Francis Berger's Blog, page 155
May 29, 2019
Someone Please Call The United Kingdom and Tell Them to Take Their Weather Back
May in rain is worth gold.
This is common expression here in Hungary, and if there is any truth in it, then this little landlocked country has been experiencing the Midas touch and will soon become the richest country on the planet.
It has rained nearly every day here for the past month. I can literally count the number of sunny days in May on one hand. Though I do not normally grumble about the weather, my bucket is nearly full, so to speak. The gloomy overcast sky is one thing, but the now seemingly perpetual precipitation has gone beyond being a minor inconvenience to being a major nuisance.
For example, the rain prevented me from cutting the grass (actually weeds and wildflowers) for nearly three weeks. When I finally had the chance to wheel the old lawnmower out, I was confronted by thirty-centimeter high vegetation. It took me nearly three hours to mow the lawn (more like a varied association of stinging nettles, dandelions, bindweed, couch, green alkanet, poppies, and an assortment of other weeds and flowers I am unfamiliar with). To put the experience into perspective, it usually takes me an hour to cut the grass. However, cutting the grass last week was akin to carving a pioneer trail through the virgin Canadian wilderness armed with nothing but a dull plastic spatula.
The weather we have been experiencing here lately has reminded me of the weather I experienced when I lived in Morpeth, England in 2014 – 2015. Strange as it sounds, the wet weather and overcast skies did not bother me when I lived in England, but they are driving me crazy over here in Hungary. In light of this, I beg those living in the United Kingdom to call their weather back to heel and summon it back across the English Channel where it belongs, far from the eastern periphery of Mitteleuropa, which should have been basking in sunshine weeks ago.
This is common expression here in Hungary, and if there is any truth in it, then this little landlocked country has been experiencing the Midas touch and will soon become the richest country on the planet.
It has rained nearly every day here for the past month. I can literally count the number of sunny days in May on one hand. Though I do not normally grumble about the weather, my bucket is nearly full, so to speak. The gloomy overcast sky is one thing, but the now seemingly perpetual precipitation has gone beyond being a minor inconvenience to being a major nuisance.
For example, the rain prevented me from cutting the grass (actually weeds and wildflowers) for nearly three weeks. When I finally had the chance to wheel the old lawnmower out, I was confronted by thirty-centimeter high vegetation. It took me nearly three hours to mow the lawn (more like a varied association of stinging nettles, dandelions, bindweed, couch, green alkanet, poppies, and an assortment of other weeds and flowers I am unfamiliar with). To put the experience into perspective, it usually takes me an hour to cut the grass. However, cutting the grass last week was akin to carving a pioneer trail through the virgin Canadian wilderness armed with nothing but a dull plastic spatula.
The weather we have been experiencing here lately has reminded me of the weather I experienced when I lived in Morpeth, England in 2014 – 2015. Strange as it sounds, the wet weather and overcast skies did not bother me when I lived in England, but they are driving me crazy over here in Hungary. In light of this, I beg those living in the United Kingdom to call their weather back to heel and summon it back across the English Channel where it belongs, far from the eastern periphery of Mitteleuropa, which should have been basking in sunshine weeks ago.
May 28, 2019
Woman Carrying Faggot
Faggot meaning a bundle of sticks of course. This Mihály Munkácsy painting is among the most reproduced paintings in Hungary and can be found in many homes and state buildings. The original title - Rőzsehordo nő - literally translates to Woman Carrying Faggot.
I am no fan of the language police, but I wish the fine people who translate and print the titles of artworks and books from other languages would take a moment to consider the possible negative connotations of certain words in English - not in an effort to defend certain politically correct sensitivities, but rather to avoid tarnishing a work of art with modern, offensive slang meanings. I mean, just imagine what the average, unsophisticated modern person pictures in their minds when they hear the English title of this painting. On second thought, perhaps it's best not to imagine that at all.
In any event, this iconic painting ranks among Munkácsy's best known works. I am rather fond of it myself. What I admire about the depiction of this peasant woman carrying her bundle of sticks is Munkácsy's seeming refusal to over-romanticize. I have a soft spot in my heart for paintings depicting agrarian and pastoral scenes; however, overtly idealistic depictions of peasants, shepherds, and rural life tend to leave me cold. Luckily, Munkácsy does not indulge in such idealism in this painting. The woman he paints here is strong and healthy, but the expression on her face as she sits resting in the forest reveals a life of hard work and toil. It is not an expression of defeat or suffering, but rather of quiet contemplation during a moment of reprieve from the seemingly endless flow of physical labor marking her life.
Rőzsehordó nő (Translated as Woman Carrying Faggot) . Mihály Munkácsy - 1873
I am no fan of the language police, but I wish the fine people who translate and print the titles of artworks and books from other languages would take a moment to consider the possible negative connotations of certain words in English - not in an effort to defend certain politically correct sensitivities, but rather to avoid tarnishing a work of art with modern, offensive slang meanings. I mean, just imagine what the average, unsophisticated modern person pictures in their minds when they hear the English title of this painting. On second thought, perhaps it's best not to imagine that at all.
In any event, this iconic painting ranks among Munkácsy's best known works. I am rather fond of it myself. What I admire about the depiction of this peasant woman carrying her bundle of sticks is Munkácsy's seeming refusal to over-romanticize. I have a soft spot in my heart for paintings depicting agrarian and pastoral scenes; however, overtly idealistic depictions of peasants, shepherds, and rural life tend to leave me cold. Luckily, Munkácsy does not indulge in such idealism in this painting. The woman he paints here is strong and healthy, but the expression on her face as she sits resting in the forest reveals a life of hard work and toil. It is not an expression of defeat or suffering, but rather of quiet contemplation during a moment of reprieve from the seemingly endless flow of physical labor marking her life.
Rőzsehordó nő (Translated as Woman Carrying Faggot) . Mihály Munkácsy - 1873
May 27, 2019
Be Wary of the Feigned Retreat
We have to remember our current war is essentially spiritual in nature. Though the battles we witness seem to occur squarely in the material realm, the spiritual dimension underpins them all. With this in mind, we must remember never to grow complacent or careless when it appears we have won a battle or have driven the enemy into retreat. After all, not all retreat is real retreat and not all surrender is real surrender.
The feigned retreat is an ancient battle tactic. Sun Tzu mentions it in his Art of War. The Spartans used it at the battle of Thermopylae. William the Conqueror used it, not once but twice, at Hastings. The tactic relies on appearing to surrender a position and pretending to retreat in order to lure the enemy into what seems like a position of dominance, but is in reality a position of vulnerability. The tactic is extremely difficult to implement and requires an immense amount of skill and discipline. However, if executed effectively, the feigned retreat can inflict devastating damage on opponents.
The genius behind the feigned retreat lies in a fundamental understanding of human nature. When an army senses it is getting the upper hand in a battle and is effectively trouncing its opposition, it sees any opening the enemy offers as a chance to inflict the kill shot and end the battle.
Spurred on by the adrenaline rush of apparent victory in plain sight, the attacking army allows emotions to get the better of it. Fueled on by the jubilation of winning, the attacking army becomes undisciplined and careless. It may break formation, reveal its weak spots, and cease listening to its commanders as it enthusiastically pursues what it perceives to be an enemy in flight. Unaware of the trap that has been set, the attacking army is both emotionally and physically overwhelmed when, instead of sealing a sure victory, they encounter what an expected, formidable, and often fatal counter strike.
Feigned retreats exist in spiritual warfare as well, so we must remember to keep our wits and emotions in check whenever we see our enemy retreat before us. We must ask ourselves the following question - Have we truly defeated them in battle or are they merely attempting to lure us into a position of vulnerability?
One factor to take into consideration is time. Physical battles tend to have certain time constraints. Spiritual battles know no such boundaries. A feigned retreat in a physical battle is immediate and instantaneous, lasting minutes or hours. A feigned retreat in a spiritual battle can last weeks, months, years, decades, perhaps even centuries. In light of this, we must remember never to be smug, proud, or complacent when presented with apparent victory. Even if we retake conquered territory and hold it successfully for years, we must remain vigilant and leave open the possibility that our victory might be nothing more than a feigned retreat and we have occupied what amounts to little more than a well-laid trap. Though we may seem secure in victory, our enemy may actually be biding their time, taking notes, and finalizing plans for their eventual counter strike.
This is by no means meant to inspire paranoia or instill a defeatist attitude. In the end, light will conquer darkness, but until then there will be many casualties. One way to avoid becoming a casualty is to remain aware of the feigned retreat tactic and to recognize it whenever it is implemented against you.
As an example of the feigned retreat tactic, I have taken a scene from my novel in which Viktor Vilinovich, Budapest’s reigning crime boss, decides to implement the tactic in an effort to discover the true identities of the forces conspiring against him. If you feel so inclined, I invite you to read the excerpt below, which presents both the physical and spiritual dimension of the feigned retreat tactic.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
He had worked hard to get to where he was – he was unwilling to lose any of it to anyone at any price. He knew that if he gave up even the smallest portion of the empire he had worked so hard to create, it would render those early, ugly, cold years meaningless. It was unthinkable. Yet, as he stood before the window watching the snow fall, Vilinovich considered the unthinkable and began making plans for a small retreat.
Forces were conspiring against him in Budapest. Small, disorganized armies assembled along the edges of his empire. The first round of cannon fire had already shaken the walls of his fortress. Vilinovich’s first impulse had been to fight them, but his life under communism had taught him about the foolishness of such rash actions. The best thing to do was fall back, feign a retreat without so much as a counter strike.
After he withdrew, the hostile forces would fool themselves into thinking they had defeated him and would step out into the open to celebrate their victory. He would watch them pillage and divvy up the small portion of his empire he had relinquished. As they enjoyed the spoils of his hard-earned empire, they would grow smug and careless. This would give Vilinovich a chance to see and determine just who his enemies really were. Once he had taken down the names, he would wait until the enemy became complacent. Then, when enough time had passed, he would surprise them all by striking back.
He would be ruthless. Merciless. He would reconquer his lost territory, and exterminate every person who had dared to challenge his authority. But in order for it all to come about, he had to give up a small piece of his empire first. The idea of it was unbearable. He had worked too hard. Come too far. But as he stood staring out at the ugly snowfall, Viktor Vilinovich knew there could be no other way.
The feigned retreat is an ancient battle tactic. Sun Tzu mentions it in his Art of War. The Spartans used it at the battle of Thermopylae. William the Conqueror used it, not once but twice, at Hastings. The tactic relies on appearing to surrender a position and pretending to retreat in order to lure the enemy into what seems like a position of dominance, but is in reality a position of vulnerability. The tactic is extremely difficult to implement and requires an immense amount of skill and discipline. However, if executed effectively, the feigned retreat can inflict devastating damage on opponents.
The genius behind the feigned retreat lies in a fundamental understanding of human nature. When an army senses it is getting the upper hand in a battle and is effectively trouncing its opposition, it sees any opening the enemy offers as a chance to inflict the kill shot and end the battle.
Spurred on by the adrenaline rush of apparent victory in plain sight, the attacking army allows emotions to get the better of it. Fueled on by the jubilation of winning, the attacking army becomes undisciplined and careless. It may break formation, reveal its weak spots, and cease listening to its commanders as it enthusiastically pursues what it perceives to be an enemy in flight. Unaware of the trap that has been set, the attacking army is both emotionally and physically overwhelmed when, instead of sealing a sure victory, they encounter what an expected, formidable, and often fatal counter strike.
Feigned retreats exist in spiritual warfare as well, so we must remember to keep our wits and emotions in check whenever we see our enemy retreat before us. We must ask ourselves the following question - Have we truly defeated them in battle or are they merely attempting to lure us into a position of vulnerability?
One factor to take into consideration is time. Physical battles tend to have certain time constraints. Spiritual battles know no such boundaries. A feigned retreat in a physical battle is immediate and instantaneous, lasting minutes or hours. A feigned retreat in a spiritual battle can last weeks, months, years, decades, perhaps even centuries. In light of this, we must remember never to be smug, proud, or complacent when presented with apparent victory. Even if we retake conquered territory and hold it successfully for years, we must remain vigilant and leave open the possibility that our victory might be nothing more than a feigned retreat and we have occupied what amounts to little more than a well-laid trap. Though we may seem secure in victory, our enemy may actually be biding their time, taking notes, and finalizing plans for their eventual counter strike.
This is by no means meant to inspire paranoia or instill a defeatist attitude. In the end, light will conquer darkness, but until then there will be many casualties. One way to avoid becoming a casualty is to remain aware of the feigned retreat tactic and to recognize it whenever it is implemented against you.
As an example of the feigned retreat tactic, I have taken a scene from my novel in which Viktor Vilinovich, Budapest’s reigning crime boss, decides to implement the tactic in an effort to discover the true identities of the forces conspiring against him. If you feel so inclined, I invite you to read the excerpt below, which presents both the physical and spiritual dimension of the feigned retreat tactic.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
He had worked hard to get to where he was – he was unwilling to lose any of it to anyone at any price. He knew that if he gave up even the smallest portion of the empire he had worked so hard to create, it would render those early, ugly, cold years meaningless. It was unthinkable. Yet, as he stood before the window watching the snow fall, Vilinovich considered the unthinkable and began making plans for a small retreat.
Forces were conspiring against him in Budapest. Small, disorganized armies assembled along the edges of his empire. The first round of cannon fire had already shaken the walls of his fortress. Vilinovich’s first impulse had been to fight them, but his life under communism had taught him about the foolishness of such rash actions. The best thing to do was fall back, feign a retreat without so much as a counter strike.
After he withdrew, the hostile forces would fool themselves into thinking they had defeated him and would step out into the open to celebrate their victory. He would watch them pillage and divvy up the small portion of his empire he had relinquished. As they enjoyed the spoils of his hard-earned empire, they would grow smug and careless. This would give Vilinovich a chance to see and determine just who his enemies really were. Once he had taken down the names, he would wait until the enemy became complacent. Then, when enough time had passed, he would surprise them all by striking back.
He would be ruthless. Merciless. He would reconquer his lost territory, and exterminate every person who had dared to challenge his authority. But in order for it all to come about, he had to give up a small piece of his empire first. The idea of it was unbearable. He had worked too hard. Come too far. But as he stood staring out at the ugly snowfall, Viktor Vilinovich knew there could be no other way.
May 26, 2019
Why Did I Bother to Salvage These Books?
I categorize the books on my shelves into two broad but distinct categories: books I have purchased and books I have found. Books I have purchased are either books I really wanted or books I needed for some university course or other. Books I have found are a hodgepodge collection of titles I salvaged mostly from New York City dustbins and curbsides where stumbling across entire collections of books left on a street corner is quite common. Some of the books I found in New York are treasures – Goethe’s Italian Journey, Wheelock’s Latin, a hardcover edition of David Copperfield, a collection of poems by Coleridge. Others, not so much.
I took a good, hard look at my bookshelf today and asked myself why I even bothered salvaging the seven hardcover Tom Clancy novels I had noticed in a neat stack on the corner of 32nd Street and Ditmars in Astoria, Queens nine years ago. I have had all seven for nearly a decade, but I have never even considered opening one, and I very much doubt I ever will read any of them. Yet there they are – a row of massive, bulky rectangles lined up on the shelf next to my desk. And Tom Clancy is but the tip of the iceberg. Here is a brief list of other questionable books I picked up somewhere in the past and took home with me under the delusion that I might one day read them:Five Acres and Independence, M.G KairnsCancer Free!The God Delusion, Richard DawkinsThe Portable Atheist, Christopher HitchensThe Girl Who Kicked People in the Face (or whatever the exact titles of Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy are).Stitch n Bitch: The Complete Knitter’s HandbookRonald Reagan: An American LifeHow to Make the Stock Market Make Money for YouMargaret Thatcher: The Path to PowerThe Complete Guide to Import/ExportAbout 100 Harlequin romances not even my wife will touchEisenhower at WarA half-dozen novels by Robert LudlumThe Secret Lives of John LennonThe Window Style Book
And at least fifty other titles I will likely never, ever read. Well, I may glance at the atheist books just to get a feel for the arguments, and I could read a Ludlum book in the summer sometime, but somehow I just cannot foresee myself ever settling down into a chair to flip through The Window Style Book.
If I still lived in America or Canada, I would try to sell these books, or I would simply give them to some charity shop, but I live in Hungary now, which means Eat to Beat Cancer and Hammer! by Armand Hammer will probably stay on my shelves until I die.
I took a good, hard look at my bookshelf today and asked myself why I even bothered salvaging the seven hardcover Tom Clancy novels I had noticed in a neat stack on the corner of 32nd Street and Ditmars in Astoria, Queens nine years ago. I have had all seven for nearly a decade, but I have never even considered opening one, and I very much doubt I ever will read any of them. Yet there they are – a row of massive, bulky rectangles lined up on the shelf next to my desk. And Tom Clancy is but the tip of the iceberg. Here is a brief list of other questionable books I picked up somewhere in the past and took home with me under the delusion that I might one day read them:Five Acres and Independence, M.G KairnsCancer Free!The God Delusion, Richard DawkinsThe Portable Atheist, Christopher HitchensThe Girl Who Kicked People in the Face (or whatever the exact titles of Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy are).Stitch n Bitch: The Complete Knitter’s HandbookRonald Reagan: An American LifeHow to Make the Stock Market Make Money for YouMargaret Thatcher: The Path to PowerThe Complete Guide to Import/ExportAbout 100 Harlequin romances not even my wife will touchEisenhower at WarA half-dozen novels by Robert LudlumThe Secret Lives of John LennonThe Window Style Book
And at least fifty other titles I will likely never, ever read. Well, I may glance at the atheist books just to get a feel for the arguments, and I could read a Ludlum book in the summer sometime, but somehow I just cannot foresee myself ever settling down into a chair to flip through The Window Style Book.
If I still lived in America or Canada, I would try to sell these books, or I would simply give them to some charity shop, but I live in Hungary now, which means Eat to Beat Cancer and Hammer! by Armand Hammer will probably stay on my shelves until I die.
May 24, 2019
Rivers of Poppies Flow Through the Fields
Poppy Field - 1896 - Pál Merse Szinyei (1845-1920) Rivers of red poppies have begun to flow through the landscape surrounding my village. In some places, their delicate petals merely fleck the now verdant landscape, but in other spots they gather together and flood the fields with long, winding, fluvial lines. Under a slight breeze the red rivers come to life and silently flow through the fields toward the horizon where they tumble from the edge of the earth and empty their red into the setting sun.
May 23, 2019
Ye Cannot Serve Two Masters - Some (Half-Formed) Personal Interpretations
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
Located most prominently in the Gospel of Matthew, this is perhaps one of Jesus’s most famous sayings. I am skeptical of many verses in the Gospel of Matthew, but consider the basic message contained in this expression to be vital. Many analyses and interpretations of this verse can be found in books and online, ranging from every possible perspective including straightforward discussion to detailed linguistic/etymological deconstructions.
Hence, my goal here will not be to provide a detailed and comprehensive overview of this verse, but rather to set down a few simple ideas presenting my own personal intuitive understanding of what serving two masters implies. None of what I offer in the following should be considered definitive in any sense of the world. These are my intuitions based on my own personal experiences and should be taken as such.
To me, two masters comes down to a matter of thinking. The verse challenges the limits of imagination. For example, serving a master implies anything but freedom and agency, yet serving the proper master is the epitome of freedom and agency itself.
To begin with, it is worth noting that this gospel verse has become a common idiom. As such, it has been mixed in with other vernacular idioms used in common speech. As a result, the sanctity of the original verse has been either severely distorted or entirely removed. Though likely ignorant of or indifferent to its source, most modern atheistic/materialistic people do use the phrase and can dimly acknowledge the wisdom contained in the warning against simultaneously serving two masters. However, when God is removed from the expression, the idiom is reduced to the mere level of divided loyalties, conflicting pursuits, and contradictory responsibilities.
Serving two masters means something entirely different to atheists/materialists. For positivistic, materialistic, reductionist types, the division between two masters never amounts to conflicting loyalties between God and mammon, but manifest more as a conflict between mammon and mammon or one of its various guises such as hedonism and mammon or sloth and mammon. As a result, what the non-religious perceive as a conflict between two masters is really more of an internal conflict between two aspects of the same single master – materialism. To their credit, people who serve mammon have at least made a decision, and they are unlikely to experience the same sorts of torments as those who attempt to serve both God and mammon simultaneously.
Christians, on the other hand, should be able to draw a clear distinction between the two masters Jesus mentions and also sense and understand why only one can truly exist as a master. At the most elementary level, I see this distinction as the difference between the spiritual and the material; and the metaphysical and the physical; as well the difference between subject and object; freedom and slavery.
Human beings are hybrid blends of the spiritual and the material. As such, we have metaphysical as well as physical needs. Voluntarily choosing to serve spiritual needs above material needs is not a matter of blindly nullifying, denying, or obstructing physical needs, but rather a matter of aligning our physical needs with our metaphysical needs by giving the spiritual precedence over the material. In this sense, the spiritual guides and controls the physical.
Ranking the spiritual over the material does not imply the material is unimportant, trivial, or unnecessary. Nor does it mean the material is inherently evil, mundane, or profane. Serving the spiritual rather than the material does not negate the material of its significance and necessity in this life.
Instead, serving the spiritual provides the proper framework through which one engages with and interacts with the material world by rendering the material to the position of something that serves the individual and God in this life rather than something the individual and God must serve in this life.
In this life is crucial here because our lives in this world mark the boundaries of the material world, whereas our lives outside this world know no such boundaries. The old saying, "You can't take it with you" takes on a significant level of profundity here because it reveals where your real focus should lie.
As I mentioned earlier, most modern people focus exclusively on physical needs because they are utterly oblivious to, willfully ignorant of, or purposefully opposed to their inherent metaphysical needs. Whatever the reason, mammon is the only master most modern people serve.
Modern Christians are sometimes no better than their secular/materialist counterparts. Many modern Christians claim to serve God, but in practice serve mammon. This stems from a lack of purpose or errant motivations, but I also feel many Christians consciously attempt to serve both mammon and God. I believe this happens because they misinterpret the wisdom Jesus reveals in the two masters saying and comprehend God in the same manner in which they comprehend mammon – as an external object.
Seen this way, God becomes a remote and ruthless ruler existing only to punish sin and prevent pleasure. Serving such a God becomes untenable and is tantamount to slavery. When confronted by such a God, it is little wonder Christians attempt to serve mammon as well.
Conversely, some Christians believe the two masters verse reveals the material world to be evil/fallen. If the material world is fallen/evil, then a Christian must shun and detest the material world by embracing God through some extreme form of asceticism. I am not averse to the notion of asceticism and believe it can be a valuable tool in spiritual growth, but I do not think the ultimate goal of Christianity is universal worldly asceticism. If our true purpose in this world amounted to nothing more denying or hating the world, we would not have come into the world at all.
The way I see it, our purpose in this world should provide the foundation for the wisdom contained in the two masters verse. True spiritual purpose emanates only from the Divine Self. The Divine Self is God within. Serving God does not entail perpetually bowing before altars and perpetual penance. Serving God entails serving your Divine Self. It is a matter of immanence as much as it is a matter of transcendence. Serving your Divine Self implies working with and being useful for in order to achieve, participate, and create.
Serving your Divine Self amounts to aligning yourself to God’s will in an effort to allow your purpose to manifest in the world. Seen in this light, God and the Divine Self exist in the realm of subjects (Beings) while mammon exists only in the realm of objects (things).
When you serve God, you create a situation where objects exist to serve subjects. For example, you use your physical body (this is not mammon in the strict sense of the word, but I interpret mammon to mean the material) to serve your Divine Self – to help it learn and experience, achieve its purpose, and, enter into a collaborative creative state with God. I would classify this as positive motivation.
When you serve mammon, you create a situation where subjects exist to serve objects. For example, you use your physical body solely to acquire money or seek pleasure without giving any thought to or willfully ignoring the purpose of your Divine Self. The Divine Self is obstructed, its purpose distorted, and collaborative creation with God becomes increasingly difficult, perhaps even impossible. I would classify this as negative motivation.
The same principle applies to money – literal mammon. If you serve God, you use money to serve your Divine Self and its true purpose. If you serve mammon, you use money to serve only your material self and distorted purpose. If you attempt to serve both God and mammon, you will create confusion and discord as subject and object compete and clash for dominance.
The principle of gain can also be applied here.
When you serve mammon, you rank material gains over spiritual ones and sacrifice the spiritual in favor of the material. The subject becomes enslaved to the object. Slavery ensues.
When you serve God, you use mammon to achieve spiritual gains. Depending on your purpose and circumstances, this may involve accumulating or sacrificing mammon. Either way, it never involves ranking material gains over spiritual ones. The object serves the subject. Freedom is maintained.
When you attempt to reconcile God and mammon by making them both masters, you create conditions for spiritual confusion and torment by laying the foundations for alienation and loathing. The Divine Self's impulse toward freedom is impeded by the dull force of object slavery. Those who attempt to serve two masters become acutely aware of the freedom they have surrendered and the slavery they must endure. To survive, they learn to hold to one and despise the other. It is a hellish state.
Unlike Jesus, who served God unfailingly throughout his entire life, we are flawed beings. As such, it is nearly impossible for us to be perfectly aligned with God (the Divine Self) all the time. We will make mistakes and attempt to serve two masters, or perhaps even abandon God to serve mammon exclusively from time to time. During these transgressions, it is our duty to repent, remember our true purpose, reset our motivations, and return to serving the one and only true master.
This is easier said than done, but done it must be. Through repentance, we can recover from these dips and plunges, learn what we need to learn from experience, and resume an upward trajectory.
Located most prominently in the Gospel of Matthew, this is perhaps one of Jesus’s most famous sayings. I am skeptical of many verses in the Gospel of Matthew, but consider the basic message contained in this expression to be vital. Many analyses and interpretations of this verse can be found in books and online, ranging from every possible perspective including straightforward discussion to detailed linguistic/etymological deconstructions.
Hence, my goal here will not be to provide a detailed and comprehensive overview of this verse, but rather to set down a few simple ideas presenting my own personal intuitive understanding of what serving two masters implies. None of what I offer in the following should be considered definitive in any sense of the world. These are my intuitions based on my own personal experiences and should be taken as such.
To me, two masters comes down to a matter of thinking. The verse challenges the limits of imagination. For example, serving a master implies anything but freedom and agency, yet serving the proper master is the epitome of freedom and agency itself.
To begin with, it is worth noting that this gospel verse has become a common idiom. As such, it has been mixed in with other vernacular idioms used in common speech. As a result, the sanctity of the original verse has been either severely distorted or entirely removed. Though likely ignorant of or indifferent to its source, most modern atheistic/materialistic people do use the phrase and can dimly acknowledge the wisdom contained in the warning against simultaneously serving two masters. However, when God is removed from the expression, the idiom is reduced to the mere level of divided loyalties, conflicting pursuits, and contradictory responsibilities.
Serving two masters means something entirely different to atheists/materialists. For positivistic, materialistic, reductionist types, the division between two masters never amounts to conflicting loyalties between God and mammon, but manifest more as a conflict between mammon and mammon or one of its various guises such as hedonism and mammon or sloth and mammon. As a result, what the non-religious perceive as a conflict between two masters is really more of an internal conflict between two aspects of the same single master – materialism. To their credit, people who serve mammon have at least made a decision, and they are unlikely to experience the same sorts of torments as those who attempt to serve both God and mammon simultaneously.
Christians, on the other hand, should be able to draw a clear distinction between the two masters Jesus mentions and also sense and understand why only one can truly exist as a master. At the most elementary level, I see this distinction as the difference between the spiritual and the material; and the metaphysical and the physical; as well the difference between subject and object; freedom and slavery.
Human beings are hybrid blends of the spiritual and the material. As such, we have metaphysical as well as physical needs. Voluntarily choosing to serve spiritual needs above material needs is not a matter of blindly nullifying, denying, or obstructing physical needs, but rather a matter of aligning our physical needs with our metaphysical needs by giving the spiritual precedence over the material. In this sense, the spiritual guides and controls the physical.
Ranking the spiritual over the material does not imply the material is unimportant, trivial, or unnecessary. Nor does it mean the material is inherently evil, mundane, or profane. Serving the spiritual rather than the material does not negate the material of its significance and necessity in this life.
Instead, serving the spiritual provides the proper framework through which one engages with and interacts with the material world by rendering the material to the position of something that serves the individual and God in this life rather than something the individual and God must serve in this life.
In this life is crucial here because our lives in this world mark the boundaries of the material world, whereas our lives outside this world know no such boundaries. The old saying, "You can't take it with you" takes on a significant level of profundity here because it reveals where your real focus should lie.
As I mentioned earlier, most modern people focus exclusively on physical needs because they are utterly oblivious to, willfully ignorant of, or purposefully opposed to their inherent metaphysical needs. Whatever the reason, mammon is the only master most modern people serve.
Modern Christians are sometimes no better than their secular/materialist counterparts. Many modern Christians claim to serve God, but in practice serve mammon. This stems from a lack of purpose or errant motivations, but I also feel many Christians consciously attempt to serve both mammon and God. I believe this happens because they misinterpret the wisdom Jesus reveals in the two masters saying and comprehend God in the same manner in which they comprehend mammon – as an external object.
Seen this way, God becomes a remote and ruthless ruler existing only to punish sin and prevent pleasure. Serving such a God becomes untenable and is tantamount to slavery. When confronted by such a God, it is little wonder Christians attempt to serve mammon as well.
Conversely, some Christians believe the two masters verse reveals the material world to be evil/fallen. If the material world is fallen/evil, then a Christian must shun and detest the material world by embracing God through some extreme form of asceticism. I am not averse to the notion of asceticism and believe it can be a valuable tool in spiritual growth, but I do not think the ultimate goal of Christianity is universal worldly asceticism. If our true purpose in this world amounted to nothing more denying or hating the world, we would not have come into the world at all.
The way I see it, our purpose in this world should provide the foundation for the wisdom contained in the two masters verse. True spiritual purpose emanates only from the Divine Self. The Divine Self is God within. Serving God does not entail perpetually bowing before altars and perpetual penance. Serving God entails serving your Divine Self. It is a matter of immanence as much as it is a matter of transcendence. Serving your Divine Self implies working with and being useful for in order to achieve, participate, and create.
Serving your Divine Self amounts to aligning yourself to God’s will in an effort to allow your purpose to manifest in the world. Seen in this light, God and the Divine Self exist in the realm of subjects (Beings) while mammon exists only in the realm of objects (things).
When you serve God, you create a situation where objects exist to serve subjects. For example, you use your physical body (this is not mammon in the strict sense of the word, but I interpret mammon to mean the material) to serve your Divine Self – to help it learn and experience, achieve its purpose, and, enter into a collaborative creative state with God. I would classify this as positive motivation.
When you serve mammon, you create a situation where subjects exist to serve objects. For example, you use your physical body solely to acquire money or seek pleasure without giving any thought to or willfully ignoring the purpose of your Divine Self. The Divine Self is obstructed, its purpose distorted, and collaborative creation with God becomes increasingly difficult, perhaps even impossible. I would classify this as negative motivation.
The same principle applies to money – literal mammon. If you serve God, you use money to serve your Divine Self and its true purpose. If you serve mammon, you use money to serve only your material self and distorted purpose. If you attempt to serve both God and mammon, you will create confusion and discord as subject and object compete and clash for dominance.
The principle of gain can also be applied here.
When you serve mammon, you rank material gains over spiritual ones and sacrifice the spiritual in favor of the material. The subject becomes enslaved to the object. Slavery ensues.
When you serve God, you use mammon to achieve spiritual gains. Depending on your purpose and circumstances, this may involve accumulating or sacrificing mammon. Either way, it never involves ranking material gains over spiritual ones. The object serves the subject. Freedom is maintained.
When you attempt to reconcile God and mammon by making them both masters, you create conditions for spiritual confusion and torment by laying the foundations for alienation and loathing. The Divine Self's impulse toward freedom is impeded by the dull force of object slavery. Those who attempt to serve two masters become acutely aware of the freedom they have surrendered and the slavery they must endure. To survive, they learn to hold to one and despise the other. It is a hellish state.
Unlike Jesus, who served God unfailingly throughout his entire life, we are flawed beings. As such, it is nearly impossible for us to be perfectly aligned with God (the Divine Self) all the time. We will make mistakes and attempt to serve two masters, or perhaps even abandon God to serve mammon exclusively from time to time. During these transgressions, it is our duty to repent, remember our true purpose, reset our motivations, and return to serving the one and only true master.
This is easier said than done, but done it must be. Through repentance, we can recover from these dips and plunges, learn what we need to learn from experience, and resume an upward trajectory.
May 21, 2019
Some Pictures Are Worth 500,000 Words
Mihály Munkácsy
(1844 – 1900) is still one of Hungary's most celebrated painters. Internationally, he is best known for his genre pictures and large scale biblical paintings. In Hungary, his name graces many streets, squares, and schools. At his peak, he enjoyed fame and success, but as is the case with many painters, Munkácsy's life followed a rather tragic arc, one plagued by severe depression which, coupled with the syphilis he had contracted as a young man, eventually drove him mad. Though I respect Munkácsy, I do not rank him among my favorite Hungarian painters (I more or less put him in the same category as István Csok). Nevertheless, I have a high regard for Munkácsy's genre pictures, specifically for his Siralomház (often translated as The Last Day of a Condemened Man, though verbatim the Hungarian word translates to Lamentation House, which is more synonymous with the English concept of Death Row). The painting appears below.
The Last Day of a Condemned Man - Mihály Munkácsy - 1869 This painting brought Munkácsy to the attention of the world and many consider it his first masterpiece. I consider it a masterpiece as well, but my high appraisal of the painting has nothing to do with any evaluation of Munkácsy's technical talent.In my mind, what makes this painting so riveting is the scene it depicts and the unseen, unknown narratives it coaxes forth. When I look it, I am not looking at it from the perspective an art lover or even a common person, but from the viewpoint of a writer. From this viewpoint, I regard it to be as rich and complex as a Dostoevsky novel or as intricate and intertwining as a Dickens epic. In other words, the painting carries its own world as well as the whole world within its frame - it exists as a microcosm that is also a macrocosm.
Plot, setting, character, conflict, symbol, point of view, theme - all elements of fiction are there on the canvas. The only things needed are details. Who is the man? Why has he been condemned? What did he do? Who is the woman holding the child - the one glaring at him so sternly? Is the woman weeping in the corner the man's mother? Are the children his? What is going through the condemned man's mind at that very moment?
And so forth.
The Last Day of a Condemned Man can tell more than a single story, it possesses the power to tell a thousand stories, and that is what I love about it. The depicted scene could provide enough raw material for a dozen five-hundred page novels, each distinct from the other, and leave enough material for a dozen more. Simply put, the subject matter seems inexhaustible. I believe a mere cursory glance at a painting like this could cure even the most stubborn case of writer's block. The Last Day of a Condemned Man is like a never-ending story, which is probably why I like it so much.
Suddenly I'm Sixteen Again
When I moved to the United States, I was able to exchange my Canadian driver’s license for an American one with no strings attached and no questions asked. I did the same in reverse after I moved back to Canada from the United States. Shortly after moving to Hungary in 2015, I attempted to exchange my Canadian driver’s license for a Hungarian one and was swiftly informed that it could not be done because Canada had not signed some fiendish agreement known as 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic.
As a result, I was mandated to take both the theoretical and practical driving exams in Hungary if I wished to continue driving here in the long term. I was also told I had exactly one year to fulfil this requirement and that my Canadian license would be considered invalid after 365 days, regardless of its actually date of expiry.
Being the rational and prudent fellow that I am, I responded to this requirement by doing what any rational and prudent person would do in similar circumstances – I decided to delay the whole nightmare until the last possible moment and continue driving in Hungary with my Canadian driver’s license.
When the 365 days were nearly up, I mentioned my driver’s license dilemma to a neighbor, who happens to be a police officer. Following a loud guffaw, my neighbor told me not to worry as no Hungarian cop worth his or her salt would ever bother investigating the 365-day validity of any Hungarian citizen holding a foreign driver’s license.
I interpreted this as both a stroke of luck and a green light, and I surreptitiously pushed back obtaining a Hungarian driver’s license as far as I possibly could. Technically, this means I have been living a criminal life here since 2016, but I have been able to assuage any slight pangs of mild guild and neglected responsibility I have experienced since then by consoling myself with the thought that I am actually a tragic victim a soulless, international bureaucratic technicality.
Victim or not, unfortunately, my gig will soon be up. My Canadian driver’s license expires this summer, and I can only renew it in Canada, which would be both expensive and time-consuming. Thus, after three years of fugitive existence, I have surrendered to authorities here in Hungary and have begun preparing for the theoretical traffic code test as well as the practical driving exam.
Spending an hour or two every day reviewing road signs and driving regulations has been a nostalgic experience. At times, I feel like it’s 1987 again – I am sixteen years old, cramming away at the traffic code, motivated by a strong urge to succeed in what I at the time considered my most important rite of passage. I remember feeling rather anxious and apprehensive during the whole process leading up to test day back then. Oddly enough, I am experiencing similar feelings now despite having more than thirty years of driving experience under my belt.
Of course, at sixteen, my biggest motivating factor for getting a license was the opportunity to take girls out on “real” dates. At forty-seven, my biggest motivating factor is just getting done with it all. I passed my driving tests easily when I sixteen, and I do not anticipate any difficulties this second time around either, but every once in a while I get to wondering how I would respond if I happened to fail the tests now.
The mere thought of such humiliation strikes terror in my soul, and it motivates me to study harder, but there is only so much effort I can dedicate to such a mind-numbing process each day without succumbing to the temptation of taking up alcohol as a hobby. The whole thing has been rather surreal thus far, but I have been able to get a chuckle or two out of it all – and that’s something, I suppose.
As a result, I was mandated to take both the theoretical and practical driving exams in Hungary if I wished to continue driving here in the long term. I was also told I had exactly one year to fulfil this requirement and that my Canadian license would be considered invalid after 365 days, regardless of its actually date of expiry.
Being the rational and prudent fellow that I am, I responded to this requirement by doing what any rational and prudent person would do in similar circumstances – I decided to delay the whole nightmare until the last possible moment and continue driving in Hungary with my Canadian driver’s license.
When the 365 days were nearly up, I mentioned my driver’s license dilemma to a neighbor, who happens to be a police officer. Following a loud guffaw, my neighbor told me not to worry as no Hungarian cop worth his or her salt would ever bother investigating the 365-day validity of any Hungarian citizen holding a foreign driver’s license.
I interpreted this as both a stroke of luck and a green light, and I surreptitiously pushed back obtaining a Hungarian driver’s license as far as I possibly could. Technically, this means I have been living a criminal life here since 2016, but I have been able to assuage any slight pangs of mild guild and neglected responsibility I have experienced since then by consoling myself with the thought that I am actually a tragic victim a soulless, international bureaucratic technicality.
Victim or not, unfortunately, my gig will soon be up. My Canadian driver’s license expires this summer, and I can only renew it in Canada, which would be both expensive and time-consuming. Thus, after three years of fugitive existence, I have surrendered to authorities here in Hungary and have begun preparing for the theoretical traffic code test as well as the practical driving exam.
Spending an hour or two every day reviewing road signs and driving regulations has been a nostalgic experience. At times, I feel like it’s 1987 again – I am sixteen years old, cramming away at the traffic code, motivated by a strong urge to succeed in what I at the time considered my most important rite of passage. I remember feeling rather anxious and apprehensive during the whole process leading up to test day back then. Oddly enough, I am experiencing similar feelings now despite having more than thirty years of driving experience under my belt.
Of course, at sixteen, my biggest motivating factor for getting a license was the opportunity to take girls out on “real” dates. At forty-seven, my biggest motivating factor is just getting done with it all. I passed my driving tests easily when I sixteen, and I do not anticipate any difficulties this second time around either, but every once in a while I get to wondering how I would respond if I happened to fail the tests now.
The mere thought of such humiliation strikes terror in my soul, and it motivates me to study harder, but there is only so much effort I can dedicate to such a mind-numbing process each day without succumbing to the temptation of taking up alcohol as a hobby. The whole thing has been rather surreal thus far, but I have been able to get a chuckle or two out of it all – and that’s something, I suppose.
May 20, 2019
Berdyaev Foresaw the Need for Romantic Christianity As Well
Work continues to get in the way of my writing original posts. As compensation, I will offer some brief thoughts about some of the reading I have been doing lately.
I am currently rereading the three Berdyaev books I own - Slavery and Freedom, The Meaning of the Creative Act, and Freedom and the Spirit - and I have discovered that much of Berdyaev's thought aligns with Dr. Bruce Charlton's concept of Romantic Christianity.
As far as I know, Bruce has drawn much of his external inspiration for and understanding of Romantic Christianity from the Gospel of John, Owen Barfield, Rudolf Steiner, and William Arkle, among others. I have read the Gospel of John and William Arkle's A Geography of Consciousness, but I know practically nothing about Barfield and Steiner.
Nevertheless, based on what I have gleaned from Bruce's blog over the past year or two, I can with some confidence state that Berdyaev foresaw the need for the same sort of Romantic or Mystic Christianity thinkers like Steiner and Barfield addressed in their own works. The terminology likely differs, but from what I have been able to gather, the overarching themes overlap, as demonstrated by the passage below excerpted from Berdyaev's Freedom and Spirit:
We are entering upon a period of new spirituality, which will be the counterpart of the present materialism of our world. There will also be a new form of mysticism corresponding to this new period in Christian history. It will henceforth be impossible to oppose the conception of a higher life by pointing to the sinfulness of human nature which must be overcome.
There is no longer any room in the world for a merely external form of Christianity based upon custom. It is precisely the mystical and spiritual life which leads to victory over sin. The world is entering upon a new period of catastrophe and crisis when we are being forced to take sides and in which a higher and more intense kind of spiritual life will be demanded from Christians.
The sort of Christianity which is purely outward in character and never rises above the level of mediocrity is today on decline; while that which possesses eternal significance is growing more intense and stronger.
I consider this sort of overlap fascinating. All I need to now is get my hands on some Owen Barfield or Rudolf Steiner so I can experience the overlapping themes firsthand.
I am currently rereading the three Berdyaev books I own - Slavery and Freedom, The Meaning of the Creative Act, and Freedom and the Spirit - and I have discovered that much of Berdyaev's thought aligns with Dr. Bruce Charlton's concept of Romantic Christianity.
As far as I know, Bruce has drawn much of his external inspiration for and understanding of Romantic Christianity from the Gospel of John, Owen Barfield, Rudolf Steiner, and William Arkle, among others. I have read the Gospel of John and William Arkle's A Geography of Consciousness, but I know practically nothing about Barfield and Steiner.
Nevertheless, based on what I have gleaned from Bruce's blog over the past year or two, I can with some confidence state that Berdyaev foresaw the need for the same sort of Romantic or Mystic Christianity thinkers like Steiner and Barfield addressed in their own works. The terminology likely differs, but from what I have been able to gather, the overarching themes overlap, as demonstrated by the passage below excerpted from Berdyaev's Freedom and Spirit:
We are entering upon a period of new spirituality, which will be the counterpart of the present materialism of our world. There will also be a new form of mysticism corresponding to this new period in Christian history. It will henceforth be impossible to oppose the conception of a higher life by pointing to the sinfulness of human nature which must be overcome.
There is no longer any room in the world for a merely external form of Christianity based upon custom. It is precisely the mystical and spiritual life which leads to victory over sin. The world is entering upon a new period of catastrophe and crisis when we are being forced to take sides and in which a higher and more intense kind of spiritual life will be demanded from Christians.
The sort of Christianity which is purely outward in character and never rises above the level of mediocrity is today on decline; while that which possesses eternal significance is growing more intense and stronger.
I consider this sort of overlap fascinating. All I need to now is get my hands on some Owen Barfield or Rudolf Steiner so I can experience the overlapping themes firsthand.
May 18, 2019
Mednyansky - Hungary's Best Landscape Painter
Fishing on the Tisza - 1880 The more I engage with the work of Baron László Mednyansky, the more I am convinced that he was Hungary's best landscape painter - not just from the later nineteenth/early twentieth century, but from all centuries.As I mentioned in my first post about The Wandering Baron, Mednyansky possessed an uncanny mastery of light, and this mastery provides his landscapes with a richness and vitality I have rarely encountered, not just in Hungarian painting, but in painting in general.
Landscape painting normally relies heavily on the quality of physical geography, which helps explain why most landscape painters choose to depict impressive, magnificent, or beautiful geographical features such as towering mountains, deep valleys, rolling hills, or lush forests. Mednyansky certainly has his share of these, but unlike most landscape painters, Mednyansky did not rely exclusively on impressive geographical features to bring beauty onto the canvas - The Wandering Baron could discover the sublime in even most mundane or nondescript landscapes.
Fishing on the Tisza (1880) is a good example of this. The Tisza is one of Hungary's main river courses, second only to the Danube. Though it flows through some of the country's most attractive landscape features, Mednyansky chose to ignore these and focused instead on a nondescript, marshy riverbank scene in this painting.
What makes this landscape painting fascinating for me is its seeming lack of landscape. A few bushes, some marshland, reed pockets, and three or four hazy windmills are the only features depicted on the canvas, yet Mednyansky is able to transform this rather mundane scene into something spectacular. Rather than mute what could be described as an already dull scene, Mednyansky's choice to limit the color spectrum to sepia-gray tones creates an ethereal atmosphere, made all the more ethereal by the "swale" of light puncturing the overcast sky above the fishermen.
In essence, Mednyansky is able to find beauty even in landscapes that appear to offer very little in the way of beauty. Capturing the beauty inherent in a breathtaking mountain scene is one thing - finding beauty in a marsh scene that could be described as anything but breathtaking is another matter entirely.
Sheer brilliance.
