Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (that's "Kanikt")

(http://www.najafcoins.com/Images/o2894.jpg An emerald green sash such as the ones worn by Arthor's Order of the Garter.)
When I was young, my dad would read to my sister and me while we lay in bed before sleep. The three of us liked tales of adventures and fantasy, usually with talking, sword-wielding animals and the glory of great battles and kingdoms. We read Red Wall, Watership Down, the Tolkien books, C.S. Lewis, and Merlin books. Most nights, the stories captivated me and I begged for just one more chapter, or to the next break point, or at least one more page, please! Sometimes, however, I would drift in and out of sleep, armed stoats battling armored badgers dancing in and out of my dreams, giving rise to magic and sometimes nightmare during deeper sleep. Fantasy tails from many cultures are like children’s dreams. Campbell writes about myths’ resonance with the individual and collective unconscious, which sends dreams into our sleep as its messengers. In retrospect, my childhood fantasies seem like emanations from this deep well of collective human un-thought. Reading Gawain, Campbell, the Ramayana, and the Bhagavad Gita recalls many themes from myths I’ve heard before and from myths that have welled up from my subconscious.

Both the Ramayana and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight depict a hero who must battle temptation to maintain purity. Ravana relentlessly tempts Sita to forget her husband and join him in his pleasure banquet. Ravana “glittered in a long robe of silver tissue and was strongly perfumed with red powder of sandalwood” (Anthology A, Ramayana, 1040) so as to test Sita’s fidelity. Lady Bertilak, though not portrayed menacingly as is Ravana, acts as the temptress during Sir Gawain’s stay at her husband’s castle. “Hir thryven face and hir throte throwen al naked, / Hir brest bare bifore, and bihinde eke” (“Her lovely face and throat displayed uncovered, / Her breast was exposed, and her shoulders bare”) (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, James Winny, 97). Lady Bertilak enters Gawain’s chambers three times, taking one, two, and then three kisses from Gawain, who manages to abstain from further activity despite immense desire. Despite temptations, Sita and Gawain both reject – for the most part – advances made on them. (http://www.spellboundsupplies.co.uk/users/www.spellboundsupplies.co.uk/upload/pentacle%20leaves.jpg The pentacle that would have been worn by Gawain as a sign of his order. And it's green too!)

Neither, however, is left completely untainted (Sita may actually be, but Rama believes she is not). Both Gawain and Sita must be absolved from their misdeeds. Sita undergoes ritual purification. “’I shall walk through the fire. And when you see me unscathed you will know that I am innocent’” (Anthology A, Ramayana, 1068). Gawain is absolved by the Green Knight/Bertilak himself. “’I halde hit hardily hole, the harme that I hade. / Thou art confessed so clene, beknowen of thy mysses, / And hatz the penaunce apert of the poynt of myn egge” (“’The wrong you did me I consider wiped out. / You have so cleanly confessed yourself, admitted your fault, / and done honest penance on the edge of my blade’”) (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, James Winny, 135). Campbell writes that this stage of the heroe’s journey signifies his preparation for the return to the world. The hero has dived deeply and must be cleansed before he can bear his boon into the world.

In the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana, and Sir Gawain, a hero’s honor and faith in God are closely linked. Gawain has committed himself to meeting the Green Knight and plans to do so even though it may mean his own death. “If I avoided this place, / Took to my heals in fright, in the way you propose, / I should be a cowardly knight, and could not be excused” (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, James Winny, 121). A knights worth is pinned to his valor and the weight of his word. But he is given courage to push on through faith in the Lord, in this case in Christ, who suffered profound travail. “Though an opponent grim / To deal with club in hand, / His faithful servants God / Knows well how to defend” (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, James Winny, 121). Gawain’s honorable character is summed up by his unwillingness to struggle against a knight who will likely take Gawain’s life; Gawain gave his word that he would not. “’No, by God,’ said Gawain, ‘who gave me a soul, / I shall bear you no grudge at all, whatever hurt comes about’” (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, James Winny, 127). The Bhagavad and the Ramayana depict spiritual battles in which the hero must overcome human doubt and weakness. Rama is distraught with the thought that his wife has loved Ravana, yet he battles on for the sake of honor. “’I have avenged my honour. Your abductor is dead” (Anthology A, Ramayana, 1064), he says despondently to Sita after killing Ravana. Though he feels hopeless, his honor is worthy of defense. Arjuna struggles with what it means to be honorable directly in the face of the divine. Krishna lectures him: “Why give way to unmanliness? O you who are the terror of your enemies! Shake off such shameful effeminacy, make ready to act!” (Bhagavad Gita, Swami, 11). Arjuna fears the consequences of his actions, but finds courage in his spiritual conviction. Honor is at stake, but the divine is there to support if we can access it. (http://www.iloveulove.com/images/krishna1baby.jpg Blue or green? Colors are a theme in Gawain as the knights green is often contrasted with the red of blood and the white of snow. Krishna is our blue god of Hinduism.)

Honor extends beyond actions. True honor is expressed in small tasks, in words, in cordiality and chivalry towards the chambermaid, in posture and comportment throughout one’s days. Honor must be defended at all cost when faith is at stake. Shame belongs not only to those who act waywardly but also to those who hold negative thoughts of what may be honorable. “Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense”: shamed be he who thinks evil of it, of duty, and especially of God. According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, this is the motto of the Order of the Garter, or the order of knights wearing Gawain's green sash. Arthur mandated that soldiers wear a green garter or sash to commemorate Gawain’s adventures with the Green Giant, and this maxim, which ends Gawain’s tale, pertains to Arthur’s knights and the many heroes of other myths.


P.S.
Does this smell like browning?: “With enough malice from the north to torment the ill-clad. / Snow pelted down spitefully… / Choking the valleys” (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, James Winny, 115).

Censorship is Not the Answer

Many aspects of America’s popular culture are repulsive. Any tacit code of morality is stretched by our willingness to explicitly defy it. If all you see is pornography and Jerry Springer, if all you hear is angry metal music and brutalizing rap, and if your only impression of the justice system in America is its attempts to deal with repugnant moral and sexual corruption and violent breeches of individual liberties, then America will appear despicable. But the way in which many of the horrifying aspects of American culture are circulated distorts and abstracts them. Jerry Springer exploits the sexual perversions of participants on his show by painting fantastical portraits of lives in which every feature is founded on debauchery and shame. Jerry Springer does not present people; he directs a theatre of grotesques. This is not America! The fact that participants are not accurately portrayed on these daytime television shows does not change the fact that someone has to be twisted enough to create and perpetuate them, nor does it change the fact that an audience fills its theatre and millions watch from their TV sets at home.


I have never been able to stomach the pain I see in the participants’ lives (I still cannot watch films with gratuitous violence and crudeness – not just because I think it’s destructive, but because I do not enjoy it) but I do not believe this demands full-scale censorship. My distaste is my preference. But a higher preference of mine is not to indiscriminately impress upon others my preferences. This is the argument D’Souza uses to defend the right of Muslims to choose for themselves the type of society they want to create. We can promote democracy in Iraq, but we should not impose American democracy. D’Souza says, “most European countries have democratically chosen to relinquish some of their economic liberties in the interest of economic security. So why can’t Muslim countries choose to give up some of their civil liberties in order to promote civil morality?”6 This is actually a convoluted argument for freedom rather than security. Freedom, not myopia, allows a country to order itself as it would choose. Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” But is choosing security an expression of a sort of meta-liberty? The freedom to choose requires freedom. Franklin’s words are important because if security or moral standards are chosen, they must be implemented in ways that do not utterly restrict individual expression. Therefore I do not advocate for censorship. A Muslim country may democratically decide to implement a code of propriety; I believe there should be space to challenge standards. Without opposition, belief becomes meaningless.

Some opinions and beliefs are better than others – they are more right – and I want to incorporate these beliefs into my belief system. But I believe learning what is better and what is worse is an individual responsibility. A government or community can set the conditions that encourage people to make better choices. That’s what public education is. But no one can ever make another person grow. By watering a plant, we make conditions favorable for that plant to grow; we are not making the plant grow. D’Souza says, “Imposing values through popular assent is what democratic politics is all about.”5 Pragmatically, this may be what democracy has come to. But I do not believe democracy is really about imposition. Ideally, democracy is a process. It is an active arena in which ideas and values can compete. Some values are inevitably going to “win,” but it is anathema do assume that this means opposing ideas should thus be censored.

I agree with D’Souza when he says, “Pornography promotes a trivialization and dishonesty about sex that is unhealthy for human development.”1 But I also believe firmly that limiting freedoms inhibits both the growth of individuals and society and their potentials for manifesting greater happiness. Censorship is not the answer. Censhorship “does not protect victims from predators so much as it regulates an illicit market that cannot be suppressed but can be kept underground.”2 A central question of censorship is, Who is doing the censoring? Why do some people have the right to squash the opinions of others, and what motive other than power and greed does anyone have to enlist himself as censorer? “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”4 How can censorship be justified?

Some argue that a society has the right to censor values that would undermine that society. All societies have values. Inevitably some people will have opposing values. But silencing the dissenters halts growth and deflates meaning because “[a]ll silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”3 Most great ideas throughout history have emerged in opposition to common beliefs. Imagine if Copernicus’ ideas had not survived. He was harshly ridiculed, yet today it is impossible to imagine living in an earth-centric universe. Abolition was staunchly resisted in part because there was no model upon which to base a society without slavery. Imagine the many beliefs common in the world today – in Iraq and in the United States – that will be utterly obsolete a century from now. I suppose that’s one reason to favor censorship: my beliefs, the ones that are so great just because they are mine, will continue to dominate. A genuine vision for the future of the human race incorporates the right to dissent.

In conclusion, censorship is dangerous. Although I do not condone the behavior and morals prevalent in much of American popular culture – what is apparently our international image, I find censorship to be even more distasteful. As the lesser of four evils, vote Candidate D. His proposition of “limited censorship of sex and violence in popular culture multimedia” does not entail the imposition of his beliefs. Rather, D is actually advocating for regulation, not downright censorship. In order for a plant to grow, some conditions must be favorable.




1. Dinesh D’Souza, The Enemy at Home (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 127.
2. Ethan A. Nadelman, “The Case for Legalization,” in Today’s Moral Issues, ed. Daniel Bonevac (New York: McGraw Hill, 2006), 174.
3. John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty,” in Today’s Moral Issues, ed. Daniel Bonevac (New York: McGraw Hill, 2006), 148.
4. Ibid., 148.
5. D’Souza, 189.
6. Ibid., 262.

Clearly, We Are Responsible for 9/11

I think it should be mandatory that all college students read a book antithetical to his or her professed beliefs about the world and the way it should be. Lately, with the help of D’Souza and his The Enemy at Home, many of my beliefs have disintegrated. My response to many problems is unreasoned, arbitrary, and fickle. My reactions are instinctual. In fact, one of my strongest intellectual beliefs at the moment is that I don’t believe I really have any, none that might not blow away in tomorrow’s wind.


(When I heard D'Souza speak last semester I felt a bit like I'd been flattened by a steam roller. He is so persuasive and confident that I, with mostly inchoate beliefs, had difficulty holding onto my beliefs and measuring them against the ones he presented.) D’Souza is immensely and frighteningly convincing. The meat of his arguments appear valid. I do believe that in many ways what he calls the “decadent American culture,” which – as he tirelessly emphasizes – “the cultural left has fostered”1 is responsible for American resentment in the Middle East. Our societal standards are very different from those of Muslim societies, and “we should always be aware of the blinders that ethnocentrism places on our minds.”2 We broadcast vulgar television shows, such as Jerry Springer, which exploit the plight of many sad and unfortunate people. We place utmost emphasis on freedom of expression and the right of the individual to be autonomous. (Yes, just as was pointed out today in class, my words are filled with gross generalizations. I will refrain from making them only long to acknowledge that I will continue to make them.) According to D’Souza, America is still largely Christian. “The real story of America should be entitled ‘How This Christian Country Has Become an Even More Christian Country.”3 But he also declares that most Americans are only nominally Christian. Islam is the only of the three great monotheistic religions that still believes. And does it ever. The Qur’an prescribes all facets of life to be dictated by God and religion. In America, liberals and most conservatives cherish our separation of church and state. It is a victory for liberal democracy, a victory that should be shared with the rest of the world. But Muslims do not desire this. This goes against all that governs their lives. (“Unlike many Christians, who have multiple idenities only one of which is that they happen to be Christian, Muslims typically regard their religion as central to both private and public identity, and consider all other affiliations as secondary or derivative.” 4) Many Muslims would prefer it if America was more Christian than it is. As D’Souza fiercely explains, Muslims are disgusted with our moral values (or, in their view, lack there of). Radical Muslims do not hate our freedom or our new technology or even our democracy. Many advocate for democracy because with democracy they see an opportunity to gain political power. Radicals have depended on technology to orchestrate their growing regimes, for international communication, to build weapons, and carry out terrorist attacks. They do not even hate freedom. They hate OUR freedom, which they do not perceive as freedom at all but depravity.

And even if many Muslims despise American culture, they are not enraged to violence simply because our values are different from theirs. What enrages them is the fact that we are pressing our values onto their world. This raises a very interesting question. What is our right to meddle in the business of others? (The declaration of cultural relativism. Inevitably, inaction and existentialist malaise take over if this doctrine is driven to its extremes. So how do we reconcile the truth that everyone has certain natural rights with the truth that what we perceive to be human rights may be cultural constructions? How can we learn to step beyond our ethnocentrism and see what are culturally relative factors and what truly are universals? We must learn to be aware of cultural propensities, especially when manipulating international ordeals.) Do we move into a country that promotes perspectives of human life radically different from our own, yet lives peaceably and without interfering with other countries? It seems we ought not to. But what if there is internal turmoil, such as a civil war. Or what if a majority of traditionalists stringently maintains power over a newly developing body of progressives, which more closely agree with our ideals. How far do we go in this case? What if there is harsh repression by a dictatorial regime, who couldn’t be happier with the position they’re in. Should we intervene? Is it our responsibility? Their right? Does a people have rights to rights that their culture has never before espoused. Does a culture that believes its value structures to be better, more fare, than another’s have the right to push this structure on others?

What if, as D’Souza claims, one country is trying to push its progressive values on a traditional culture that does not want its society restructured? It seems as though the cruelty of some of the despotic regimes in our world day is innately evil. There is no question, torture, undue violence and suppression seem to be universal evils. But many such oppressed people are utterly certain that they do not want the liberal values that come with an American liberation.

D’Souza stresses that “America’s ideals and its interests are not identical.”5 By this he means that American do not really want all the freedoms for radical Muslims that they are proposing. Releasing dangerous, detained potential terrorists threatens American security. We do not want the extremists to gain more power; that would be devastating to the world as we know it. But this line insinuates something deeper. D’Souza writes extensively about religious discrimination in America under the name of religious equality. If Americans allow the public display of many diverse belief systems, why is religion so taboo? “One’s right to espouse a belief system does not require every institution of government… to abstain form supporting a different set of views.”6 For example, “if the government puts up a monument to Abraham Lincoln, is it violating the freedom of those who detest Lincoln? It would seem not.”7 D’Souza cleverly points out that hypocrisy espoused by freedom-seeking progressive institutions. Everyone is equal and has equal rights until they disagree with me. D’Souza argues that religious people are being discriminated against here in America because so many have gained the right to express their beliefs, while religious people – he means Christians – have lost theirs.

The meat of D’Souza’s arguments are well supported and very well argued. It is his bias and his conclusions I disagree with. So say it is indeed true that liberals, liberal pop culture in particular, are responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. (A map of the countries from which al-Queda received financial support between 2004 and 2006. Terrorism takes very little money, and it seems as though once the terrorist impulse is engendered it is impossible to halt it. Terrorism must be stopped at its roots. What does this entail for our interactions with Muslim countries?) In what way does this convince liberals that they are wrong? I do not believe this will convince liberals to become more conservative. Being at the front edge of evolution requires being ostracized by the vast majority (not that our disgusting cultural displays are at the cutting edge of morality). Just because Muslims define progress as going back to the eleventh century when their empire was at its height does not mean that we will ever be able to agree. Conversely, does progress entail the recent developments in American society? And how far does cultural relativism go to explain the inability of our differences to be reconciled?


1. Dinesh D’Souza, The Enemy at Home (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 2.
2. Ibid,. 68.
3. Ibid., 186.
4. Ibid., 82.
5. Ibid., 43.
6. Ibid., 187.
7. Ibid., 187.

David Mamet

(David Mamet)
Mamet’s interviewer did not wait to jump into the meat of Mamet’s inspiration. Immediately upon being seated in his large armchair he asked Mamet, “So what made you become a story teller? Was there some book or relative in your life that really inspired you?” Without hesitation, Mamet proclaimed, “I’m a Jew. Jews have been telling stories for thousands of years. That’s what we do. The first really good story we told we called the Torah.” Though he never really smiled or chuckled, Mamet seemed to enjoy consternating his interviewer with such flippant responses.

Mamet’s words that have most stuck with me:
Mamet quoted this line from some religious teacher, possibly a prophet, possibly the Prophet. “I am going to give you two teachers: one of them will be a speaking teacher; the other will be a silent teacher. The speaking teacher is the Qur’an. The silent teacher will be death.” He drew an analogy between these religious “teachers” and teachers of the stage. He said, In play writing, the audience is the speaking teacher. The blank piece of paper is the silent teacher.

(Flippant Mamet still flippant as cartoon)
Here, Mamet actually quotes an article written by his interviewer:
“There’s no such thing as a good poet. The poets who have not yet completed their poem are failed poets. The poets who have are ex-poets.”

Mamet was also adamant about conciseness. If there is any doubt, any doubt at all, throw the word, the line, the act out. Just throw it out! It’s like flying. If there’s any doubt about the plane’s ability to fly, don’t fly. The interviewer told the audience that while looking through Mamet’s memoirs he found a script that Mamet had rewritten twenty-six times. What’s more, the play never even made it to the stage. You just have to suffer heart break sometimes, said Mamet.

Contemplative Islam

Reading the Qur’an has been edifying. I now actually know a bit of what it says, rather than what Christians say it says or what the radio correspondents and TV anchors say it says. Cultural awareness aside, the most fascinating aspect of the Qur’an is its mystical claims, the room it leaves for mystical interpretation. There are many instances in which passages from the Qur’an might easily be transcribed from Buddhist or Hindu texts. First of all, the Qur’an advocates that a Muslim community be “a community of the middle path” (The Qur’an and Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, Qur’an 2:143, p 129). (The Buddha, sitting in lotus position, advocated an eight-fold path, the key to which was finding the middle way. Meditation was the essential practice through which he arrived at his realization or Nirvana. Is it possible that Muhammad sat in this same posture?) Allah does not approve of extreme behavior in either direction. Even in the prescribed law codes there is room for leniency on many issues because human beings inevitably encounter harsh and unforeseen circumstances in which they are forced, out of necessity, to behave in opposition to code. Modesty is a core attribute of Islam; some commentators even suggest that it is the meaning of Islam. Guatama Buddha taught very similar ideals only in a different context. He exemplified the middle way and life lived modestly. These are ideals upon which most traditions the world over agree.

But the deep mystical ties between sayings from the Qur’an and Buddhism, mystical Hinduism, contemplative Christianity, or any other mystical tradition go deeper. (I don’t know much about Sufism, but I imagine it was not difficult for Sufis to derive their mystical tenets from the Qur’an.) Sohaib N. Sultan, who annotated The Qur’an and Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, writes that spiritual vitality relies on inward contemplation. He says, “Your spiritual devotion must begin with reflection, for it is in the reflection of divine signs that you will discover an intimate relationship with God’s beautiful attributes. It is interesting to consider that Prophet Muhammad’s own journey toward God began not with revelation, but with nights of deep reflection, meditation, and contemplation…. ‘Reflection is the lamp of the heart; if it is abandoned the heart will have no light’” (Sohaib N. Sultan, The Qur’an and Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, p 88). Here, Muhammad’s pre-revelation practice sounds very similar to that of Jesus, who spent forty days and forty nights fasting and meditating alone in the dessert, struggling to find pure awareness of the divine. (A depiction of Jesus during his forty day revelatory stint in the dessert.) “Muhammad’s peak defining experience, called the Meraj, saw him elevated through the seven heavens to the realm of God Almighty” (http://www.sol.com/au/kor/22_02.htm, Anthology B, p 321). This sounds remarkably similar to Gautama Buddha’s realization under the Boddhi tree. He described his elevation through the seven chakras until his ultimate realization of divine union. Mother Theresa used Biblical terminology to convey her own progression, speaking of the seven temples of the body. Muhammad’s experience seems like many of the realizations had by the world’s great mystics and sages.

It is very interesting to note the developments of certain traditions once its founder has had such a realization. Christianity forever banned any other human being from ever having an experience of divine union. Buddhists and Hindus (not all?) advocate practices – yogas – by which realization of Godhead in self can be achieved. Islam seems to slide back and forth between the two extremes. On the one hand, the Qur’an (Ali’s translation) uses terms such as “God conscious” (Trans: Ali, The Qur’an and Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, Qur’an 29:83, p 85) to describe a way of life and internal human states. This is very similar to Hindu terminology – Brahman and Atman are one. But on the other hand, Islamic history has discredited any individuals who have made claims of divine identity. Even Muhammad did not attain this status; he is merely a prophet or messenger. Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet and a great teacher who did receive divine wisdom, but they do not believe that he was, as Christians claim, the Son of God. They tease apart these two aspects of Christian doctrine without troubling about it. “The career of Sabbatai Sevi, a Jew who considered himself the Messiah, is a perfect illustration of Ottoman pragmatism. When he toured the Jewish communities of the Ottoman world gathering adherents and outraging the Jewish establishment with his mystic utterances and scandalous decrees, the Ottomans ignored him” (Goodwin, Anthology B, p 329-330). Claims to Godhead do not seem to be taken seriously by these Muslims. If these claims are not a problem, then are they not even a remote possibility either?

(Dance and passionate movement are essential mystical practices of Suffism, a branch of Islam. Here are the Whirling Dervishes, a group of ecstatic dancers spinning toward that moment of divine union.)
Yet “[m]any Sufis (and other mystics in other religions) seek a spiritual union between themselves and the divine principle” (http://www.sol.com/au/kor/22_02.htm, Anthology B, p 322). So how do we reconcile these two principles? Need they be reconciled? Or are they simply different, mutually compatible levels of interpretation fed by Qur’anic wisdom? Many other passages from the Qur’an indicate much less lenient and much more mythic, Salvationist messages. “[P]erhaps the [Final] [sic] Hour is near!” (The Qur’an and Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, Qur’an 33:63, p 75). This is a cry for action. Mystically, the final hour is always near. Unfortunately this alternative reading is swept away: “Rather, truly righteous are those who believe in God and the last day, and the angels and the scriptures, and the prophets…” (The Qur’an and Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, Qur’an 2:177, 59). This seems to be about as clear cut, literal, and mythic as religious scriptures come. The implications of such belief cannot easily be predicted, but they are being played out in our world for all of us to see first hand. Is there such a thing as being right? We are in a battle of perspectives.