.
I did get interested, though, whatever year that was that the Twins won the World Series, and I did buy a box of General Mills Cheerios with the Twins' picture on the front that year, for the kids' sake. (It was a special occasion--usually me and the kids had to eat generic or home-grown, instead of brand-name.)
We ate the Cheerios, and I saved the box, which maybe still survives somewhere, though the family was uprooted in 2004.
>>>>>>>>>Well, I'm living under the hammer and sickle flag in the Lao PDR here, so I guess I must have met several thousand Communists, by this time. They don't seem all that fanatical.
Yes, the reference to someone wanting to meet a Communist was real, but seems out of context when cited 30 years later in the context of Laos.
This person wanted to meet someone who was zealous promulgating a belief system he held, who made personal sacrifices to this end... Maybe a 1920's union organizer would fit the bill or... aggressive Marxist/Leninist in Czarist Russia.
Mexico became a refuge for tens of thousands of communists who fled Spain during their epic civil war. Leon Trotsky was assassinated by Stalists during his own exile in Mexico. Much more on this could be written but we have a lifetime, right?
Post a Comment