No Kings, Liberal Fecklessness and The Tremor-shock of Creativity
Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
Creativity, the creative discovering of the genius of man ….ought to be restored its sacred significance.
–Nicolai Berdyaev, Salvation and Creativity
.. negating creativity in the world, ye hand over the fate of the world to the Anti-Christ.
–IbidCreativity is…a tremour-shock, in which the everyday egoism of human life is surmounted. And man consents to perish his own soul in the name of creative activity.
–Ibid.
The great similarity between right and left in America today is the abject fear they have of full identification with the interdependence of all things, or what one could call the universe’s perennial good news – the imperishable reality of love – the spiritual bond – connecting all to all. That fear is reflected in alarmed attitudes, on both ends of “the political spectrum” toward two of the words that have been used to sum up this truth in history: Christ and Anarchis
Patiently, over and over, I reiterate, as to a bewildered, perhaps traumatized child: the way to positive belief, far less offensively than you may think, is not to force-feed oneself “outmoded belief,” it is to open the door of creativity that is means to transcendence, to this-life salvation. Passing through that door, practicing a creative art one indeed “surmounts the egoism of human life;” one finds the positive equivalency between Christ and anarchism, the necessary outsider orientation that frees one to adhere to the rule of love.
The Russian philosopher-theologian Nicolai Berdyaev (1874-1948) who was brought to my grateful attention by a reader, points out that historically Christianity negated creativity in favor of salvation – thus creating a false dualism. What I see today is the secular liberal world merely continues the way of negating creativity as secondary to “salvation” now become salvation by faith in the All-Good of Progress. No need for Spirit! The creative, mystical way was pointed to us by Emerson and the transcendentalists in the early19th century but it’s been no match for the siren call of Progress. Recently, reading Nathaniel Hawthorn’s House of the Seven Gables for our book club I’ve found myself enjoying it for the whiffs of transcendentalism in its pages. This description of a state in which Hepzibah, overcome by a powerful memory, “appeared to be walking in a dream” struck me: “There is sad confusion when the spirit…steps across the spaceless boundary betwixt its own region and the actual world; where the body remains to guide it as it may, with little more than the mechanism of animal life.”
I do not see animal life in this way, as being without soul – but the condition described is familiar. In the act of creating, I experience Spirit stepping back into “its own region,” making“real life” recede somehow and become less real. When in that state, the body is kind of on its own, detached from spirit, functioning mechanism-like. This is why one does not/cannot stay there and reside in the physical world!
But moreover, I routinely observe in others the “stepping back of spirit” when spirit goes not to “its own region,” but to another region that, though enticing and expansive, happens to be controlled by powerful unseen corporate interests. It is competitive with the Spirit’s true region because it’s so easy to connect with and so within the person’s control! In this case, the departure of spirit is not an occasional and manageable alteration of consciousness but an interruption, even an escape from consciousness, into the realm of what Berdyaev would name the Anti-christ. I’m certainly not the first to point out the addictive nature of cell phone and social media use. Like all addictions, it is a substitute for positive Spirit, in this case not one that will likely lead to personal death or to criminal activity, but only to negation of the reality of Spirit.
Acutely aware as I am an essay should not begin by firing a shot at your audience, but engaging upon some common ground, I’ll fire it anyway, on behalf of the Spirit I am committed to defending: Cell phones are not a “neutral technology;” they serve an interest; their power and the power of social media is in the hands of an oligarchy. For the duration, I would not like to entertain all the good things to be said in their defense. I’m talking about one thing, which is the chance for spirit in the world that, not believing in its reality, cannot treat creativity -with its necessary link to Spirit – as having “sacred significance.”
Imaginations enslaved by the technology (and this of course does not apply to all users) imagine – even when they admit their addiction – they are still autonomous, still self-directed, still capable of presence. As the daughter of a depressed mother, and a father whose understanding of (his) art was exceptionalist and exclusive, I am particularly sensitive to spiritual absence. Many of us who grew up with the absence induced by television, radio, all forms of electronic media, grasped it precisely as substitute for the missing Spirit; such absence was minimally acceptable perhaps because we could at least understand where peoples’ spirit had gone. Obviously screens and phones are standard now, a convenience and a benefit of modern life, but they involve an invisible transaction. As long as one disbelieves in the positive reality of Spirit, the transaction cannot be detected, the loss isn’t calculated by technology-consumers and thus doesn’t raise an alarm.
It’s not a ban on cell phones I propose, although keeping them out of schools is a good move and would be more so if schools were serving the creative spirit rather than the interests of corporate America. A “Day without cellphones” might be useful. But what I seek are ways to make spirit more real and vivid for each person, so they would not trade it, would not let it wander off to be enslaved by a screen. Once one can know the difference. And even thoughconsciousness includes pain, as well as boredom, self-doubt, disturbing awareness such as that of having wronged another, etc., having access to spiritual/imaginative enlargement is infinitely preferable to virtual enlargement despite all the enchantments, the instant answers to questions, the games and challenges, the platforms offered through the phone, the shopping. Moreover,
+++
Imperceptibly to us, because invisible, hierarchical class structures and customs uphold restrictions upon the positive spirit as much as did the vanished Divine Right of kings or Papal infallibility. Hepzibah is a remnant of a bygone age, when the distinction between being a “lady,” or not, was immensely significant. At the same time, as the bohemianish Mr. Holgrave tells her, holding to her identity as a lady is a “restriction” upon her capacity to have a purpose and to use her strength to contribute to “the united struggle of mankind.” It is a chain on her spirit.
Even though America – the promised land that would erase systems of social hierarchy – has supposedly been practicing democracy for 249 years, its ways to impose such chains on one’s freedom are boundless. All of them lead to negative perversions of spirit, some seemingly harmless to others, (like Hepzibah’s fossilized life) some full-blown evil, such as fascism, but also the “half-blown” evil of addictions that keep bodies functioning as little more than “ mechanisms.”
During the years when Orin and I had our Cafe, the business provided us a protected, independent space, its independence at least partly due to the fact we resisted the technology of cell phones, wifi, social media, credit card payments, etc. With that protected space gone I find myself left to protect my spirit on my own, for which, other than with my writing, now more crucial than ever, I have no established rituals, no practice. Protection of my spirit has to do with my embodiment, what Berdyaev called “personness.” In liberal reality to make this connection between body and spirit – with nobody making profits off it – is completely unauthorized, just “my choice” to putter around with my writing. But can anyone think today that maintaining “personnness”
+++
In his essay Salvation and Creativity, Berdyaev sheds light on the very predicament that pre-occupies me. People in western liberal society, freed from religious superstition, are haunted still by what he called “degenerated humility.” Not the humility called for in a genuine spiritual transformation, but an externalized humility taught for generations in Christian churches, and still dominant in the institutions and practices of secular western society. This degenerated humility seeks always the return of theocratic authority, and the “saved” identities granted in (upper) caste status. It is obedience to illegitimate hierarchy, a formula for conformity. and puts creative expression – the mystical experience – under a kind of suspicion, as though some are authorized to practice it and some not.
So subtle is the suspicion under which creative expression is held one is not aware of it until/unless one is bold enough to take up practice of an art even without a definite, ego-bolstered “call” to it. In fact, wrote Berdyaev, “The creative instinct in man is an unselfish instinct, and in it man forgets about himself, he emerges from himself.” Creative endeavor confronts even one’s own strongest doubts and inhibitions, for these, however shy, undeserving or untalented one sees oneself, serve ego, not genuine humility. In liberal, secular society, this vestigial, inauthentic humility serves no purpose other than preserving hierarchical, self-aggrandizing structures and the competitions, suspicions and enmities between people and between people and the world.
As Berdyaev expressed it, in refusing one’s creativity, “creation” – the world – is handed over to the Anti-christ. If this language is too archaic, say this: in refusing creativity as action to save imagination, we hand the world to Trump and the fascists. Thus, if there is a “right use” of cell phone technology, and it is not purely a device of Satan, first there has to be the consciousness that comes with pursuing creativity heroically, which is not a neutral choice. That is, before allowing one’s spirit to be fed with screens, first be acquainted with one’s spirit – a self-freeing of imagination.
But, it must be said, for white middle class people to regain Spirit in the modern context is not painless. In fact, it is confrontation with mental pain that can be, in my experience, harrowing. The way is mainly uncharted, made up as one goes along, ever seeking to stay oriented to “true North.” The benefits do not come instantly, like the Internet’s global connectivity, the ability to take and send selfies, or streaming Netflix. Nor are the benefits those of social success or career success. They are not even – except from time to time – benefits of inner peace and serenity. Which is why, over and over, I resort to making appeal to the liberal whose heart sincerely yearns toward justice and peace and mutually respectful relationship with the earth and other creatures. To the extent spirits get caught inside screens, then persons remain within the scope of liberal reality, we cripple ourselves against our own best aspirations.
+++
What keeps the underground, the underclass, the under-served, undermining,
The classes have been popular, pretty much surprising everyone. Certainly everyone in the room is not “working class.” No one is suffering from want. Is it that standing in that perspective of lowness and vulnerability allows one to draw from roots in the soul that only understands “humility,” and this perspective is basis for inspirational power? For, in the world made by ego – that is, it’s constructed to suit ego – powerlessness is the deepest afffront. Can do is the central positive maxim,“can’t do” the mark of failure. The soul, however, is not impressed by “can do.” It doesn’t care about who wins the next election but only its truth, that all are one, an inclusiveness that is not a matter of belief once one has experienced it, “mystically.” Inclusion in the soul’s reality is not a sign of exceptionalism, as Berdjaev knew; it’s a revelation of lowness, powerlessness, the bottom where the heart wears no disguise. This is humility that’s not degenerated.
To me, as far as politics go, Luigi’s talks are more germane, more inspiring, more subversive than simply offering up more unimaginative, humorless anti-Trump (“No Kings!”) rhetoric. The sense of safety generated by a voice speaking for the lowest mysteriously connects to creativity, which, in contrast to “No Kings!” will do more for restoring sovereignty to “the people” – a kingship of love – than putting another Democrat in the White House.
Dangerous as it may feel to hear them spoken today, the historical truths Luigi reveals in his lessons never contradict the soul’s truth which, as Vanzetti knew, and Dr. King knew, favors the lowly and humble; the soul’s truth is found in a low place; as such it is has its own politics, which are anarchist, and are what Christianity would be be if it were true to its foundation in Jesus’s mystical realization.
The post No Kings, Liberal Fecklessness and The Tremor-shock of Creativity appeared first on CounterPunch.org.