Religions, Partly True Partly False
Mugwump
The Blind Men and the Elephant, by John Godfrey Saxe
American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based the following poem on
a fable which was told in India many years ago.
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!?
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html
Diana
many situations. Not just each religion having part of the truth, but each
person focusing on one aspect of God and believing that's all there is to Him.
Heck, we could do the same thing with the Beatles. Some say it's about the
music and nothing else. Some say it's about the men who created the music and
nothing else. Some focus solely on what they perceive as the Beatles' message:
All you need is love. Others -- most of us, seems to me -- realize that while
each these aspects is important, a true understanding of the Beatles cannot
exist unless ALL elements are taken into consideration.
Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> writes:
- - - - - -
http://www.hariscruffs.com
"As a scientist, Throckmorton knew that if he were ever
to break wind in the echo chamber, he would never hear
the end of it."
Mugwump
I think the point of the original fable might be a little different than
what John Godfrey Saxe implies in the end of his poem. He seems to imply
that there is little we can know about God since we can't see him. I think
that the fable meant that there is only a certain ammount we can know by
experince, and each person's experience might be a little different.
The elephant obviously represents God, but the fact that God can't be
seen doesn't mean he can't be experienced. I think the blind men represent
each of the worlds religions and spiritual philosophies. They can't
experince God in his *entirety*, but they can experience him.
God is ineffable and beyond symbols and concepts. Religion is the
attempt to take something that is beyond concepts and conceptualize it. It
is the attempt to take someting that is beyond words and put it into words.
It always loses something in the translation.
But if you look at the world's major religions, there is a lot that they
*can* agree on. I say those are the things which are the most reliable. It
just makes good sense. *That* is the part of the message that seems to have
gotten through without being corrupted by each prophets imperfections. Now
there is a radical concept. Prophets are imperfect.
Mister Charlie
I forget what he learned (sanitation, perhaps)...
A fine post, Diana. It will fall on deaf ears, but I especially like your
Beatle analogy.
:)
"Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010717203540...@nso-bj.aol.com...
Mugwump
Diana wrote:
> I love this story. Didn't know it was a poem, too. It could be applied to
> many situations. Not just each religion having part of the truth, but each
> person focusing on one aspect of God and believing that's all there is to Him.
That's right. It sould apply to a lot of things. I sent a reply to my previous
post where I said that Maybe Saxe had given the poem a slightly different
interpretation than the original fable, but I think I may have been wrong. When
Saxe says that none of the disputants in the theologic wars had ever seen the
elephant, maybe he didn't mean that they had never experienced God at all, but that
they had never experienced God in his entirety. That would still fit the metaphor.
>
>
> Heck, we could do the same thing with the Beatles. Some say it's about the
> music and nothing else. Some say it's about the men who created the music and
> nothing else. Some focus solely on what they perceive as the Beatles' message:
> All you need is love. Others -- most of us, seems to me -- realize that while
> each these aspects is important, a true understanding of the Beatles cannot
> exist unless ALL elements are taken into consideration.
Yes, and we can never do that either because we can't know everything about them
no matter how much we try. So even though we take all the facts into consideration,
that is still not a gestalt, or a synergy. It only seems that way to us because we
are under the illusion that we have all the pieces to the puzzle. But there are
still pieces missing. We will never have the whole picture; just a working model.
But that is really all we need isn't it?
Diana
>But what about the guy who stuck his hands in the elephant's dung?
He was probably a Stones fan. (Not sure what that means, but it sounds good.)
>I forget what he learned (sanitation, perhaps)...
>
>A fine post, Diana. It will fall on deaf ears, but I especially like your
>Beatle analogy.
>:)
Why, thank you, Mr C! Gotta get my licks in somehow.
Diana
>> Heck, we could do the same thing with the Beatles. <snip>
>> a true understanding of the Beatles cannot exist unless ALL
>> elements are taken into consideration.
>
> Yes, and we can never do that either because we can't know
>everything about them no matter how much we try. So even
>though we take all the facts into consideration, that is still not a
>gestalt, or a synergy. It only seems that way to us because we
>are under the illusion that we have all the pieces to the puzzle
>But there are still pieces missing. We will never have the whole
>picture; just a working model.
Absolutely. Right, I named 3 things, and then said "all elements," which was
grossly inaccurate. Thinking it over now, I guess it's the general idea that
you can't know one (or three or three thousand) things about God, the Beatles
or a grain of sand and think you know everything about it. Plus, like you
said, there's unimaginably complex interaction between the elements which makes
complete understanding impossible!
>But that is really all we need isn't it?
::thinking:: Maybe it's all we need because it's all we can handle, so we
resign ourselves to being satisfied with it? I think (or maybe just *like* to
think) that the mysteries hidden from us because of our limitations must be
spectacular!
The Devil's Dongle
> Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> writes:
>
> >> Heck, we could do the same thing with the Beatles. <snip>
> >> a true understanding of the Beatles cannot exist unless ALL
> >> elements are taken into consideration.
whoever wrote this is full of shit.
of course we can "fully understand" the beatles.
just listen to the music.
it's *all there*, for christ's sake.
Mister Charlie
all, but our comprehension simply does not see them. They may be directly
in front of us, waving and shouting.
Mister Charlie
it's all there for those who realize only the music matters
for those who think it involves more...personalities, influences, parents,
etc...they will never know, because the facts are not all there any more.
"The Devil's Dongle" <Com...@house.net> wrote in message
news:9j3rtv$i0o$0...@pita.alt.net...
Mugwump
Then all you could claim is to fully understand their music, not the
Beatles themselves. And your understanding might be different from
someone else's understanding. I think that is the point she was trying
to make.
Mr. Interesting
"Mugwump" <jand...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B55A9A2...@swbell.net...
>
>
> The Devil's Dongle wrote:
>
> > "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010718060657...@nso-fa.aol.com...
> > > Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> writes:
> > >
> > > >> Heck, we could do the same thing with the Beatles. <snip>
> > > >> a true understanding of the Beatles cannot exist unless ALL
> > > >> elements are taken into consideration.
> >
> > whoever wrote this is full of shit.
> >
> > of course we can "fully understand" the beatles.
> >
> > just listen to the music.
>
>
>
> Then all you could claim is to fully understand their music, not the
> Beatles themselves.
BIG WAKE UP CALL FOR MUGWUMP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "the beatles WERE the music".
period.
all else flowed from that.
so there's no need to understand john's private life or george's bad breath
to "get their message".
>And your understanding might be different from
> someone else's understanding.
i certainly hope so.
because if you think you need to "understand" the beatles thru understanding
the "beatles themselves", you sound like the typical feeble minded
shlock-guzzling flake we've come to expect of today's nitwit "explanatory
set". you know, the type who feels they have to wring every single
excruciating little bit of detail and non-detail out of every excruciating
situation, whether it exists or whether they have to fabricate it.
simply put, you're full of shit.
>I think that is the point she was trying
> to make.
why not leave it to "her" to explain herself, ok numbnuts?
Mugwump
"Mr. Interesting" wrote:
> "Mugwump" <jand...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3B55A9A2...@swbell.net...
> >
> >
> > The Devil's Dongle wrote:
> >
> > > "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20010718060657...@nso-fa.aol.com...
> > > > Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >> Heck, we could do the same thing with the Beatles. <snip>
> > > > >> a true understanding of the Beatles cannot exist unless ALL
> > > > >> elements are taken into consideration.
> > >
> > > whoever wrote this is full of shit.
> > >
> > > of course we can "fully understand" the beatles.
> > >
> > > just listen to the music.
> >
> >
> >
> > Then all you could claim is to fully understand their music, not the
> > Beatles themselves.
>
> BIG WAKE UP CALL FOR MUGWUMP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "the beatles WERE the music".
> period.
Absolute statements like that are almost never true. The Beatles were also
individuals. In other words they are more than merely the sum of their music.
>
>
> all else flowed from that.
>
> so there's no need to understand john's private life or george's bad breath
> to "get their message".
No need, no, but in the case of John, a deeper understanding of his lyrics is
possible if you know what they refer to:
Half of what I say is meaningless,
but I say it just to reach you Julia.
Julia, Ocean Child calls me,
So I sing this song of love for Julia.
Do you know what that song is about? If so, you got that from information
about John's life that wasn't revealed in the song.
So if you don't understand the song fully, why do you say it is all in the
music? And if you *do* understand it fully, why are you reading about Lennon's
private life when you obviously think it is wrong to do so?
>
>
> >And your understanding might be different from
> > someone else's understanding.
>
> i certainly hope so.
>
> because if you think you need to "understand" the beatles thru understanding
> the "beatles themselves",
It's not just the Beatles. Biographies are some of my favorite books to read,
period. But I always read them with a healthy dose of skepicism. It sounds as
though you are saying that reading bioraphies is a waste of time. You don't
really believe that do you?
> you sound like the typical feeble minded
> shlock-guzzling flake we've come to expect of today's nitwit "explanatory
> set". you know, the type who feels they have to wring every single
> excruciating little bit of detail and non-detail out of every excruciating
> situation, whether it exists or whether they have to fabricate it.
Nope. I don't fall into that category. I am not a a starry-eyed fan no matter
how badly you wan't to portray me as one.
There is a lot that can be learned by finding out what makes a particular
artist tick. I don't consider that trivial or prurient.
You are making broad assumptions based on the rather narrow minded assumption
that only a fanatic would be interested in knowing more about the life of a
particular artist.
>
>
> simply put, you're full of shit.
Simply put, you are simple-minded if you actually believe everything you have
just said.
>
>
> >I think that is the point she was trying
> > to make.
>
> why not leave it to "her" to explain herself, ok numbnuts?
I said,"I think." If I got it wrong she is free to say so.
(Numbnuts, how original).
Diana
> Then all you could claim is to fully understand their music, not the
>Beatles themselves. And your understanding might be different from
>someone else's understanding. I think that is the point she was trying
>to make.
Eggs-act-lee.
"Mr. Interesting" <kn...@funn.com> writes:
>>I think that is the point she was trying to make.
>
>why not leave it to "her" to explain herself, ok numbnuts?
I thought I did.
Mr. Interesting
>
>
> "Mr. Interesting" wrote:
>
> > "Mugwump" <jand...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B55A9A2...@swbell.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > The Devil's Dongle wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:20010718060657...@nso-fa.aol.com...
> > > > > Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Heck, we could do the same thing with the Beatles. <snip>
> > > > > >> a true understanding of the Beatles cannot exist unless ALL
> > > > > >> elements are taken into consideration.
> > > >
> > > > whoever wrote this is full of shit.
> > > >
> > > > of course we can "fully understand" the beatles.
> > > >
> > > > just listen to the music.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Then all you could claim is to fully understand their music, not
the
> > > Beatles themselves.
> >
> > BIG WAKE UP CALL FOR MUGWUMP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "the beatles WERE the
music".
> > period.
>
>
>
> Absolute statements like that are almost never true.
"almost never true"?.....BWAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
>The Beatles were also individuals. In other words they are more than merely
the sum of their music.
wake up, you're dreaming.
> > all else flowed from that.
> >
> > so there's no need to understand john's private life or george's bad
breath
> > to "get their message".
>
>
>
> No need, no, but in the case of John, a deeper understanding of his
lyrics is
> possible if you know what they refer to:
no they're not.
i "got" Julia the first time i heard it.
>
> Half of what I say is meaningless,
> but I say it just to reach you Julia.
> Julia, Ocean Child calls me,
> So I sing this song of love for Julia.
>
> Do you know what that song is about?
yes, it's about julia.
>If so, you got that from information
> about John's life that wasn't revealed in the song.
stop making stuff up out of the blue. what are you, some sort of nutcase?
> So if you don't understand the song fully, why do you say it is all in
the
> music?
dipshit, please, try to talk like a cognitive human, not some self important
airhead who decides what others do or do not understand.
>And if you *do* understand it fully, why are you reading about Lennon's
> private life when you obviously think it is wrong to do so?
huh?
is it time to change your medications maybe muggy?
> > >And your understanding might be different from
> > > someone else's understanding.
> >
> > i certainly hope so.
> >
> > because if you think you need to "understand" the beatles thru
understanding
> > the "beatles themselves",
>
>
>
> It's not just the Beatles. Biographies are some of my favorite books to
read,
> period. But I always read them with a healthy dose of skepicism. It sounds
as
> though you are saying that reading bioraphies is a waste of time. You
don't
> really believe that do you?
"it sounds as though i was saying?"
mate, you are a total idiot.
Mr. Interesting
> Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> writes:
>
> > Then all you could claim is to fully understand their music, not the
> >Beatles themselves. And your understanding might be different from
> >someone else's understanding. I think that is the point she was trying
> >to make.
>
> Eggs-act-lee.
so you can "fully understand"(what a flakey term) the mona lisa or
beethoven's ninth or a sung dynasty blue and white without having learned
anything of the artist, but with the beatles, you have to have the inside
gossip of their private lives to "fully understand" them?
that is sheer unadulterated bullshit.
>
> "Mr. Interesting" <kn...@funn.com> writes:
>
> >>I think that is the point she was trying to make.
> >
> >why not leave it to "her" to explain herself, ok numbnuts?
>
> I thought I did.
i'm sure you thought you did.
Tom
> > > >
> > > > just listen to the music.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Then all you could claim is to fully understand their music, not the
> > > Beatles themselves.
> >
> > BIG WAKE UP CALL FOR MUGWUMP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "the beatles WERE the music".
> > period.
>
>
>
> Absolute statements like that are almost never true. The Beatles were also
> individuals. In other words they are more than merely the sum of their music.
>
the only part that matters to us as their audience is the music. In
fact, it can be said that to us, they were less than their music. Paul
McCartney the human being has his favorite television programs, sexual
positions, and toppings for pizza, but none of that matters. The
important part is how the music he creates affects us.
>
>
> >
> >
> > all else flowed from that.
> >
> > so there's no need to understand john's private life or george's bad breath
> > to "get their message".
>
>
>
> No need, no, but in the case of John, a deeper understanding of his lyrics is
> possible if you know what they refer to:
>
> Half of what I say is meaningless,
> but I say it just to reach you Julia.
> Julia, Ocean Child calls me,
> So I sing this song of love for Julia.
>
> Do you know what that song is about? If so, you got that from information
> about John's life that wasn't revealed in the song.
> So if you don't understand the song fully, why do you say it is all in the
> music? And if you *do* understand it fully, why are you reading about Lennon's
> private life when you obviously think it is wrong to do so?
Why? Because it's a diverting way to spend the afternoon. However, I
can honestly say that "Julia" being about John's mother and Yoko means
nothing to me. I don't listen to John's songs to learn about John. I
listen to John's songs because they strike a resonant tone in my own
life.
There's a contemporary group who put out two albums I'm very fond of.
Sometime after the second came out, I became very good friends with
their primary songwriter. As a result, I can't listen to the albums
without making associating her songs with both the circumstances
behind those songs and details of her personal life that may or may
not have any relevance. Knowing about the artist can detract from the
art.
Mugwump
Ah, all is clear now. You haven't a hair in your ass.
Mugwump
"Mr. Interesting" wrote:
> "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010718171718...@nso-fj.aol.com...
> > Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> writes:
> >
> > > Then all you could claim is to fully understand their music, not the
> > >Beatles themselves. And your understanding might be different from
> > >someone else's understanding. I think that is the point she was trying
> > >to make.
> >
> > Eggs-act-lee.
>
> so you can "fully understand"(what a flakey term) the mona lisa or
> beethoven's ninth or a sung dynasty blue and white without having learned
> anything of the artist, but with the beatles, you have to have the inside
> gossip of their private lives to "fully understand" them?
>
> that is sheer unadulterated bullshit.
>
Of course it is bullshit. No one is saying that but you.
>
> >
> > "Mr. Interesting" <kn...@funn.com> writes:
> >
> > >>I think that is the point she was trying to make.
> > >
> > >why not leave it to "her" to explain herself, ok numbnuts?
> >
> > I thought I did.
>
> i'm sure you thought you did.
I thought right, as she just comfirmed. I was just restating what she
herself had explained previously.
Mr. Interesting
>
>
>
> Ah, all is clear now. You haven't a hair in your ass.
i'm sure this means something to you, but like the rest of your garbage
posts, it mean's nothing to any sane person reading it.
Mr. Interesting
>
>
> "Mr. Interesting" wrote:
>
> > "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010718171718...@nso-fj.aol.com...
> > > Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > Then all you could claim is to fully understand their music, not
the
> > > >Beatles themselves. And your understanding might be different from
> > > >someone else's understanding. I think that is the point she was
trying
> > > >to make.
> > >
> > > Eggs-act-lee.
> >
> > so you can "fully understand"(what a flakey term) the mona lisa or
> > beethoven's ninth or a sung dynasty blue and white without having
learned
> > anything of the artist, but with the beatles, you have to have the
inside
> > gossip of their private lives to "fully understand" them?
> >
> > that is sheer unadulterated bullshit.
> >
>
>
>
> Of course it is bullshit. No one is saying that but you.
moron, please, if you're going to troll, at least try to learn how to follow
a usenet thread properly.
> > > "Mr. Interesting" <kn...@funn.com> writes:
> > >
> > > >>I think that is the point she was trying to make.
> > > >
> > > >why not leave it to "her" to explain herself, ok numbnuts?
> > >
> > > I thought I did.
> >
> > i'm sure you thought you did.
>
> I thought right, as she just comfirmed. I was just restating what she
> herself had explained previously.
you're a bloody idiot, mugwump.
Diana
>so you can "fully understand"(what a flakey term) the mona lisa or
>beethoven's ninth or a sung dynasty blue and white without having
>learned anything of the artist
No, and I never said any such thing. And I also never said that you must know
about the Beatles personally to understand their music. But such knowledge
certainly gives you a fuller appreciation of it.
>but with the beatles, you have to have the inside
>gossip of their private lives to "fully understand" them?
Not gossip, but facts. Their words. Who's "Ocean Child"? Don't tell me you
knew who OC was the very first time you hear "Julia," or that you recognized
the line from Gibran!
robertandrews
>But such knowledge certainly gives you a fuller appreciation of it.
In most cases, it does not -- most notably in "Julia," where imagining his
mother (aunt?) conflicts with the mood. I think John told me that this song
was about a Julia he dated before Cynthia. Then I said I heard enough, &
suggested that he, like all artists, refuse to comment on their art.
Mugwump
robertandrews wrote:
> "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote:
> >But such knowledge certainly gives you a fuller appreciation of it.
>
> In most cases, it does not --
I don't know where people get stuff like this.
When a person develops a love for a particular artists works, whether it be
art, music, or writing, it is not "unnatural" to want to learn more about the
person. The relationship we have with their art seems a lot like a friendship.
We naturally like to know more about out friends.
I think the fallacy that this whole argument is based upon is that showing an
interest in an artist beyond the art itself is naturally prurient and fanatical.
That is simply not true. It *can* be fanatical, yes, but it need not be.
Again, people are interested in the lives of all kinds of other people,
famous and not so famous, whether they be politicians, writers, miltarty
figures, clergy, poets, or virtually anyone. Biographies make for interesting
reading, as do memoirs and other biographical writings. To show an interest in
things like that does not neccesarily mean that you are snooping or being
gossipy, as some people here seem to be implying.
> most notably in "Julia," where imagining his
> mother (aunt?) conflicts with the mood. I think John told me that this song
> was about a Julia he dated before Cynthia. Then I said I heard enough, &
> suggested that he, like all artists, refuse to comment on their art.
It's certainly not required for an artist to coment on their art, but neither
should it be prohibited.
I once had a friend who's sister in law took a course in college from Rod
Serling. She was a drama major. The entire course consisted of watching old
Twilight Zone episodes as Rod explained his creative choices and fielded
questions from the students about those choices. Are you saying that Rod should
have just kept his mouth shut?
Tom
> >gossip of their private lives to "fully understand" them?
>
> Not gossip, but facts. Their words. Who's "Ocean Child"? Don't tell me you
> knew who OC was the very first time you hear "Julia," or that you recognized
> the line from Gibran!
>
How does any of that help your appreciation of the song? You know that
Julia was John's mother, that "Ocean child" was Yoko. Which one is
John trying to reach? Which one is calling him? (Hopefully it was
Yoko, since Julia calling him would make him a suicide risk.) Was he
combining his mother and Yoko in his mind, was he declaring his love
for both women at the same time, or did he simply use "Julia" and/or
"Ocean child" because they sounded good in the song.
You can try to work out these questions (though they can never be
answered conclusively because we have no way of knowing what was going
through John's mind while he was writing the song) or you can
appreciate the imagery, the melody, the preformance, and the emotion
behind the song without being distracted by details of John's life.
Bob Stahley
: "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote:
: >But such knowledge certainly gives you a fuller appreciation of it.
: In most cases, it does not --
At least in part, I disagree with Robert's disagreement. I believe that,
yes, knowledge about a work of art can indeed give one a fuller
appreciation of it. But in some cases, knowledge about a work of art can
actually give one less of an appreciation of it. What I believe is
unarguable, tho, is that gaining knowledge about a work of art not only
can, not only does, but, in fact, must affect one's perception of that
work.
For example, Picasso's masterwork "Guerinca" is in anyone's estimation a
breathtaking work of art all on its own. However, consider this:
"It was inspired by an act of war, the bombing of a Basque town during the
Spanish Civil War. The destruction of Guernica was carried out by German
aircraft, manned by German pilots, at the request of the Spanish
Nationalist commander, General Emilio Mola. Because the Republican
government of Spain had granted autonomy to the Basques, Guernica was the
capital city of an independent republic. Its razing was taken up by the
world press, beginning with The Times in London, as the arch-symbol of
Fascist barbarity." -- Robert Hughes, _The Shock of the New, Art and the
Century of Change_
Doesn't knowing this, in fact, give the work a great deal of added
significance? And couldn't learning this after one has already seen the
work, in fact, actually change entirely one's feelings about the work?
I believe it's simply a given that knowing additional information about a
work besides just the work itself cannot help but change one's feelings
about a work. And it's this phenomenon that's at the heart of the "it's
the music only" versus "all knowledge is good" argument.
For example:
: most notably in "Julia," where imagining his mother (aunt?) conflicts
: with the mood.
His mother, actually, so the story goes. And given that "ocean child," is
the translation of Yoko's name, it gives the song, for me at least, a
greater poignancy and a far deeper meaning than "just" a song about some
faceless girlfriend.
As Robert rightly points out, you don't have to know the background to
appreciate the song. You can't miss what you don't know. But knowing the
background can give a work of art a greater depth, as is shown both in the
case of "Guernica" and in the case of "Julia."
But more to the point, as Robert's statement makes clear, knowing the
background of a song can easily change your personal feelings about that
song. For Robert, the knowledge about Julia being John's mother
"conflicts [or so he feels] with the mood" of the song, which, I assume,
has the result of marring, in part, his enjoyment of the song. In
Robert's case, the knowledge has certainly not had the effect of giving
him a "fuller appreciation." It, in fact, had the opposite effect!
In fact, merely knowing the name of the composer of a given work of art
can significantly affect one's appreciation of that work. Take the music
of the German composer Wagner as just the most obvious example: Many
people object to the performance of his music not only because his music
was used in the 'Thirties to symbolize Fascist ideals but because of his
own avowed anti-Semitism. And yet those without such knowledge seem to
have no problem watching "What's Opera, Doc?"
And it's this phenomenon that is actually being addressed by the complaint
of many here who object to the reporting here of gossip, especially
mean-spirited and hurtful gossip.
Certainly, as I hope the Robert Hughes quote above makes clear, knowledge
of the facts behind a work of art can have a great impact on one's
feelings toward that work. Just as the knowledge that Picasso's rendering
is a representation of Fascist brutality changes seemingly random
squiggles into a work of gut-wrenching impact, just as the knowledge that
John invoked Yoko in a love song explicitly written to his mother changes
a seeming simple "june-moon-croon" love song into something far deeper and
personal, so too can a suppositious, defamatory story change forever one's
personal feelings about a formerly-cherished song.
As the moral of the fable of the Garden Of Eden makes clear: Knowledge
changes perception. Knowledge, in fact, changes _everything_.
And this is no less true about art. And music. And, in particular, the
music of the Beatles.
Knowing that "Get Back" was begin as a satire against racism cannot _help_
but change one's perception of the song.
And by the same token, so too, must a spurious tale about John's alleged
failings as a parent change forever one's feelings about "Beautiful Boy."
And only to the song's detriment.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that all "stories behind the songs"
be banned. The knowledge that John wrote "Julia" for his mother, that
Paul wrote "Hey Jude" for Julian, that George took the words for "The
Inner Light" from the _Tao Te Ching_ has, indeed, given me a fuller
appreciation of these songs.
But "learning" such clearly mean-spirited and purely speculative "facts"
such as that Paul was an anti-Semite or that John was a child beater or
that Yoko wasn't deserving of John's love or that Paul was callous about
John's death certainly does _not_ give me any sort of "fuller
appreciation" of the music. In fact, if I were to believe these ugly
rumors, it would give me far _less_ of an "appreciation" of the Beatles
music.
Such scandalous filth, in fact, diminishes the music. Cheapens it.
Reviles it.
Yes, by all means: share the stories, the myths as well as facts. Tell
the whole story, the full history of the creators of the Greatest Music of
the Twentieth Century.
But remember: so as you tell of the people, so, too, you tell of the
music.
You fans of the gossip and the scandals and the dirt, remember this:
When you report your latest piece of filth, remember that you don't just
malign Paul or John or Linda or Yoko.
You malign the music.
--
__ __
_) _) fabo...@mindspring.com Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
__)__) Tosa, Witzend http://www.gildasclub.org/
Steve
I agree.
To others, read the rest in the original post too.
(snipped)
> But "learning" such clearly mean-spirited and purely speculative "facts"
> such as that Paul was an anti-Semite or that John was a child beater or
> that Yoko wasn't deserving of John's love or that Paul was callous about
> John's death certainly does _not_ give me any sort of "fuller
> appreciation" of the music. In fact, if I were to believe these ugly
> rumors, it would give me far _less_ of an "appreciation" of the Beatles
> music.
>
> Such scandalous filth, in fact, diminishes the music. Cheapens it.
> Reviles it.
>
> Yes, by all means: share the stories, the myths as well as facts. Tell
> the whole story, the full history of the creators of the Greatest Music of
> the Twentieth Century.
>
> But remember: so as you tell of the people, so, too, you tell of the
> music.
>
> You fans of the gossip and the scandals and the dirt, remember this:
>
> When you report your latest piece of filth, remember that you don't just
> malign Paul or John or Linda or Yoko.
>
> You malign the music.
~Steve~
³Outside looking in is hardly ever the same as (being) inside looking out.²
©Steven W Flinchbaugh
http://www.guitar.com/artists/stevehawk
http://artists3.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Steve_Hawk/
Alex
> I think the point of the original fable might be a little different than
> what John Godfrey Saxe implies in the end of his poem. He seems to imply
> that there is little we can know about God since we can't see him.
Amazing thread! I disagree with whoever said that this discussion will
fall on deaf ears. On the contrary!
If I may be allowed to add a couple of observations: in general, there
are two streams of religios practices -- one holds that it is not
enough to see the reality (or, God, if you will); one must work on
*being* It.
The other stream holds that one must *see* the reality. Seeing the
reality (God) is a decisive moment. If there is God, we must see
Him/Her.
If anyone is interested some more in this, I can elaborate, but for
now I felt that it is important to draw this distinction.
> I think
> that the fable meant that there is only a certain ammount we can know by
> experince, and each person's experience might be a little different.
There are different views on this as well. Some of us have experienced
the fact that to experience one menial thing (like, a grain of sand or
a blade of grass) is to experience everything there is to experience.
Everything that ever was, everything that is, everything that will
ever be, is experienced only if you would truly experience that grain
of sand, or that gulp of water, or that hiccup, or anything else.
Alex
Mugwump
Bob Stahley wrote:
> robertandrews <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote:
> : >But such knowledge certainly gives you a fuller appreciation of it.
> : In most cases, it does not --
>
> At least in part, I disagree with Robert's disagreement. I believe that,
> yes, knowledge about a work of art can indeed give one a fuller
> appreciation of it. But in some cases, knowledge about a work of art can
> actually give one less of an appreciation of it. What I believe is
> unarguable, tho, is that gaining knowledge about a work of art not only
> can, not only does, but, in fact, must affect one's perception of that
> work.
>
> For example, Picasso's masterwork "Guerinca"
And that is a perfect example.
> is in anyone's estimation a
> breathtaking work of art all on its own. However, consider this:
>
> "It was inspired by an act of war, the bombing of a Basque town during the
> Spanish Civil War. The destruction of Guernica was carried out by German
> aircraft, manned by German pilots, at the request of the Spanish
> Nationalist commander, General Emilio Mola. Because the Republican
> government of Spain had granted autonomy to the Basques, Guernica was the
> capital city of an independent republic. Its razing was taken up by the
> world press, beginning with The Times in London, as the arch-symbol of
> Fascist barbarity." -- Robert Hughes, _The Shock of the New, Art and the
> Century of Change_
>
> Doesn't knowing this, in fact, give the work a great deal of added
> significance?
Most definitely, in my opinion.
> And couldn't learning this after one has already seen the
> work, in fact, actually change entirely one's feelings about the work?
It did for me.
>
>
> I believe it's simply a given that knowing additional information about a
> work besides just the work itself cannot help but change one's feelings
> about a work. And it's this phenomenon that's at the heart of the "it's
> the music only" versus "all knowledge is good" argument.
>
> For example:
>
> : most notably in "Julia," where imagining his mother (aunt?) conflicts
> : with the mood.
>
> His mother, actually, so the story goes. And given that "ocean child," is
> the translation of Yoko's name, it gives the song, for me at least, a
> greater poignancy and a far deeper meaning than "just" a song about some
> faceless girlfriend.
That is the way I see it. It's like a letter he is writing to his mother
telling her he has met the love of his life, something which he yearns to
share with her but can't. In my opinion it makes Julia one of his most
beautiful and poignant songs.
I will give you another example of how knowing about the artist can effect
your appreciation of their art. Vincent Van Gough was a sad and tragic figure.
He had a tormented soul. But within that stormy soul was beauty. Knowing that,
makes me see his paintings differently. Some of them can bring tears to your
eyes when you know how he suffered as he created them.
That reminds me of a wonderful scene from the movie Little Man Tate. Tate
is a boy genius who's intellegence is off the scale. But he is a rather shy
and sensitive kid who suffers from anxiety and a feeling of not knowing his
place in the world. As a result he has developed some insights and wisdom that
is beyond what you would expect from a kid; even an extraordinarily bright
kid.
When he goes to be interviewed by the head of a special school for gifted
children, the teacher opens a book of Van Gough. She turns the page to one of
his paintings. It is a garden with many purple irisis and only one white one.
The teacher asks Tate,"Why do you think he only painted one white iris?"
Tate replied,"Because he was lonely."
I had seen a picture of the painting before, and that had never occured to
me, but it certainly makes sense. Even if that is not what Van Gough had in
mind, I will always remember it now. That painting has become one of my
favorites of his or anyone's. Whether the symbolism was intentional or not, it
certainly fits. And if it *was* intentional, I would say that it is one of the
greatest works of art ever. What a masterpiece of undertatement. What a tender
and touching way to express his pain and feelings of alienation from the
world. If there was bitterness in him over the painful life he had to live, it
certainly didn't show in that painting. I will never look at it the same again
ever. If I could get the chance to go see it I would probably stare it for
hours if I could. It now seems almost like something holy to me, as if it were
a shrine to the man himself.
Likewise my feelings about Don McLean and his song Starry Starry Night
changed completely as soon as I realized that the song was about Van Gough.
That is really about the best eulogy in the form of a song that I have ever
heard. But it wouldn't have the same effect on any of us if we didn't known
the details of Van Gough's life. The fact that it is so powerful is due to the
way it captures Van Gough himself. Van Gough has a way of touching people
deeply. And it is because we know him.
Vincent (Starry, Starry Night)
Lyrics and Music by Don McLean
Starry, starry night
Paint your palette blue and gray
Look out on a summer's day
With eyes that know the darkness in my soul
Shadows on the hills
Sketch the trees and daffodils
Catch the breeze and winter chills
In colors on the snowy linen land
Now I understand
What you tried to say to me
And how you suffered for your sanity
And how you tried to set them free
They would not listen, they did not know how
Perhaps they'll listen now
Starry, starry night
Flaming flowers that brightly blaze
Swirling clouds in violet haze
Reflect in Vincent's eyes of china blue
Colors changing hue
Morning fields of amber grain
Weathered faces lined in pain
Are soothed beneath the artist's loving hand
Now I understand
What you tried to say to me
They did not listen, they did not know how
Perhaps they'll listen now
Mugwump
Yeah, that was good Bob. I forgot to mention that in my previous reply to
you (if it even shows up. I can't see it yet).
robertandrews
>Are you saying that Rod should have just kept his mouth shut?
I think discussing how Serling cast the actors, shot the scenes, etc. is
valid. I don't think relating intimate details to the final product is fair
to the audience. For example, suppose we discuss the episode "To Serve
Man," where the aliens wound up eating the humans. Let's say Serling
mentions that his mother Julia was, in fact, a cannibal. Then Julia writes
a book refuting his allegations. Later, a biographer claims that Serling
had sex with his mother, & that "To Serve Man" & the cannibal accusations
were ways of dealing with his trauma. Yet another biographer debunks these
stories, saying that the cannibal episode was simply a product of Serling's
imagination.
I don't find this stuff particularly illuminating.
robertandrews
>Knowing that "Get Back" was begin as a satire against racism
Scrambled Eggs? Doesn't change my perception very much. Neither do the
early versions of Get Back.
But I'll admit it's not always so clear. Popular music is usually a
collaboration, & it's nice to learn some behind-the-scenes details when they
shed light on the music. That Paul wrote and/or directed the string part in
Yesterday is more important than which ex-lover (if any) he was dreaming
about.
>The knowledge that John wrote "Julia" for his mother, . . .
I doubt it. John's mother was dead, so it couldn't have been "for" her in a
literal sense. To me, it's a love song. For all of us.
>. . . that Paul wrote "Hey Jude" for Julian,
I'd say Paul is sending a message to himself, & ultimately, to everyone.
For those who insist it's about Julian, I'd like them to explain that
interpretation based on the song. Just because Paul says so, doesn't make
it so for the rest of us. He's got to communicate those ideas through the
song.
>that George took the words for "The Inner Light" from the _Tao Te
Ching_has, indeed, given me a fuller appreciation of these songs.
I'll agree with that (& possibly your Picasso example), but I meant to
address "personal knowledge": some is useful, much is gossip.
Mister Charlie
"robertandrews" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DpO57.1441$X91.5...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to find out more about a
subject or person that interests you. That's one reason libraries exist.
Where the problem comes, IMO, is the mindless acceptance of any scraps of
information from any source.
If you're interested in George Washington, there are many authors and books
that are well recognized as authoritative and reliable. The same is
generally true of the Beatles. Many here could name the few books one could
peruse to get more information about the people and the music involved.
Everything else...the gossip, the speculation, the tabloid press and
mentality....muddy the waters and give one a skewed version of what
really -is- history, living itself out now in our lifetimes but soon to be
just words on a page, or on a screen.
Get the skinny on reliable places to go for information and then use it. If
it enhances your experience, more the better.
>
>
>
>
robertandrews
>If you're interested in George Washington, there are many authors and books
that are well recognized as authoritative and reliable.
I'd like to know how he kept his wig on when singing those "Ooooos" in She
Loves You.
Mister Charlie
(circa 1865) pp.178-181
he used hat pins, since he was a poof.
Bob Stahley
: According to The Life And Times of George Washington by Ambrose G. Chester
: (circa 1865) pp.178-181
: he used hat pins, since he was a poof.
I always suspected as much.
The hat pin thing, not the poof thing.
R.A.G. Seely
news:DpO57.1441$X91.5...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net:
> I'll agree with that (& possibly your Picasso example), but I meant to
> address "personal knowledge": some is useful, much is gossip.
In this case the main difference between knowledge and gossip is the
intention of the person seeking and/or imparting the information. (Another
example of my dictum "context is everything".) Knowing the personal
relationship between, say, John and Yoko at various points in their life
*can* help understand the context of their art. It can also merely
titilate. It's not so much *what* one wishes to investigate, but *why* one
wishes to do so that usually makes the difference. (In case this isn't
clear, I'll also add that "why" usually comes linked to what you intend to
do with your information.) Both the scholar and the gossip-monger have the
same goal vis a vis getting hold of information, but very different motives
and use the information for very different purposes...
The Guernica example was a good example of how knowledge makes the impact
stronger (when I was a student, I had posters of that and Dali's "Soft
Beans" on my wall - the point was that they both dealt with the same
subject in so different, but both powerful, ways. With some friends I had
to point that out - their reactions always changed once they saw the
connection.) But imagine someone who (with no taste at all!) merely wants
to "enhance" Picasso's painting with body parts, gore, and sensational
voyeurism - they may well abuse the artist and use the usually helpful
information in a trivial, petty, and destructive way. (I leave it to
others to point out Beatles examples based on posts in this ng...)
-= rags =-
Mister Charlie
"Tom" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:c22d8067.01071...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> How does any of that help your appreciation of the song? You know that
> Julia was John's mother, that "Ocean child" was Yoko. Which one is
> John trying to reach? Which one is calling him? (Hopefully it was
> Yoko, since Julia calling him would make him a suicide risk.) Was he
> combining his mother and Yoko in his mind, was he declaring his love
> for both women at the same time, or did he simply use "Julia" and/or
> "Ocean child" because they sounded good in the song.
>
> You can try to work out these questions (though they can never be
> answered conclusively because we have no way of knowing what was going
> through John's mind while he was writing the song) or you can
> appreciate the imagery, the melody, the preformance, and the emotion
> behind the song without being distracted by details of John's life.
One needn't know who Julia was...I suppose it's icing on the cake if it
interests someone to know that...but it doesn't detract from the song if you
don't.