Dads

Not long

before we were born,

they were told

they were gonna write a song

that was gonna

unite The entire World.

Which they thought

they had done

with their hit single...

‘Those Who Rock’.

Not only did it not

unite The World,

but The Band itself fell apart.

And Our Dads, alone now,

were trying harder and harder.

“…But The Problem was,

the harder Dads tried,

the less interested

people seemed to be

in Their Music.

Not only was it wearing

on them and on The Family...

But The Universe

they were told

they were gonna

bring together...

was actually

starting to unravel.

Yeah,

Time was folding in on itself.

It was bad.

Totally, Dude.

Anyways, this is 

how We got to 

Where We Are Now.

The transformation of water into wine at the wedding at Cana (also called the marriage at Cana, wedding feast at Cana or marriage feast at Cana) is the FIRST miracle attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John.

In the Gospel account, Jesus Christ, his mother and his disciples are invited to a wedding. When his mother notices that the wine has run out, Jesus delivers a sign of his divinity by turning water into wine at her request. The location of Cana has been subject to debate among biblical scholars and archaeologists; several villages in Galilee are possible candidates.

The account is taken as evidence of Christ’s approval of marriage and earthly celebrations, and has also been used as an argument against teetotalism.

Biblical account

John 2:1–113 states that Jesus was at a wedding (seudat nissuin) in Cana with his disciples. Jesus’ mother (unnamed in the Gospel of John) told Jesus, “They have no wine,” and Jesus replied, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother then said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (John 2:3–5).4 Jesus ordered the servants to fill containers with water and to draw out some and take it to the chief steward (waiter). After tasting it, without knowing where it came from, the steward remarked to the bridegroom that he had departed from the custom of serving the best wine first by serving it last (John 2:6–10).5 John adds that: “Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and it revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him” (John 2:11).6

Interpretation

The Wedding Feast takes place in Cana shortly after the call of Philip and Nathanael. According to John 21:2, Cana was Nathanael’s hometown.7

Although none of the synoptic Gospels mentions the wedding at Cana, Christian tradition based on John 2:118 holds that this is the first public miracle of Jesus.9 It is considered to have symbolic importance as the first of the seven signs in the Gospel of John by which Jesus’ divine status is attested, and around which the gospel is structured. Jesus will later return to Cana, where John 4:46–54 describes him healing a Capernaum official’s young son; the second sign in the Gospel of John.7

The story has had considerable importance in the development of Roman Catholic theology. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen thought that it is very likely that it was one of Mary’s relatives who was being married. This would mean Mary and her relatives would be embarrassed if they appeared inhospitable by running out of wine, giving Mary a reason to ask Jesus to intervene. Sheen further suggests that as Jesus arrived with additional guests, they may have contributed to the wines running short.10 When his mother advises Jesus that their hosts are running out of wine, he says “Woman, what has this to do with me?” Sheen sees an echo of the Protevangelium of Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers”, marking the commencement of Jesus’ redemptive ministry.10 Jesus will again address her as “Woman” in John 19:26, when he entrusts his mother to his disciple John, “Woman, behold, your son.”7

The gospel account of Jesus being invited to a wedding, attending, and using his divine power to save the celebrations from disaster are taken as evidence of his approval for marriage and earthly celebrations. It has also been used as an argument against the teetotalism practiced among certain Protestant Christian sects.11

Interpreted allegorically, the good news and hope implied by the story are in the words of the steward of the Feast when he tasted the good wine, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now” (John 2:10, RSV). This could be interpreted by saying simply that it is always darkest before the dawn, but good things are on the way. The more usual interpretation, however, is that this is a reference to the appearance of Jesus, whom the author of the Fourth Gospel regards as being himself “the good wine”.12 According to Bill Day, the miracle may also be interpreted as the antitype of Moses’ first public miracle of changing water (the Nile river) into blood. This would establish a symbolic link between Moses as the first saviour of the Jews through their escape from Egypt and Jesus as the spiritual saviour of all people.13

Some commentators have speculated about the identity of the unnamed bridegroom. One tradition, represented by Thomas Aquinas among others, holds that the bridegroom was St John the Evangelist himself. Bishop John Spong suggests in his book Born of a Woman that the event was the wedding of Jesus himself to Mary Magdalene.14 In 1854, at a time when polygamy was an element of mainstream practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Latter-day Saint elder Orson Hyde made a similar suggestion, arguing that Jesus was a polygamist and that the event at Cana was his wedding to Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary of Bethany.151617 However, the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is usually dismissed by scholars as pseudohistorical.18

Studying Jesus in comparative mythology, the story of the transformation of water into wine bears some resemblance to a number of stories that were told about the ancient Greek god Dionysus, who among others was said to fill empty barrels that had been left locked inside a temple overnight with wine.19 However, scholars generally agree that the Gospel of John was written by a community of Jewish Christians who had recently been excommunicated by the local synagogue for recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, leading some to conclude that it would be making it unlikely the possibility that the Gospel was influenced by ancient Greek mythology.20 Bart Ehrman argues that the idea that the image of Jesus was influenced by ancient pagan mythology is usually dismissed by scholars as a fringe theory.21

The view of the valley view looking out towards Nazareth, from Khirbet Qana, would have predominantly been of grape vines, as archeologists have found evidence of first century wine production.22 The early 6th century writer Antoninus Placentinus observed about Nazareth in his day: “it excels in wine and oil, fruits and honey.”23 So, if a miracle of turning water into wine had actually occurred at the site it would have likely have had allegorical significance for observers familiar with Greek mythology.

The German theologian Friedrich Justus Knecht (d. 1921) points out three lessons that are to be drawn from this account at Cana: 1) The power of Mary’s intercession. “This first miracle, which confirmed the faith of our Lord’s disciples, was wrought at Mary’s intercession, for it was by her persuasion that He first manifested His glory by a striking miracle at Cana instead of at Jerusalem. Let us contemplate Mary’s compassion on the distress of the poor bride and bridegroom, her living faith in the omnipotence of Jesus, and her confidence in His goodness.” 2) Matrimony. “By His presence at the marriage-feast of Cana Jesus honoured and sanctified marriage, which had already been instituted in Paradise.” 3) Lawful pleasures. “The fact of our Lord taking part in the marriage-feast teaches us that it is lawful and pleasing to God that we should take part in innocent recreations and harmless pleasures, rejoicing with those who rejoice.”

Who's Tony?

"....so, it's never gonna be Me,

You'll never Get It, 

You'll never Know --

and Whatever You Think I am, 

that's What I'm NOT..."

Stanley Kubrick's House 

looks as if 

The Inland Revenue 

took it over long ago.

Tony takes me into a large room 

painted blue and filled with books. 

"This used to be The Cinema," he says.

"Is it The Library now?" I ask.

"Look closer at The Books," 

says Tony.

I do. "Bloody hell," I say. 

"Every book in this room 

is about Napoleon!"

"Look in The Drawers," 

says Tony.

I do.

"It's all about Napoleon, too!" I say. 

"Everything in here is about Napoleon!"

I feel a little like 

Shelley Duvall in The Shining, 

chancing upon her husband's novel 

and finding it is comprised 

entirely of the line 

"All Work And No Play 

Makes Jack A Dull Boy" 

typed over and over again. 

John Baxter wrote, in his unauthorised biography of Kubrick, 

"Most people attributed the purchase of Childwick 

to Kubrick's passion for Privacy, 

and drew parallels with 

Jack Torrance in The Shining."

This room full of Napoleon stuff seems 

to bear out that comparison. 

"Somewhere else in This House," 

Tony says, "is A Cabinet full of 

25,000 Library Cards, 

three inches by five inches. 

If you want to know 

what Napoleon, 

or Josephine, or anyone 

within Napoleon's inner circle 

was doing on the afternoon 

of July 23 17-whatever, 

you go to that card 

and it'll Tell You."

"Who made up The Cards?" I ask.

"Stanley," says Tony. 

"With some assistants."

"How long did it take?" I ask.

"Years," says Tony. 

"The late 1960s."

Kubrick never made his film about Napoleon. 

During the years it took him to compile this research, 

a Rod Steiger movie called Waterloo 

was written, produced and released. 

It was a box-office failure, so MGM abandoned Napoleon 

and Kubrick made A Clockwork Orange instead.

"Did you do this kind of massive research 

for all the movies?" I ask Tony.

"More or less," he says.

"OK," I say. "I understand how 

you might do this for Napoleon, 

but what about, say, The Shining?"

"Somewhere here," says Tony, 

"is just about every ghost book ever written, 

and there'll be A Box containing 

photographs of the exteriors 

of maybe every mountain 

hotel in The World."

There is a silence.

"Tony," I say, "can I look 

through The Boxes?"

WIN

Ann, you were talking 

to The WRONG People.

You have to identify everyone

for the canvas card, 

but you shouldn't try 

to persuade everyone.

It's not an efficient way

of using our resources.

“Well, who do I persuade then?”

In each election, we have target groups.

In the last general election,

there were four main groups of

people we had to get through to :

First, the lazy Labour party supporter.

Second, there's the floater.

He made a lot of difference in

the last three general elections.

Third, there's the new young voter.

He doesn't know about the

history of the Labour party

and the thirteen wasted years

and he doesn't care either.

He knows a lot's wrong with The World and he's disillusioned

with political parties.

We've got to impress on him the

difference between the tories and Labour

and what a return to tory market-place philosophy means.

And lastly, there's the young woman,

in the 17 to 24 age group.

She was and is especially important.

The Labour party is still not

getting through to her AT ALL.

The Napoleon Complex

“I am The Instrument of Providence.

She will use me as long as 

I accomplish Her Designs, 

then She will break me like a glass.”

Napoleon : 

The Great Complex

The First Modern Complex

Napoleon The Great? -- A Debate. 

“One of the attractions of a War or Crime Story is that it provides an almost unique opportunity to contrast An Individual of our contemporary Society with a solid framework of accepted value, which The Audience becomes fully aware of, and which can be used as a counterpoint to a Human, Individual, Emotional Situation. 

Further, War acts as a kind of hothouse for forced, quick breeding of attitudes and feelings. 

Attitudes crystallise and come out into the open.”

— Kubrick 

Stanley Kubrick's House 

looks as if 

The Inland Revenue 

took it over long ago.

Tony takes me into a large room 

painted blue and filled with books. 

"This used to be The Cinema," he says.

"Is it The Library now?" I ask.

"Look closer at The Books," 

says Tony.

I do. "Bloody hell," I say. 

"Every book in this room 

is about Napoleon!"

"Look in The Drawers," 

says Tony.

I do.

"It's all about Napoleon, too!" I say. 

"Everything in here is about Napoleon!"

I feel a little like Shelley Duvall in The Shining, 

chancing upon her husband's novel 

and finding it is comprised entirely of the line 

"All Work And No Play 

Makes Jack A Dull Boy" 

typed over and over again. 

John Baxter wrote, in his unauthorised biography of Kubrick, 

"Most people attributed the purchase of Childwick 

to Kubrick's passion for Privacy, 

and drew parallels with 

Jack Torrance in The Shining."

This room full of Napoleon stuff seems 

to bear out that comparison. 

"Somewhere else in This House," 

Tony says, "is A Cabinet full of 

25,000 Library Cards, 

three inches by five inches. 

If you want to know 

what Napoleon, 

or Josephine, or anyone 

within Napoleon's inner circle 

was doing on the afternoon 

of July 23 17-whatever, 

you go to that card 

and it'll Tell You."

"Who made up The Cards?" I ask.

"Stanley," says Tony. 

"With some assistants."

"How long did it take?" I ask.

"Years," says Tony. 

"The late 1960s."

Kubrick never made his film about Napoleon. 

During the years it took him to compile this research, 

a Rod Steiger movie called Waterloo 

was written, produced and released. 

It was a box-office failure, so MGM abandoned Napoleon 

and Kubrick made A Clockwork Orange instead.

"Did you do this kind of massive research 

for all the movies?" I ask Tony.

"More or less," he says.

"OK," I say. "I understand how 

you might do this for Napoleon, 

but what about, say, The Shining?"

"Somewhere here," says Tony, 

"is just about every ghost book ever written, 

and there'll be A Box containing 

photographs of the exteriors 

of maybe every mountain 

hotel in The World."

There is a silence.

"Tony," I say, "can I look 

through The Boxes?"

Obsession

obsess (v.)

c. 1500, "to besiege" (a sense now obsolete), from Latin obsessus, past participle of obsidere "watch closely; besiege, occupy; stay, remain, abide" literally "sit opposite to," from ob "against" (see ob-) + sedere "to sit," from PIE root *sed- (1) "to sit." 

Of evil spirits, "to haunt," from 1530s. The psychological senseof "to haunt as a fixed idea" developed gradually from 1880s and emerged 20c. The 1895 Century Dictionary has only the two senses "to besiege" (marked obsolete) and "to attack, vex, or plague from without." Related: Obsessed; obsessing.

Visit site

No

Yes

Entries linking to obsess

ob- 

word-forming element meaning "toward; against; before; near; across; down," also used as an intensive, from Latin ob (prep.) "in the direction of, in front of, before; toward, to, at, upon, about; in the way of; with regard to, because of," from PIE root *epi, also *opi "near, against" (see epi-).

*sed- (1)

Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to sit."

It forms all or part of: assess; assiduous; assiento; assize; banshee; beset; cathedra; cathedral; chair; cosset; dissident; dodecahedron; Eisteddfod; ephedra; ephedrine; ersatz; icosahedron; inset; insidious; nest; niche; nick (n.) "notch, groove, slit;" nidicolous; nidification; nidus; obsess; octahedron; piezo-; piezoelectric; polyhedron; possess; preside; reside; saddle; sanhedrim; seance; seat; sedan; sedate; (adj.) "calm, quiet;" sedative; sedentary; sederunt; sediment; see (n.) "throne of a bishop, archbishop, or pope;" sessile; session; set (v.); sett; settle (n.); settle (v.); siege; sit; sitz-bath; sitzkrieg; size; soil (n.1) "earth, dirt;" Somerset; soot; subside; subsidy; supersede; surcease; tanist; tetrahedron; Upanishad.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit a-sadat "sat down," sidati "sits," nidah "resting place, nest;" Old Persian hadis "abode;" Greek ezesthai "to sit," hedra "seat, chair, face of a geometric solid;" Latin sedere "to sit; occupy an official seat, preside; sit still, remain; be fixed or settled," nidus "nest;" Old Irish suide "seat, sitting," net "nest;" Welsh sedd "seat," eistedd "sitting," nyth "nest;" Old Church Slavonic sežda, sedeti "to sit," sedlo "saddle," gnezdo "nest;" Lithuanian sėdėti "to sit;" Russian sad "garden," Lithuanian sodinti "to plant;" Gothic sitan, Old English sittan "to sit."

obsessed

obsession

obsessive

See all related words (5) >

The Bride

The Creature :

She hate me. 

Like others. 

Dr. Pretorius :

Look out! The lever! 

Get away from that lever! You'll blow us all to atoms. 

Baroness Elizabeth von Frankenstein :

Henry! Undo the door! Henry! 

Baron Dr. Henry von Frankenstein :

Get back! 

Get back! 

Baroness Elizabeth von Frankenstein :

I won't unless you come! 

Baron Dr. Henry von Frankenstein :

But I can't leave them! I can't! 

The Creature :

Yes. Go!

You, Live! Go!

(He turns to Pretorius and The Bride)

You, stay —

We Belong Dead.

Dr. Septimus Pretorius :

Doctor. I think The Heart 

is beating. Look. 

Baron Dr. Henry von Frankenstein :

It's beating, but the rhythm 

of the beat is uneven. 

Increase the saline solution. 

Dr. Septimus Pretorius :

Is there any Life yet? 

Baron Dr. Henry von Frankenstein :

No. Not Life-Itself yet -

This is only the 

simulacrum of Life. 

This action only responds 

when the current is applied.

We must be patient - 

The Human Heart 

is more complex than 

any other part of The Body.

The Creature

No, that’s German -

it says, “The Frankenstein, The!”

Created by an Irish clergyman, 

Melmoth is one of the most fiendish 

characters in literature. 

In a satanic bargain, 

Melmoth exchanges 

his soul for 

immortality. 

The story of his tortured wanderings through the centuries 

is pieced together through those 

who have been implored by Melmoth 

to take over his pact with The Devil.

Influenced by the Gothic romances of the late 18th

century, Maturin's diabolic tale raised the genre to

a new and macabre pitch. 

Its many admirers include Poe, Balzac, 

Oscar Wilde and Baudelaire.

monster (n.)

early 14c., monstre, "malformed animal or human, creature afflicted with a birth defect," from Old French monstre, mostre "monster, monstrosity" (12c.), and directly from Latin monstrum "divine omen (especially one indicating misfortune), portent, sign; abnormal shape; monster, monstrosity," figuratively "repulsive character, object of dread, awful deed, abomination," a derivative of monere "to remind, bring to (one's) recollection, tell (of); admonish, advise, warn, instruct, teach," from PIE *moneie- "to make think of, remind," suffixed (causative) form of root *men- (1) "to think."

 

Abnormal or prodigious animals were regarded as signs or omens of impending evil. 

Extended by late 14c. to fabulous animals composed of parts of creatures (centaur, griffin, etc.). 

Meaning "animal of vast size" is from 1520s; sense of "person of inhuman cruelty or wickedness, person regarded with horror because of moral deformity" is from 1550s. As an adjective, "of extraordinary size," from 1837. In Old English, the monster Grendel was an aglæca, a word related to aglæc "calamity, terror, distress, oppression." Monster movie "movie featuring a monster as a leading element," is by 1958 (monster film is from 1941).

Origin and meaning of monster

Entries linking to monster

*men- (1)

Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to think," with derivatives referring to qualities and states of mind or thought.

It forms all or part of: admonish; Ahura Mazda; ament; amentia; amnesia; amnesty; anamnesis; anamnestic; automatic; automaton; balletomane; comment; compos mentis; dement; demonstrate; Eumenides; idiomatic; maenad; -mancy; mandarin; mania; maniac; manic; mantic; mantis; mantra; memento; mens rea; mental; mention; mentor; mind; Minerva; minnesinger; mnemonic; Mnemosyne; money; monition; monitor; monster; monument; mosaic; Muse; museum; music; muster; premonition; reminiscence; reminiscent; summon.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit manas- "mind, spirit," matih "thought," munih "sage, seer;" Avestan manah- "mind, spirit;" Greek memona "I yearn," mania "madness," mantis "one who divines, prophet, seer;" Latin mens "mind, understanding, reason," memini "I remember," mentio "remembrance;" Lithuanian mintis "thought, idea," Old Church Slavonic mineti "to believe, think," Russian pamjat "memory;" Gothic gamunds, Old English gemynd "memory, remembrance; conscious mind, intellect."

demonstrable (adj.)

"capable of being proved or made evident beyond doubt," c. 1400, from Old French demonstrable and directly from Latin demonstrabilis, from demonstrare "to point out, indicate, demonstrate," figuratively, "to prove, establish," from de- "entirely" (see de-) + monstrare "to point out, show," from monstrum "divine omen, wonder" (see monster). Related: Demonstrably.

demonstrate

demonstration

monstration

muster

remonstrance

sea-monster

Danny

He’s a LION, 

for God’s Sake,

 he shouldn’t be 

eating BUGS..!!

A Lion is not greedy, but leaves off eating when he’s had enough for the day.

He never leaves leftovers.

He doesn’t get angry unless seriously wounded.

He is The Enemy of The Scorpion, which, like The Snake, can kill with his venom.

When The Lioness is most fertile, she gives birth to five whelps and then reduces her litter each time by one cub.

WORD OF GOD :Anakin Has a Padawan

DAVE FILONI: The First Time George Lucas Talked About Ahsoka

"Anakin Skywalker has a Padawan.

Anakin has a Padawan."

Early 2008 discussion with Dave Filoni and Henry Gilroy

"No, I like my own characters. I want to get Anakin and Obi-Wan in. I want to give Anakin a padawan

Let's take that girl there."

Early 2008 development of Clone Wars, 

How Star Wars Conquered the Universe by Chris Taylor

DAVE FILONI: Ahsoka vs Vader Duel Breakdown

A *Brilliant* decision that I *HATED* at the time -- mostly due to her initial childish attitude with all of that "Sky-Guy" sass and backchat. But of course, that's what pre-Teen/Teenage Girls DO, and that's also precisely why she is there.

There is also a great symmetry to it -- George often talks about the symmetries or "rhymes" that occur throughout his structuring of The Saga.

What is Luke's ultimate vulnerability? *His Sister.* Vader learns of, discovers and threatens, in an obscenely leery way to harm and corrupt,  His Sister -- *That's what unleashes Luke's Passion.*

(It's also what unleashes Luke's Passion in a moment of Pure Instinct, when he contemplates murdering His Nephew in his sleep)

He is fully prepared to lose -- to give up his life, and allow His Father (or Palpatine) to kill him, rather than murder his own Father, in the absolute faith and confidence that His Father would never do it... What Luke is NOT prepared to do is allow His Father to harm His Sister (again). That's *DEEP.*

But it also means, that Vader needs to have some insight into the effect that *threatening* to harm Leia will do to His Son, as his intent in that moment is to *PROVOKE* Luke into breaking cover, emerging from The Shadows and MAKE him confront him in swordplay once more. And he cannot really *HAVE* an insight of that kind, having not experienced that kind of relationship, or the bonds of filial closeness -- other than Ashoka, he has only one half-brother, whose existence he cannot really cope with or deal with, who he can barely even look at until he has brought home Their Mother's body, from which time onward, he obviously despises him, and so no actual real or close relationship between the two hostile brothers is either feasible or possible.

When Obi-Wan hides and places Luke in the household of Anakin's only surviving blood-relative (and when Palpatine has no way of knowing for SURE that Anakin's heavily pregnant wife and unborn child are dead), The Emperor never even thinks to have his Jedi Hunters or Inquisitors look for them there.

Mind you -- he never thinks to ask one of the most popular and eminent members of his Senate : "Your wife was never pregnant -- explain this newborn baby girl that you are now raising as your daughter."

Why he decided to do it...? Well, he has daughters -- and nothing brings out the protective instinct and exposes the vulnerabilites of a Man more, than having a little sister to look after and care for.

It's also critical just how contrary to the spirit and ethos of the late-antebellum, decadent Jedi Order she is -- Palpatine is able to see their weakness and corruption and exploit the opportunity to overthrow them, seize power and crush them as a rival centre of Power in The Republic, because they have become sterile, aloof and complacent, whilst at the same time, ignoring their own rules and violating The Jedi Code whenever it is convenient.

It is against The Jedi Code to train anyone as old as Anakin is when Qui-Gonn brings him before The Council, who still remembers (and loves) his mother, yet they question him anyway and apply their testing, knowning going in that they are going to reject him; then, when Obi-Wan threatens to resign from The Order and train Anakin himself, without their blessing to honour his dying Master's wish, Yoda decides (by himself) to over-rule The Council and ignore The Jedi Code and allow Obi-Wan to train him as his Padawan.

By the time Ashoka comes along, ten years later, The Wars have started, and The Jedi simply begin to ignore their Code of Honour whenever it is inconvenient not to do so, for reasons of military expediency -- since no Jedi should be assigned more than one Padawan learner and (ordinarily) no Padawan can advance on to become a full Jedi Knight without successfully completing a series of trials at The Jedi Temple on Coruscant, and undergoing a ritual initiation ceremony (where the other Knights cut off your Padawan braid and salute you, sabres drawn), like Obi-Wan, they make the administrative decision that his displays of extraordinary courage, bravery and valour in shown in confronting a Sith Lord in single combat -- and saving his Master's life in doing-so) satisfies the requirement for having undergone The Jedi Trials and they just *MAKE* him a Knight. And give a Padawan of his own, IMMEDIATELY.

They are failing to follow their own Laws and govern (themselves) in a Fair & Equitable Manner, and those that do so have abdicated from their inherent Right to Rule (both over themselves, and others) -- when Master Windu takes the final step of seizing control of The Government in a Palace coups by disarming and arresting Palpatine, then attempts to execute a prisoner in his custody who is begging for his life, he has taken the final step into Total Depravity and Palpatine and Vader Rightfully Act to crush The Jedi Order and Salt The Earth beneath it.

The Handless Maiden

 

"You will produce a 

Handless Maiden,

every day of Your Life --

You set aside some 

Feeling-Function,

in favour of better 

Productivity of Your Mill.

And to clinch it off -- if you trace back 

The Origin of The Word 'Mechanical',

to it's Greek origin, 'machinae',

'To Trick" --

Now, there's nothing wrong with 

The Mechanics of Life --

There's nothing wrong with 

The Mechanical Thing --

But there is everything wrong 

with The Mechanical Attitude."

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Well, I think that Star Wars is a valid mythological perspective. 

It shows The State 

as A Machine and asks: 

Is The Machine going 

to crush Humanity, 

or Serve humanity? 

And Humanity comes 

not from The Machine, 

but from The Heart.

(Clip from Star Wars)

VADER: 

Luke. Help Me to 

Take This Mask Off.

LUKE SKYWALKER: 

But You’ll Die.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

I think it was 

in The Return of the Jedi when 

Skywalker unmasks His Father. 

The father had been playing one of these Machine roles, a state role. He was the uniform, you know? And the removal of that mask, there was an undeveloped man there, there was a kind of a worm. By being executive of a system, one is not developing one’s humanity. I think that George Lucas really, really did a beautiful thing there.

BILL MOYERS: 

The idea of machine is the idea that we want the world to be made in our image, and what we think the world ought to be.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Well, the first time anybody made a tool, I mean, taking a stone and chipping it so that you can handle it, that’s the beginning of a machine. It’s turning outer nature into your service. But then there comes a time when it begins to dictate to you. I’m having a bit of struggle with my computer, actually.

BILL MOYERS: 

Your computer?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

I just bought one a couple of months ago, and I can’t help thinking of it as having a personality there, because it talks back, and it behaves in a whimsical way, and all of that. So I’m personifying that machine. To me, that machine is almost alive. I could mythologize that damn thing.

BILL MOYERS: 

There was a wonderful story about, I think, President Eisenhower, when the computer was first being built. You remember that story?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Eisenhower went into a room full of computers, and he puts a question to these machines, “Is there a God?” And they all start up and there’s all those lights flashing and wheels turning and things like that, and after about 10 minutes of that kind of thing, a voice comes forth, and the voice says, “Now there is.”

Well, I bought this wonderful machine, IBM machine, and it’s there. 

And I’m rather an authority on gods, 

so I identified The God, 

and it seems to me to be

An Old Testament God 

with a lot of rules, 

and no mercy.

BILL MOYERS: 

It’s unforgiving, isn’t it.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Catch you picking up sticks 

on Saturday and you’re out,

that’s all….

BILL MOYERS: 

But isn’t it possible to develop toward the computer, the computer you’re wrestling with at this very moment, isn’t it possible to develop the same kind of attitude of the Pawnee chieftain who said that in the legends of his people, all things speak of Tirawa, all things of speak of God. 

It wasn’t a special privileged revelation, 

God is everywhere 

in His Works, including 

The Computer.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Well, indeed so. I mean, the miracle of what happens on that screen, you know, have you ever looked inside one of those things?

BILL MOYERS: 

No.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

You can’t believe it. It’s a whole hierarchy of angels, all on slats, and those little tubes, those are miracles, those are miracles, they are.

BILL MOYERS: 

One can feel a sense of awe.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Well, I’ve had a revelation from my computer about mythology, though. 

You buy a certain software, and there’s a whole set of signals that lead to the achievement of your aim, you know. And once you’ve set it for, let’s say, DW3, enter, if you begin fooling around with signals that belong to another system, they just won’t work, that’s all. You have a system there, a code, a determined code that requires you to use certain terms.

Now, similarly in mythology, each religion is a kind of software that has its own set of signals and will work. It’ll work. But suppose you’ve chosen this one. Now, if a person is really involved in a religion and really building his life on it, he’d better stay with the software that he’s got. 

But a chap like myself, 

who likes to play with —

BILL MOYERS: 

Cross the wires?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

The various softwares, I can run around, but I probably will never have an experience comparable to that of a saint.

BILL MOYERS: 

But do you think that The Machine is inventing new myths for us,

 or that we with The Machine are inventing new myths?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

No. The myth has to incorporate 

the machine.

BILL MOYERS: 

A pagan deity?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Just as the old myths incorporated the tools that people used, the forms of the tools and so forth are associated with power systems that are involved in the culture. We have not a mythology that incorporates these. The new powers are being, so to say, surprisingly announced to us by what the machines can do. We can’t have a mythology for a long, long time to come; things are changing too fast. The environment in which we’re living is changing too fast for it become mythologized.

BILL MOYERS: 

How do we live without myths, then?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Well, we’re doing it.

The individual has to find the aspect of myth that has to do with the conduct of his life.

 There are a number of services that myths serve. 

The basic one is opening the world to the dimension of mystery. If you lose that, you don’t have a mythology, to realize the mystery that underlies all forms. 

But then there comes the cosmological aspect of myth, seeing that mystery as manifest through all things, so that the universe becomes as it were a holy picture, you are always addressed to the transcendent mystery through that. 

But then there’s another function, and that’s the sociological one, of validating or maintaining a certain society. That is the side of the thing that has taken over in our world.

BILL MOYERS: 

What do you mean?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Ethical laws, the laws of life in the society, all of Yahweh’s pages and pages and pages of what kind of clothes to wear, how to behave to each other, and all that, do you see, in terms of the values of this particular society. But then there’s a fourth function of myth, and this is the one that I think today everyone must try to relate to, and that’s the pedagogical function. 

How to live a human lifetime under any circumstances. 

Myth can tell you that.

Uncle Walter

An Interview with My Father -- Walter Peterson