The Same Old Truths

the lies of truth
the truth of lies
the deluge of delusion
the delusional deluge
the feast of famine
the famine after the feast
the love of hatred
the hatred of love
all freely available
from any politician near you

attitudes like platitudes

attitudes like platitudes

sadly, we have them badly

we hear it through the grapevine

“I Heard It Through The Grapevine” – a song written by Marvin Gaye…

No, it’s not…

“I Heard It Through the Grapevine” is a song written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong for Motown Records in 1966.
It was made famous by Marvin Gaye in a single released in October 1968 on Motown’s Tamla label.

It also helped to make Marvin Gaye famous.

Ooh, I bet you’re wondering how I knew?
well, I took the time to look it up and verify it for myself…

In pop culture (like religion and science), we hear things and they sound good to us for some reason.
If it is something said by someone popular or a statement by some popular or trendy publication we are quick to believe it…

We want to believe it… perhaps because it confirms some convenient reassurance in our minds?
Or maybe because others seem to believe it, and we don’t want to “feel out”?

Influential people influence others.
These people are usually very charismatic and persuasive.
We give them credit in some way or another and a truth is born.
Maybe it’s as simple as that?

Religion is like that.
It sounds good to us, it makes sense, it seems to help us, encourage us… so we believe it and of course, we then go about trying to convince others of our new found revelation.

How many of us really test it out for ourselves diligently, personally, repeatedly?
Hardly any I’d say.
This is a real problem for religion. It seems to be based almost exclusively on “hearsay.”

Its a problem for science as well. … all knowledge and understanding in fact.

Maybe we could even say that science is the new religion?

It sounds good to us, it makes sense, it seems to help us, encourage us… so we believe it and of course, we then go about trying to convince others of our new found revelation.

How many of us really test it out for ourselves diligently, personally, repeatedly?
Hardly any I’d say.
This is a real problem for science these days. It seems to be based almost exclusively on “hearsay.”

If it is something said by someone popular or a statement by some popular or trendy publication we are quick to believe it…

We want to believe it… perhaps because it confirms some convenient reassurance in our minds?
Or maybe because others seem to believe it, and we don’t want to “feel out”?

Influential people influence others.
Leading scientific voices can be very charismatic and persuasive.
We give them credit in some way or another and a truth is born.
Maybe it’s as simple as that?

Back to the song again…

People say, “believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear.”
I can’t help being confused, if it’s true please tell me dear?

“look at me!”

“look at me!” they all cry…
but we can’t!
because we want you to look at us!
and you can’t because …

a 7 Billion+ lonely hearts club?

conversation/converse – to discuss, interact, speak with another, exchange, discover, invite another perspective convert/converse – to change, turn around, convince, cause to face the opposite way, confront, cause another to hear your way instead advertising/marketing = convince others to need and acquire, prevent them thinking, even to close down options “converse” – 2 opposing meanings? or maybe not?   everybody talking at the same time  –  so few really listening   everybody seems to be wanting to influence others… why?   – is this all we are? … a 7 Billion+ lonely hearts club?   ______________________________________________________________ con·verse 1  (kn-vûrs) intr.v. con·versed, con·vers·ing, con·vers·es 1. To engage in a spoken exchange of thoughts, ideas, or feelings; talk. See Synonyms at speak. 2. Archaic To be familiar; associate. n. (knvûrs) 1. Spoken interchange of thoughts and feelings; conversation. 2. Obsolete Social interaction. [Middle English conversen, to associate with, from Old French converser, from Latin conversr : com-, com- + versr, to occupy oneself; see wer-2 in Indo-European roots.]

---

con·verse 2  (kn-vûrs, knvûrs) adj. Reversed, as in position, order, or action; contrary. n. (knvûrs) 1. Something that has been reversed; an opposite. 2. Logic A proposition obtained by conversion. [Latin conversus, past participle of convertere, to turn around; see convert.] con·versely adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

 

 

towards the choir of silience

converse

conversation

to talk informally with another

or others

to listen and hear

to exchange views and opinions

agreement and disagreement

movement

towards and away from

to advance and to reverse

a dance of harmony and dissonance

conversion

to turn around

to repent

or endorse

towards the choir of silence

is the net working?

it’s all very stimulating and the immediate and future benefits seem very enticing but perhaps a question that needs to be asked is if the net is really working in our new age of networking?

things are definitely brought together in a net but usually the togetherness is as a direct result of being trapped

science is revealing more and more just how connected we really are and for some this is very encouraging, for others disturbing

nevertheless we have constructed a man made cyber system on top of this natural interconnectedness and we seem to celebrate it with relish

I can’t help asking what we have left behind or perhaps even subdued that we feel we need to construct a superficial community when we are so naturally and amazingly already connected?

the spear of the artist?

(Pawel Kuczynski)

The whole Brett Murray/The Spear (of-the-nation) disturbance in the media of late, whichever way one views it, clearly reveals the power of the creative arts to effect society and bring people to their feet, perhaps even their knees.

It seems to have  provoked people on all sides of the issue to start thinking, expressing those thoughts, debating, engaging and some arguing passionately, even heatedly as they wrestle with their own perspectives and our shared destiny.

As potentially volatile as this all is in light of our extremely immature and uneducated “democracy” here in South Africa I think it is a most wonderful thing and hopefully it will keep us wondering for many decades to come.

Yet still I feel compelled to ask the question:  Why are there so few “Brett Murray’s”?

Why are so many artists seemingly locked into almost exclusively doing commercial drivel; “ABBA” type pop ‘tributes’ or playing “Piano Man” for a essentially drunken society who demand nostalgic memories, or serving a placatory propaganda type role in corporate settings merely to get a monetary handout?

Where are the real “prophets”?

Awaken and live long you  “Brett Murray” types!

(regardless of what side of the fence you sit, or what we think about what you say)

__________________________

Maybe the poet is gay
But he’ll be heard anyway

Maybe the poet is drugged
But he won’t stay under the rug

Maybe the voice of the spirit
In which case you’d better hear it

Maybe he’s a woman
Who can touch you where you’re human

Male, female slave or free
Peaceful or disorderly
Maybe you and he will not agree
But you need him to show you new ways to see

Don’t let the system fool you
All it wants to do is rule you
Pay attention to the poet
You need him and you know it

Put him up against the wall
Shoot him up with pentothal

Shoot him up with lead
You won’t call back what’s been said
Put him in the ground
But one day you’ll look around

There’ll be a face you don’t know
Voicing thoughts you’ve heard before

Male, female slave or free
Peaceful or disorderly
Maybe you and he will not agree
But you need him to show you new ways to see

Don’t let the system fool you
All it wants to do is rule you
Pay attention to the poet
You need him and you know it

BRUCE COCKBURN  –  “Maybe The Poet”

______________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spear_%28painting%29

what was that someone else said?

“maybe with all this rampant technology and almost universal connectivity, have we started to run out of original ideas?” – anonymous

practicing safe sects

I’m an avid internet user.  I post and read blogs all the time.  I love to gather information. I work online and communicate online.  I also play online.

Recently I have been made more and more aware of how big a part the internet plays in my life.  I’m sure I’m not the only one.

However, I am fast coming to realize that there is dangerous illusion in all of this.  I feel like I’m in touch with so many but am I really?  Even the data, the facts I hunger for and seek after, are they really the facts?

And then I saw this short TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2012-04-03&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

Some time ago I posted on the topic of making contact https://alalohwhydee.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/making-contact/ and once again I am brought back to a nagging reality in my life.  How real is my reality?  And is the way I do things really helping?  I’d like to think so.  I’d like to believe so.

I look at the life of Jesus and with all the data he must have had at his disposal and alongside the huge importance of his message he seemed primarily focused on simply making contact.  But not just intellectually but basic, demonstrative, interactive, physical contact.  He had a message sure enough but it was his life and his example – his physical example that was the main thing.

He did speak and a lot is focused on and recorded about what he said.  However, he seemed content to speak almost exclusively in parables and live in a realm of mystery to those he was with and even still to us this day.

It makes me wonder about the data driven world we live in.  Even in our spiritual space and spiritual places we tend to major almost exclusively on the cerebral, the intellectual.  We sit docile and respectfully silent and listen to one person preaching, teaching.  Then we leave.  And we call this community, fellowship.

Online social networking means we don’t ever have to leave … or join.

Online there is no real us, …and no real me either.

But we choose to believe there is.

From reading and pondering I understand the life and times of Jesus to have been very noisy and even disruptive.  However, they were full of physical contact.

He touched, laughed with, cried with, walked with, talked with, loved, hugged, lay next to, ate with, rowed with, even died with.

Informal, very physical, tangible, close, unsafe, risky, messy, even smelly.

Physical contact, full physical contact.

For me the internet promises this, but it’s all merely a virtual reality.

And we seem to invest disproportionate amounts of energy to make it seem like we are actually making contact.

But are we?