Paul As Artist
@aloha.net Rich
How can an Eckist read David Lane's book and not accept the character
portrait he paints of Paul Twitchell as a liar, a plagiarizer, and a
fraud?
I'm sure this response will be regarded by some as simply another
extended attempt to avoid what is so 'obvious'. Such souls will hardly
make an attempt to respond to the telling points made herein, simply
regurgitating thoughtless ridicule.
I do not write for these individuals.
But the thoughtful reader will take a moment to reflect, setting aside a
knee-jerk readiness to trivialize, and realize that Lane's portrait is
somewhat narrow, academic, and barren. That Paul's character can be seen
in a larger context that begins to explain the seemingly contradictory
findings of those who knew him, and those who have had experiences from
his teachings.
First, an analogy: The child is delighted by the puppet show, and the
parent encourages the child in believing in magical make-believe. One
day the child discovers that the puppet show is a fraud, there are hands
in those puppets, the illusion is destroyed, and the child angrily
swears at the parent, holding a sense of betrayal against the parent.
The child may get stuck there, forever damaging the relationship between
parent and child. But if the child is able, he may get past the smaller
issue and recognize that, not only is the puppet show still able to
convey a magical sense, but he has a capacity to take in the larger
artistic and aesthetic value of the whole production. He can see it for
what it truly is:
A multilevel presentation that depends upon, not only the artistry of
the presenter, but the artistry developed within the audience.
If the child is able to move beyond mere critical analysis and develop
some artistic sensibility, then an original sense of the magical is
recovered, but one more open-eyed, sophisticated and aware. He has
participated in the archetypal triad of stages regarding growth:
First there is innocent acceptance; second there is critical analysis;
third [as long as one does not get stuck in the second stage which
invites pure destruction] there is creative synthesis.
Traditionally, artists are known for their wholesale taking and
reworking of the works of others. Many times among themselves, the
artists accept this inevitable aspect of artistic creation. They use the
second stage merely as a means to revel in the third stage. Those not
well-versed in the role of the artist are not likely to properly
understand that resident state of consciousness. [More on this later.]
In introducing his critical work, The Meaning of Shakespeare, Harold
Goddard wrote:
"Anyone who has gone on reading Shakespeare for years and then writes a
book about him is bound to be at a loss if asked just what he owes to
the text itself and his own interpretation of it, what to the
commentators, to his friends, or, if he has been a teacher, to his
students. The things most indubitably his he is sure of. Beyond that, he
cannot be certain. But what difference does it make, if he has made
something of his own of them all? He has Shakespeare's royal example for
running up debts, He has also his more difficult precedent of using well
what he has borrowed rather than trying to repay it in empty
acknowledgments. *A teacher has no reason to be disturbed when he
recognizes an idea of his own in print and realizes that directly or
indirectly a former student is responsible for putting it in
circulation.* If anyone from whom I have inadvertently taken a
suggestion should chance to see these pages and feel aggrieved at the
lack of a footnote containing his name, let him read the first chapter
of A Pluralistic Universe where William James inters beyond all possible
resurrection the practice of embalming every scholarly fly that has
fallen into the scholarly amber by dedicating to him the tombstone of a
separate footnote. Shakespeare, above everybody, is too big to be owned.
Let us give up staking out claims on him."
Every academic wants a footnote. But some areas lie beyond footnoting,
at least for the artist.
However, Paul copied whole paragraphs and pages of the works of others,
changing a few words to fit in with his construction of Eckankar [so the
argument goes]. What of that?
Concerns over plagiarism and copyright break down into two main
categories (although there is a third, rarely perceived category):
1) The Ego or Reputation Category: That original and invented ideas be
properly credited. This is very important in academe, especially in its
publish-or-perish Darwinian environment. Consequently, academics tend to
be very sensitive to this issue.
2) The Proper Compensation Category: Money. Someone who writes an
original work expects compensation, if compensation is to be had.
Copyright laws protect artists' rights to receive compensation for their
original work.
Now let's review Paul's activity. The category is philosophy or
religion. The ideas are not original. Paul may have put a spin on the
writings of others, but for the most part he presented the writings as
the works or dictations of others. Julian Johnson wrote Path of the
Masters to bring Eastern sound current ideas to the West. He did not
pretend that his ideas were original.
And Paul recognized that. Since ego and reputation were not at issue,
Paul seems to have had no need to make it one. The teachings were
universal, as were the ideas. Johnson and others had ways of stating
these universal ideas that Paul appropriated for, what he believed to
be, their quality of presentation. He chose the role of a kind of
compiler, not in the academic sense, but in the artistic reworking
sense.
[For those of you chomping at the Eckankar-trademark bit, reign in your
horse for a minute <g>]
I would be interested if David Lane could cite examples where Paul
claimed an original idea of his own that he actually stole from someone
else who ALSO claimed it as an original idea.
I could try to get into a pseudoscientific analysis of Paul's character
and psychology (as Lane attempts) citing his journalistic background (we
KNOW what they are like <g>). But such analysis more often reflects our
own perceptual grids. Of course, since I am a student of artists and the
artistic consciousness, it can be argued that I am doing the same thing
with this analysis <g>. Let the reader decide whether I present valid
points worthy of consideration.
As for compensation, neither Julian Johnson nor the publishers of his
book seem to have expected any profitable compensation for the book.
Money does not seem to be an issue for them.
I would be interested if David Lane could cite examples where Paul
actually received profitable compensation for original ideas that should
have gone to someone else.
Serge Koussevtizky said: "We have a great deal of evidence that musical
performers have a right to interpret compositions freely." The composing
artist knows that others will come along and reinterpret his work.
Stravinsky, having presented the first performance of a new work, was
reportedly approached afterwards by a listener who said, "I thought I
recognized a part in the second movement that actually was Mozart."
Stravinsky replied, "Of course it was Mozart. It's great. That's why I
stole it."
Sibelius wrote: "The right tempo is the one that the artist feels."
Paul was taking the universal music of others and reworking it into his
own composition.
I would be interested if David Lane could cite examples where Paul
caused demonstrable harm to anyone who he *stole* from.
Paul's approach to writing was not academic, it was artistic. You may
revile his artistic methods (what artist worthy of the name has not been
so reviled?), you may claim he was a mediocre artist (although his works
have had profoundly uplifting affects on many), but he WAS an artist.
Musical compositions do not cite wholesale stealing of passages from the
works of others. [George Harrison was inappropriately punished for 'My
Sweet Lord'] Painters and sculptor do not attach explanations to their
works describing their source material. Interestingly, the more abstract
arts do not seem to carry the stigma of the language arts.
To paraphrase Goddard, Art is given us to redeem us. We are in the habit
of asking for sources, expecting properly cited authorities, whereas art
ought to captivate us, carry us out of ourselves, make us over into
something more nearly its own image.
Paul was an artist. His reworked others into his own synthesis to offer
the Sound teachings to those who would not access the other writings.
Others are reworking his works, again without notation, for who should
claim a spiritual idea as his own?
There is a third category regarding copyrights:
3) Protecting the Integrity of a newborn Institution. Why does Eckankar
trademark certain terms? Since the Living ECK Master has chosen to offer
the Eck teachings through an institutional channel, it seems to me that
it is necessary to protect the fragile nature of its birth and early
growth from pretenders to the specific Eckankar teachings that are
distinguished by the presence of the Mahanta, the Living Eck Master. If
Eckankar did not guard certain terms, the organization would have little
chance to grow properly with others using the terms and defining them in
decidedly different ways; or others claiming to be the Mahanta.
After a certain point, Eckankar as a religion will be large enough and
historic enough that protection of the terms will be unnecessary, just
as terms like Immaculate Conception and Eucharist are so decidedly
Catholic, because of its long and influential history.
Whatever one thinks of Paul, I think it important to recognize that
attempts to interpret the character of a historical person is fraught
with obstacles. David Lane chooses his authorities rather one-sidedly,
given his unfortunate experiences with the Eckankar organization in the
waning days of Darwin.
But the reader is always encouraged to recognize that even seemingly
reasonable and objective authorities operate within certain perceptual
grids that preclude certain truths, certain facts, or certain alternate
authorities who are either uncomfortable or unavailable.
Since there are clearly many people who have had firsthand experience
with Paul who choose not to be interviewed (or were never asked) by
David Lane, the reader must remember that his work is incomplete,
warranting some skepticism about the partial interpretations therein.
Paul did not take to the academic consciousness. He once said, "I
suppose I was really the worst of rebels you ever found and I was paying
for it because of my attitude towards the state-old society or the
establishment..."
Paul never pretended to operate within established writing guidelines.
*** Art has no other object than to set aside the symbols of practical
utility, the generalities that are conventionally and socially accepted,
everything in fact which masks reality from us, in order to set us face
to face with reality itself. (Henri Bergson)
Pathapp
>portrait he paints of Paul Twitchell as a liar, a plagiarizer, and a
>fraud?
I would not have minded Paul's plagiarism if he had just written the words down
as his own. What bothers me and what made me leave Eckankar was that he put
these plagiarised words (direct word for word from the J. Johnson book) coming
from Rebezar Tarsz's mouth. And if RT is such a high master, why would he
permit Paul to publish a book filled with these plagiarisms. This is why the
plagiarism is wrong.
Sean
"Pathapp" <pat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031020192121...@mb-m17.aol.com...
If Reb was such a high master, why wouldn't he have taken the earlier
opportunity to give Julian Johnson the same words for his book, and then
realizing that it wasn't a big seller picked up on the later opportunity of
Paul's writing?
If this is "universal knowledge" coming thru higher levels of consciousness
down to mere mortal men of letters, why assume that the printed assembalge
of words in a book is what is MOST important?
If this simplest of things is such a hurdle in one's life, it follows that
Eckankar, may not be personally suitable. However, it would be worthwhile to
at least look behind the Ford Johnson screen and do yuor own research about
plagarism in general AT THE TIME that these works were done.
There are many levels and many facts to this issue that have been completely
ignored in Ford Johnson's treatise.
Pathapp
>Eckankar, may not be personally suitable. However, it would be worthwhile to
>at least look behind the Ford Johnson screen and do yuor own research about
>plagarism in general AT THE TIME that these works were done.
No matter how you try to look at this and make excuses for Paul's plagiarism,
it doesn't take a high spiritual being or person to know that it is wrong to
steal - Paul stole other people's words and put them into his Vairagi Master's
mouths. He didn't have to do this. He could have just written them down in
any of his books as coming on the inner. Why did he have to go that extra step
and put those stolen words into another's mouth. All the arguing in the world
will not change the wrong in that.
Sean
Yes, well your right there.
cher
not put those words into Rebezar's mouth. But david lane sure loves it
when ECKist suddenly believe this to be true. <smile>
Pathapp
>Paul did
>not put those words into Rebezar's mouth. But david lane sure loves it
>when ECKist suddenly believe this to be true. <smile>
I won't keep arguing about this after this message because it is obvious that
nothing is going to change your mind. But Paul did put those words into RT's
mouth in "The Far Country". Go check it out for yourself, I did.
cher
Rebezar didn't need to say. <smile> For that I'm eternally grateful!
Pathapp
>Whatever Paul did, at least he left out all the words that apparently
>Rebezar didn't need to say. <smile> For that I'm eternally grateful!
And if only Paul had used only his own words how happy we all would be (myself
included)! Good Luck!
cher
all.
@aloha.net Rich
"Pathapp" <pat...@aol.com> wrote
> >How can an Eckist read David Lane's book and not accept the character
> >portrait he paints of Paul Twitchell as a liar, a plagiarizer, and a
> >fraud?
>
> I would not have minded Paul's plagiarism if he had just written the
words down
> as his own. What bothers me and what made me leave Eckankar was that
he put
> these plagiarised words (direct word for word from the J. Johnson
book) coming
> from Rebezar Tarsz's mouth.
Apparently you didn't understand the gist of this article. Read Doug's
E-Book http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm I believe it's
there that he explains how the use of stories is much more effective in
conveying meaning than just stating facts as if they were your own,
which of course they aren't. They are universal spiritual teachings.
It's using the art of writing to it's best effect. But this is why you
left Eckankar? Wow... To me it's minor but each to his own needs. I'm
more interested in what I gained spiritually from the whole body of the
Eckankar teachings.
> And if RT is such a high master, why would he
> permit Paul to publish a book filled with these plagiarisms.
Maybe because ECK Masters don't interfer in the personal lives of
people. Maybe because these were his words to start with. Maybe
because it doesn't matter to him who the messenger of Spiritual Truth's
were. We can spectulate all kinds of positive or negative imaginations,
but they don't mean a thing except as a reflection of the imaginer.
You'd have to ask him to know for sure.
>This is why the plagiarism is wrong.
No one here, as well as this article, does not say that it is right. A
tiny percentage 2% of Paul's writings are plagiarized. If that's such a
big problem for you, you'll find no religion that will come up to your
standards. Which is fine.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sean
Maybe you'd prefer if he created his own alphabet as well? Oh well, believe
what you wish, it's your life.
M B
The plag thing is NOT a big deal to me - except the 'Reb said type stuff'
stuff, but seems to me lots of the PT stuff is very much like what those
folk wrote - which is understandable...
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:bn2iq...@enews2.newsguy.com...