It’s snowing tonight: white glimmers piecing off from a crumbling white sky. If you look closely, and for long enough, your eyes go beyond the flakes in the lamplight and pass into the gray beyond, where you become more and more receptive. You feel yourself changing.
I once participated in a guided meditation that went something like this: Start with your feet. Imagine them bursting into flame. The flame grows hotter and hotter, changing colors as it heats from orange to red to blue and finally to white as the blaze becomes hotter than fire is capable of becoming, transcending itself, passing brightly through the threshold. The conflagration then reaches from your feet to your abdomen and spreads upwards throughout your body until your whole self is a single white flame, immaculate. And now the space beyond your body catches fire as well. And the process repeats itself. It’s as if the world is falling into you, and, through your gaze, is converted also into a pure white inferno. All the universe is white. It empties.
The idea behind icon painting is that the image being depicted isn’t merely a likeness of something else and thereby intended to make the reality and the majesty of the original object present. Icon painting, in the words of Ivan Illich, “is understood as a threshold between two incommensurable worlds, from the perishable and provisional to the imperishable and eternal; from the world of death into the world of life.” As such, unlike the secular image, the religious icon takes on a peculiar sacredness all its own, one that isn’t cast off from another source but which exists within the image itself, as a vision of invisibility. The icon isn’t merely an imitation or copy or even an expression of sacredness but something through which the eternal light radiates directly into the viewer’s eye, an image both borne and conveyed by intrinsic holiness, which holds life and death in its expression.
Western art, by contrast, in attempting “to hold the mirror up to nature,” assumes a certain inevitable poverty in the image. No matter how precisely the image is depicted, it remains a copy, an inferior to the original. And after nature itself, the original original, is successfully converted through the forces of civilization into a commodity, into yet another representation, another image—when nature itself becomes a mere embodiment of its pseudo essence, of the ‘spirit’ it contains, then the entire world becomes a prison from which we futilely struggle to escape. Nothing we see is whole and separable, and the world of dearth that imprisons us, becomes, like suicide as a means of escaping one's fear of death, our hope for salvation. We look to the spectacle to lead us away from the spectacle.
In such a world, the very essence of self implies a neediness. The self becomes a scarcity—something with tangible and real needs and that begs for fulfillment. The world becomes a problem that has to be solved, except that to solve it would destroy creation, because the world can’t exist except as a problem. One helps one’s neighbor because one’s neighbor has needs that one can fulfill, weaknesses that can be compensated for, and the self looks to the outer world to grow not more complete (that’s impossible in a world of duplicating selves) but larger and more resolved, more alien and more invincible. Since everything mirrors something else, satisfaction can never be achieved, even in a world exclusively dedicated to need fulfillment. The original, which is itself a copy, forever reaches back to the form that gave it birth, a form that doesn’t exist. Consequently, our ‘real’ faces are worn like masks while we wait for the right actual mask to be covered by, and we look for love the same way that we look for a new television—by shopping. Relationships become exchanges. Once the world has been reified—once everything becomes a symbol for something else, and once thought (“I think therefore I am”) and the contingent idea of the mind as ruler and creator, becomes the foundation of existence, then the whole world is unified, with only one reality. Everything is borne of the one great law, product of the great mind, and subsequently, as shards reflecting shards, the other, mediated to us by specialists, loses her otherness. No one, including one’s self, is real; one merely symbolizes the real. And the sacred is forever diverted, like endless reflections in opposing mirrors.
The Medieval icon painters never bothered with new techniques such as perspective, the Golden Ratio, or foreshortening techniques, because they weren’t motivated to approximate an outer reality. The simplicity of the image was important because the image was meant to inspire contemplation, a meditative gaze through which a new reality could be entered and explored, and thereby required a certain amount of undefined space and a minimalist formation. The image wasn’t about something, after all. It was the thing itself—and asked not to be interpreted but cherished.
As I stare outside at the snow, I’m thinking about the way Zen Buddhists begin each meditation session with the chiming of a bell: a loud clang that expands and slowly ebbs into silence, empties, like white glowing from out of the darkness and falling again on white, extinguishing itself.
I remember when I was twenty one years old and I had just come back to Utah after a six month long internship in Washington DC. I was forced to stay with my parents until I found a new apartment, and, one night, as I had done throughout my childhood, I pulled the trampoline up next to the glass doors of my bedroom, and I slept outside. But I didn’t enjoy it the way I did as a child. The stars that used to amaze me and keep me awake for hours were no longer so appealing. They were still beautiful, but they were just stars, silent deaf stars that only the right interpretation could make meaningful. They didn’t look back at me.
Twenty years later, as I look out my window and watch the snow fall, I’m learning how to see again.
Empty Nest..
8 years ago
9 comments:
How poetically new-agey of you. I was entranced by the cadence of the words, and the visual presented through your narrative.
You wrote: "As such, unlike the secular image, the religious icon takes on a peculiar sacredness all its own, one that isn’t cast off from another source but which exists within the image itself, as a vision of invisibility."
Sacredness is not inherent/instrinsic in what is. Sacredness is imposed upon by you the observer. It seems to me that, in the end, it is you changing as you are impacted by the world. The interdependant relationship is the beauty in it all. The stars have remained the same throughout the wonder and magical thinking of childhood, right through the banality of your aged mind exposed to other worlds.
Is it a recapitulation of childhood eyes and wonder, or an evolution into a new era of life and age?
It doesn't really matter. The snow provides the inspiration, and the words provide the expression. The words inspire another (me) and the event has changed us both.
See you soon amigo! Drive safely.
Trav
Please don't ever call me New-Agey!!! If anything, what I'm expressing here is a direct critique of the New Agey idea that the universe is one.
Also, you wrote:
"Sacredness is not inherent/instrinsic in what is. Sacredness is imposed upon by you the observer."
I don't really need to tell you how confusing and anti-rhetorical that statement is, do I? I shouldn't, because you've contradicted yourself a couple sentences later:
"The interdependant relationship is the beauty in it all."
EXACTLY! And interdependence can't possibly mean that one 'imposes' and defines or is a part of the other. That's not interdependence; it's autocracy. Interdependence, as I use the term, means that both the observer and the observed have INTRINSIC existence and INTRINSIC value. They're incommensurable.
I'm guessing you've got your anti-religion lenses on and have thereby been triggered by a few key words such as 'secular' and 'religious icon', and consequently have misunderstood me completely. So let me just say that I'm not in any way endorsing religion, but I am suggesting that early concepts and forms of art are in many ways superior to those we have today (and keep in mind that the majority of the religious world, all but the Orthodox Catholics, went on to reject iconography). Furthermore, I'm suggesting that advertising and propoganda are direct results of a concept of art developed prior to and during the Renaissance, which demands a certain way of seeing the world, which, in turn has been used to further enslave us--and to keep us from really "seeing" anything other than imitations of ourselves. If it makes you feel better, I think postmodernism is (at times) an outgrowth of the same historic trends.
Granted, I wasn't making an all out effort to explain all this--I was being deliberately vague, both of necessity and for rhetorical reasons. I didn't expect to be perfectly understood, but still, some interpretations are just flat out wrong.
Shane...your writing is beautiful and elegant. I am going to read this post again. (and again and again). I love the image of the snow flaking off in pieces from the sky. I love the ending when you admitted that you were learning how to see the sky again. Odd how our "progression" in life comes more from unlearning and surrendering ourselves to an earlier and more natural state. I will comment more when I've had a chance to process more about what you were saying about the images, need, and self. It reminds me of a discussion I had (at book club) the other night about "service" and "self indulgence", which at the time really annoyed me even though I wasn't sure why, but after reading your post I think I might be able to formulate it better. But not tonight. Must sleep now. More commenting later...
(btw...I've never thought of you as "new agey" HH knows what buttons to push!)
Shane,
Angie needs her computer. I wasn't wrong. I was spot on. The you of youth was a person responding to the world in certain ways because of the relationship with the world in whic you lived.
The idea of sacredness was not interpeted by me as a religious inference. I interpreted your statement cited to mean that the image was inspiring independant of your observation. The idea of interdependance (item and shane interacting) was the very thing I was getting at. IT just seemed at odds with my understanding of that particular verse. We are writing "past" one another here. IT seems where you wrote vaguely, I interpreted literally.
Perhaps my rhetorical skills should be couched in terms of questions rather than statements?
I knew the new-agey comment would get a rise out of you. Sorry if it offended. Was just being a smartass.
It was quite poetic. As I read, I could feel the quiet and calm that falling snow brings. IT was really quite moving.
Needless to say, I have been wrong before, and plan on being so again. Probably in the next minute or so. =)
Trav
Your blog is interesting; I look forward to reading more. Have you thought of how your use of the internet and the computer play a role in your journey? There is an excellent Wendell Berry essay on this. Here is a link:
http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berrynot.html
HH,
You wrote:
IT just seemed at odds with my understanding of that particular verse. We are writing "past" one another here. IT seems where you wrote vaguely, I interpreted literally.
Or maybe you didn't interpret literally enough. But okay. No worries. And, for the record, I am suggesting that some things are intrinsically valuable--i.e. sacred.
Also, you wrote:
"The you of youth was a person responding to the world in certain ways because of the relationship with the world in which you lived."
I agree. But I'm not sure what point you're making.
And thanks for retracting the New Agey comment! Yeah, you do know how to get under my skin.
SE,
You wrote:
"Odd how our "progression" in life comes more from unlearning and surrendering ourselves to an earlier and more natural state."
Unlearning is crucial. Yes. But I'd like to make one important point: In saying that I'm learning how to see again, I don't mean that I once knew how to see and now I'm re-learning it. I mean that I once thought of seeing as something that had to be learned, as a skill, and later I just took it for granted, thought of it as something that comes naturally and doesn't require any kind of effort or commitment. Again, I'm siding with the early icon painters here. Seeing isn't something that comes naturally (although it might come easier to people reared in simpler and less-commercialized environments) but requires a determined, almost stoic, and egoless focus.
I look forward to reading your later formulations. Hope you had a good night's sleep!
Anonymous,
Thanks for the link. I love Wendell Berry. Yes, I have thought a lot about the role the computer plays in my journey. I think one of the reasons I love traveling so much is because it forces me, temporarily, to break my computer habit. There are some positives, too, but I kinda think the world would be better off without them. Sounds like a topic I might have to think more about and write up a full-length post on.
I read over this several times before I felt I had anything to say. I'm attracted to what you say here:
"Everything is borne of the one great law, product of the great mind, and subsequently, as shards reflecting shards, the other, mediated to us by specialists, loses her otherness. No one, including one’s self, is real; one merely symbolizes the real. And the sacred is forever diverted, like endless reflections in opposing mirrors."
This seems to get at the heart of what you mean by unlearning and again understanding seeing as a process, something to be learned. And I agree with your clarification comment to SE: it can't be about returning to a "natural" state or about relearning what we have lost.
Even though I've been tempted by this returning to the natural state idea many times in the past, it seems reductionistic and too easy.
But then what exactly is going on? Is it that when we look at the stars as adults they are mediated through our knowledge, specialists as you say, and language? Consequently we do not have a direct connection with what we see—there’s all this interference?? This idea reminds me of John Berger’s book Ways of Seeing: it starts like this,
“Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak.” He goes on to say, “but there is also another sense in which seeing comes before words. It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding world; we explain that world with words but words can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by it. The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled. Each evening we see the sun set. We know that the earth is turning away from it. Yet the knowledge, the explanation, never quite fits the sight.”
In particular I think “we can never undo the fact that we are surrounded by IT” gets at the immediacy of icons. Maybe we do try to “undo the fact” through words, to create distance, to create “understanding,” to create a semblance of “meaning” and in the process lose the THING itself.
As you say later, when you look up there at 21, only the right interpretation will create meaning. Again, it seems, this is all about language. But I find my thought a bit stymied as I return to Berger's first line: "seeing comes before words." I want to resist the idea that words merely get in the way but even though you were talking about the self your description aptly applies to words: "one merely symbolizes the real. And the sacred is forever diverted, like endless reflections in opposing mirrors."
Of course many postmodernists have raised these kinds of issues about language (social construction, intentionality, Saussure's signified/signifier) but my guess is you are trying to reach beyond these PM critiques. As you say to Travis, PM is at times an outgrowth of these trends. I'd be interested to know how you see your ideas here in relationship to PM.
CI,
I think, in part, there's a postmodernist message here, in the sense of saying that language can only go so far in transmitting reality. Also, as I pointed out to SE, I'm not here talking about relearning something that is lost, but I wouldn't go so far as you seem to be going by saying that we can never re-learn something we've lost. I think we can and should learn from the past. Of course, we can never go home again, not entirely, but we can't and shouldn't escape home, either. And while I don't think I ever knew how to see, I think, when I was young, I did a better job of it. I'm not re-capturing my youthful way of seeing, but I do want that youthful way to inform my progress to a degree.
I'll have to think more about how this all relates more directly to postmodern thought, though. Maybe we can take that up on Saturday.
Post a Comment