Atomic: The D. H. Lawrence Memorial Post (2021)

 

Jo Davidson's clay bust of D. H. Lawrence made four days before the 

latter's death on 2 March 1930. Lawrence judged the result mediocre; 

others have since found it slightly macabre.

 

 

I. 

 

Tomorrow is the 92nd anniversary of the death of D. H. Lawrence. 

 

That's quite a long time ago: long enough, I'm guessing, for a fair few of his atoms to have penetrated me, you, and everybody else on the planet, making us all neo-Lawrentians at some infinitesimal level - just as, indeed, we are all the other names in history (Louis XIV didn't know the half of it).   

 

I've written elsewhere on Torpedo the Ark about atomic reincarnation and how even the dead don't rest in peace [click here]. But it's a subject that, as a thanatologist, I never tire of and which I'm always happy to resurrect given the opportunity. 

 

So, once more unto the grave dear friends ...   

 

 

II. 

 

In February 1923, Lawrence famously consoled a grieving friend: "The dead don't die. They look on and help." [1] 

 

And, for the most part, that's true ...

 

For whilst the dead don't look on - obviously - they never really die because the atoms that made them are immortal: they are in the food you eat, the water you drink, the air you breathe, etc. It's a category error to equate the personal death of the individual with non-being. 

 

And, in as much as the dead lend us their atoms, I suppose they could be said, in a very real sense, to help us. 

 

 

III.

 

Now, as Jennifer Aniston used to say, here comes the science bit - concentrate ... 

 

According to the theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, one out of every 2.1 × 10^16 hydrogen atoms and one out of every 2.6 × 10^16 oxygen atoms in your body was formerly in any dear departed individual you care to name. 

 

That maybe doesn't sound like a lot, until you remember that "there are 4.3 × 10^27 hydrogen atoms and 1.7 × 10^27 oxygen atoms in a typical human body" [2]. Which means that there are approximately 200 billion hydrogen atoms and 65 billion oxygen atoms gathered from dead souls.

 

Siegel further notes that, because atoms are so outrageously numerous, if you do the maths you'll discover that "approximately one atom in everyone's lungs, at any moment" [3], came from D. H. Lawrence on his death bed as he exhaled his final breath.

 

And you thought coronavirus was the only thing to worry about in your respiratory system ...

 

 

Notes

 

[1] D. H. Lawrence, letter to John Middleton Murry (2 Feb 1923), in The Letters of D. H. Lawrence, Vol IV, ed. Warren Roberts, James T. Boulton and Elizabeth Mansfield, (Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 375.     

[2] Ethan Siegal, 'Ask Ethan: How Many Atoms Do You Share With King Tut?', Forbes, (14 May, 2016): click here to read online.

 

[3] Ibid. 

 

 

Banksy

Banksy: Girl with Balloon (London, 2002) 

 

(Note the chalked message on the wall; if that doesn't make you want to 

vomit, pop the balloon and shoot the artist, I don't know what would.)

 

 

I. 

 

There's a rather poignant moment in his interview with the Sex Pistols when Bill Grundy mourns the passing of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and Brahms. Classical composers mocked by Rotten as wonderful people whom, as Steve Jones reminds us, are long since dead [1]. 

 

It's as if Grundy realises that his time too is over and that the world he knows and loves - in which the majority shared his values and musical preferences - is coming to an end. 

 

Strangely, I felt something similar when I recently discovered that Britain's favourite artwork (according to a poll of 2,000 people conducted in 2017) is Girl with Balloon (2002) by Banksy ... 

 

Turner, Constable, Blake and Bacon have all died and no longer turn anybody on it seems, apart from a few old farts, myself included, and it's just our tough shit if tastes have changed and people now want banal (because immediately accessible) images and naive political clichés - which, let's be honest, is mostly what Banksy trades in - instead of complex, challenging works.

 

 

II. 

 

Now, just to be clear, I've nothing against a former public school boy making millions from the art world with his (sometimes amusing) stencilled designs whilst posing as part cultural prankster, part urban guerilla. And if people want to regard him as a folk hero and put his prints on their walls, that's fine by me. 

 

But, having said that, I do tend to agree with Alexander Adams, who argues that when one compares Banksy with, for example, Jean-Michel Basquiat - "another artist who started in the streets and moved to art galleries" - we soon discover the former's limitations: 

 

"Basquiat's art is alive because we see the artist changing his mind, discovering, adapting and revising. We see the art as it is being made. While Basquiat's art is palpably alive, Banksy's is dead - it is simply the transcription of a witty pre-designed image in a novel placement. There is no ambiguity or doubt, no possibility of misinterpretation. There's no fire and no excitement." [2]

 

Ultimately, concludes Adams - himself an artist, as well as a critic and poet - "Basquiat's art is so much richer and more inventive than Banksy's, which by contrast seems painfully limited and shallow" [3].

 

I'm not sure I agree, however, that a century from now people will still be viewing Basquiat and will have forgotten Banksy. And, as regular readers of Torpedo the Ark might appreciate, I have a lot of problems with several of the terms used here:   

 

"Banksy lacks most of the characteristics of a serious artist: originality, complexity, universality, ambiguity, depth and insight into human nature and the world generally." [4]

 

Indeed, reading this almost makes me want to embrace Banksy and tell Adams to keep his opinions to himself. 

 

One also wonders if Adams isn't just a tad jealous of an artist who, like Damien Hirst, has achieved such astonishing fame and fortune (speaking personally, I know that I would love to wield even a fraction of Banksy's influence over the popular imagination and envy both his talent for graphic design and flair for self-promotion).   

 

But, then, just when I'm starting to feel a certain fondness and admiration for Banksy, I think again of the above image and its message of hope and realise that Adams is right to ultimately brand him nothing but a "cosy culture warrior and peddler of pedestrian homilies" [5].     

 

Notes

 

[1] Bill Grundy's infamous interview with the Sex Pistols on the Today programme took place on 1 December, 1976: click here to relive the moment on YouTube - one which is as significant and as memorable for those of the punk generation as the Kennedy assassination was for those who witnessed events in Dallas on 22 November, 1963.

 

[2] Alexander Adams, 'Banksy and the triumph of banality', essay in The Critic (Jan 2020): click here to read online. Adams is quoting here from an earlier article of his which appeared on the Spiked website comparing Banksy and Basquiat.   

 

[3-5] Ibid. 

 

 

Gelassenheit: Notes on Heidegger and the Money Calm Bull

 This is the Money Calm Bull

 

 

I. 

 

One of the ads on TV that I find intriguing (and, indeed, faintly amusing) is by an online price comparison business specialising in financial services, featuring a bull who, apparently, is calmer than a banana [1]. 

 

"Why? Because with countless ways to save, from car insurance to energy, his bills are under control with MoneySuperMarket." [2]

 

He is thus able to handle whatever life throws at him - including stress-inducing situations ranging from the socially awkward to the life-threatening. Even when an asteroid threatens to smash into the Earth, the Money Calm Bull keeps his cool.      

 

Indeed, he's more than just stoical in the face of danger, he's positively serene; one might even argue that the Money Calm Bull displays an instinctive understanding of an important concept belonging both to Christian mysticism and Heideggerian philosophy: Gelassenheit ...

 

 

II. 

 

Within the Anabaptist tradition, Gelassenheit not only means composure or serenity, but implies submission to God's will and an acceptance of the world as is - the latter being an idea that Nietzsche develops in his teaching of the eternal recurrence, demanding an affirmation and not merely an acceptance of mortal existence, with every pain as well as every joy repeated ad infinitum.

 

For Heidegger, on the other hand, who developed the concept of Gelassenheit in his later thought as a fundamental attunement to being, the key aspect is releasement - a letting go of self and a letting be of others, or, more precisely, of things, in all their mystery and uncertainty. 

 

Heidegger may have rejected humanism, but Gelassenheit provides a powerful ethical component to his work (what we might term after Hölderlin its saving grace) - one that frees us from having to will and worry all the time and allows us to become a bit more like the Money Calm Bull. 

 

Of course, it's crucial to keep in mind that Heidegger is not arguing for a mere reversal within what he terms the domain of the will (i.e., the realm within which modern humanity has historically determined its essence):

 

"Rather, Heidegger's thought calls for a twisting free of this entire domain of the will and a leap into a region of non-willing letting-be that is otherwise than both will-ful activity and will-less passivity." [3] 

 

 

Notes 

 

[1] The first ad in the series, created by those clever people at the Engine Group, began airing in June 2020. It was directed by Nick Ball (Blink Productions), has a voice over provided by the actor and comedian Matt Berry, and utilises Mozart's famous Piano Concerto No. 21 (1785) for the score. Click here to watch on Vimeo.       

 

[2] I'm quoting from a MoneySuperMarket web page featuring the Money Calm Bull: click here. 

[3] Bret W. Davis, 'Will and Gelassenheit', Ch. 12 of Martin Heidegger: Key Concepts, ed. Bret W. Davis, (Routledge, 2014), pp. 168-182. 

 

Four Fascinating Things About the Amish

Photo by Debra Heaphy (2012)

 

The Old Order Amish [1] are a strange people; Christian traditionalists of Swiss-German origin, they are closely related to the Mennonites with whom they have shared Anabaptist roots in the so-called Radical Reformation of the 16th-century. 

 

For a variety of reasons, many Amish left Europe in the early 1700s for the New World and ended up in Pennsylvania, where they were free to practice their religion and breed (six or seven children still being the norm even now when infant mortality rates have significantly decreased).  

 

They are probably best known for their asceticism and resistance to the modern world and its technological innovations - including what Catweazle called elec-trickery - which they regard as disruptive of a humble lifestyle [2]. 

 

Anyway, here are four things (in no particular order) about the Amish which I find particularly intriguing ...

 

 

1. Amish Children Play With Faceless Dolls

 

Many children - even in non-Amish communities - play with rag dolls. But only Amish children get to play with faceless rag dolls ... 

 

Indeed, one suspects that a lot of non-Amish children (and parents) would find a faceless doll a little creepy; an unworldly inhabitant of the Uncanny Valley. But as someone who hates identity, loves anonymity, and has written extensively on the politics of (losing) the face and becoming-imperceptible [click here and here, for example], I'm fascinated by these soft-bodied objects of American folk art. 

 

Ironically, however, whereas for the Amish these dolls comply with the biblical injunction against graven images and symbolise that God makes no distinction between human beings - we are all his children and all equal in his eyes - for a Deleuzian, such as myself, there could be nothing more anti-Christian than a faceless figure ...  

 

Also ironic is the fact that these simple rag dolls have become highly collectable and authentic antique figures can sell for over a $1000. Naturally, this has led to the manufacture of fake dolls intended to deceive the unwary. 

 

It might also be noted that as commercial tourism has increased over the years, some Amish communities have made faceless dolls for sale in souvenir shops - a development that both surprises and disappoints. For whilst I accept that even the Amish have to make a buck, this commodification of their own culture (and childhood) seems a bit questionable ...      

 

 

2: The Amish Don't Care About Having Good Teeth and a Nice Smile

 

Although some Amish families opt for modern dental care and practice good oral hygiene, many still prefer the old way - i.e., to yank teeth out at the earliest opportunity and make do with dentures. 

 

Not only is extraction the cheaper option - and the Amish reject medical insurance as they do all other forms of financial cover - but some regard it as the option more in keeping with their values (they fear that caring for their teeth will quickly lead to other forms of personal vanity).  

 

Being British, I suppose I'm in no position to knock others for bad teeth - and besides, it's quite a punk thing to not care about having rotten gnashers; how d'you think Johnny got his name?    

 

 

3: The Amish Hate Buttons (Koumpounophobia)

 

The Amish are famous for their plain and simple (some might say minimalist) style of dress: men wear solid coloured shirts, broad-rimmed hats, and plain suits; women wear calf-length dresses in muted colours, along with bonnets and aprons. 

 

The aim is to fit in and look like everyone else; not to express individuality or draw attention to the body. For to take pride in one's appearance is regarded as sinful by the Amish and one of the things that there is fierce disagreement over within their world is the question of fastenings. 

 

Those within the more orthodox Old Order disdain the use of buttons, which are seen as far too flashy and veering dangerously away from the functional towards the ornamental. Instead, they advocate the use of hook and eye fastenings to secure their clothing (or, if needs must, metal snaps). Only the more progressive Mennonites have fancy buttons on their garments ...    

 

The irony here is that whilst they say they don't care about appearance or fashion, the Amish obviously care about even the smallest detail of their dress in a manner which is almost fetishistic. In trying so hard to make themselves look inconspicuous, they succeed only in making themselves more noticeable. 

 

 

4: Teenage Rampage: The Amish Have a Word For It ...

One might assume that Amish parents would be particularly strict with their adolescent offspring. And, by the standards of the English (i.e. the outside world), they are. 

 

But, having said that, they do cut teenagers some slack, allowing behaviour which would almost certainly result in the shunning of an adult. They even have a term for this period of tolerated nonconformity: Rumspringa - a Pennsylvanian German term that means running around, or jumping about, though it should be noted that not all Amish youth choose to rebel against established norms and customs. 

 

Rumspringa is also the time for romance and finding a potential spouse. Boys get to ride around in a small courting-buggy and girls get to paint their yard-gate blue, indicating that they are of marriageable age and affable.      

 

At the end of this de facto rite of passage - and it must be stressed that adolescents are not formally given permission to go wild and still remain under the authority of their parents - a youth must decide whether they wish to be baptised into the Amish church or leave the community; something which would be a major decision to make at any age, let alone sixteen [3].

 

 

Notes

 

[1] The term Amish was originally used as an insult or term of disgrace [Schandename] for followers of Jakob Amman who, unhappy with the way things were going within his local church of Anabaptists, decided to break away in 1693. 

      Then, in the latter part of the 19th-century the Amish divided into a hardcore Old Order and a more progressive new group known as the Amish Mennonites. The latter were less concerned about retaining traditional culture at all costs and had no objection to members adapting to the modern world. When most people think of the Amish, they are usually thinking - as I am here - of the Old Order.      

 

[2] Demut (humility) is a key concept for the Amish; one which is founded upon a rejection of Hochmut (self-regard or arrogance). 

      Another important idea is that of Gelassenheit, which we might translate into English as calmness or serenity, but which within the Anabaptist tradition of Christian mysticism also implies a passive submission to the will of God and an acceptance of the way things are; a letting-be, if you want it in more Heideggerian terms (and, of course, Heidegger borrowed this concept of Gelassenheit and absorbed it into his own later thinking). 

      For the Amish, Gelassenheit also entails a yielding of the present to the traditions of the past; their way of life is the antithesis of the modern world's aggressive individualism and obsession with newness and progress. In this way, the Amish are profoundly un-American.      

 

[3] The vast majority - between 85 and 90% - of Amish teenagers do in fact choose to be baptised and remain within their community, so clearly the parents are doing something right and the lifestyle offered has a strong appeal for those reared within it. For those interested in knowing more about this topic, see Tom Shachtman's Rumspringa: To Be or Not to Be Amish, (North Point Press, 2006) and/or Richard A. Stevick's book, Growing up Amish: The Teenage Years, (John Hopkins University Press, 2007). See also the documentary dir. Lucy Walker entitled The Devil's Playground (2002): click here to watch an early-stage fundraising reel (there was no official trailer made for the film).

 

Bonus: an amusing clip from episode 3 of Kevin Eldon's BBC Two sketch show - It's Kevin - featuring the Amish Sex Pistols making a mug of an Amish Bill Grundy: click here. The episode aired on 31 March 2013. To watch the sketch alongside the original interview with Johnny Rotten and friends from December 1976: click here.     

 

 

On Useful Idiots

 

I. 

 

Perhaps seduced by its cynical charm, I've always had a thing for the political term and concept of a useful idiot ...

 

That is to say, an individual - usually a well-intentioned idealist of some description - who promotes a cause without fully understanding what's in play or what's at stake and who can be easily manipulated by those who do. 

 

I believe the idea originated early on during the Cold War to describe those left-leaning liberals and communist sympathisers in the West regarded as particularly susceptible to Soviet propaganda. Although some like to give Lenin credit for coining the term, this attribution is unsubstantiated and it seems to have first been used in a New York Times article in June 1948. 

 

Prior to this, however, some were already speaking (in rather less brutal terms) of useful innocents to refer to those confused and misguided souls whose tears of compassion for the suffering of others prevented them from seeing clearly when it came to the reality of life under communist rule. 

 

Those like the British Labour MP Diane Abbot, to give a relatively recent example, who, in 2008, was still putting the case for Maoism and said of the Chinese dictator that, on balance, he did more good than harm, blithely ignoring the fact that he was responsible for tens of millions of deaths [1]. 

 

 

II. 

 

Unfortunately, Abbott is by no means alone in being a useful idiot. Contemporary politics is full of 'em, on all sides, and not necessarily just doing the work of the far left. For many of the most useful of idiots today belong to (supposedly) radical environmental groups, such as Extinction Rebellion, and are unintentionally serving corporate interests and those promoting a Great Reset and/or a new industrial revolution. 

 

To be fair, however, thanks to social media and the way that the world now operates, perhaps we are all in some sense being made fools of; thus it is that one commentator proposes "a new, analogous term more appropriate for the age in which we live: useful hypocrites" [2]. 

 

Again, whilst that sounds a bit harsh, one suspects nevertheless that it's pretty much how the masters of the digital universe do in fact view us (and they have the data concerning our behaviour to back it up).

 

 

Notes

 

[1] I'm not making this up: appearing alongside Michael Portillo on This Week (a politics and current affairs show hosted by Andrew Neil on BBC One), Abbott - who would stand for the leadership of the Labour Party in 2010 and eventually serve as Shadow Home Secretary under Jeremy Corbyn (2016-2020) - really did attempt to put the case for Mao: click here. 

      Twelve years later, in November 2020, Abbott was forced to apologise for appearing on a livestream with Li Jingjing, a journalist working for the state owned CGTN, who denied human rights abuses against the Uyghurs, suggesting they were a fiction invented by China's enemies in order to to try and provoke a race war. At no point did Abbott challenge these remarks.   

 

[2] John Naughton, 'Why the internet has turned us into hypocrites', The Guardian (16 Nov 2014): click here to read online. 

 

 

Apple Maggots

Apple with maggot linocut by linocutboy

on tumblr.com

 

 

I. 

 

In a short piece of fragmentary writing, D. H. Lawrence laughably declares himself to be a good Catholic at heart; one who believes in an all-overshadowing God, recognises the divinity of Jesus, and accepts the authority of the Church, including "the power of the priest to grant absolution" [1].

 

On the religious fundamentals, says Lawrence, there is no real battle between himself and Christianity and no major breach between himself and the Church of Rome. 

 

Only, of course, there is: for whilst acknowledging the divinity of Christ, Lawrence also insists that Jesus is not, however, the only Son of God; that there are in fact many saviours and to teach otherwise is disastrous and hateful. 

 

Now, I'm no theologian, but I'm pretty sure that the idea of Christ as the one and only true path to God is crucial to Christianity's brand identity and its exclusivity. And that to deny this is heresy, is it not? Lawrence would immediately - and rightly by the terms and conditions of membership - be excommunicated from the faith were he in fact a Catholic (which he wasn't).                

 

 

II. 

 

Ultimately, queer and quirky individuals such as Lawrence require their independence above all else; they are isolated outsiders who instinctively shun all attachments, reject all dogma, and question all authority - even their own: Never trust the artist. Trust the tale [2].

 

Nietzsche calls such individuals free spirits and rightly points out how they are highly unsuitable as members of any kind of political party or faith-based organisation [3]. For just as they eat their way in to the body of such, so too do they quickly (and destructively) consume their way through it and out the other side. They can't help it. It's their nature - they're like apple maggots. 

 

Now, without claiming to be a free spirit in the mould of Nietzsche and Lawrence, I've often wondered why it is that I could never quite fit in or join in with others; could never belong to a group or society or movement, with the exception of punk, which, of course, was always a loose association of odd-bods and weirdos who came together on the basis of hating everyone else even more than they despised one another and which had no rules and only one imperative - do it yourself: Don't be told what you want / Don't be told what you need [4].    

 

Notes

[1] D. H. Lawrence, 'There is no real battle ...', in Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays, ed. Michael Herbert, (Cambridge University Press, 1988), Appendix I: Fragmentary writings, p. 385. 

[2] D. H. Lawrence, Studies in Classic American Literature, ed. Ezra Greenspan, Lindeth Vasey and John Worthen, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), Final Version (1923), 'The Spirit of Place', p. 14.  

[3] See Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, (Cambridge University Press, 1993), Vol. I., Pt. 9. §579.  

[4] Sex Pistols, 'God Save the Queen', (Virgin Records, 1977). 

 

 

This post is dedicated to the the free-spirited feminist Afiya S. Zia.

Blessed are the Greens ...

Members of Extinction Rebellion's Red Brigade who have 

come to save the world with mime and religious rhetoric.

Photo by Sibylla Bam Bam

 

 

I. 

 

In an email responding to a recent post on Heide Hatry's Schneebären, an angry reader writes:    

 

"I was deeply offended (though hardly surprised) by your blasé attitude towards the global Climate Emergency; a phrase you italicise presumably to express your scepticism, if not, indeed, to indicate you are an out-and-out denier of the unfolding environmental crisis.   

      Why must you treat this serious moral and political issue with the same studied irony and indifference that you seem to treat everything you write about? What is wrong with you? I can only hope and pray that you one day wake up and become part of the solution, not the problem."

 

I would like, if I may, to make a statement of reply here ...     

 

 

II. 

 

As someone with a philosophical disposition, I am naturally inclined towards scepticism; particularly when confronted with dogma, doxa, or a mixture of both - and, unfortunately, there are many people involved with the green movement who believe the things they believe to be incontrovertibly true as scientific fact, accepted opinion, or an item of faith.      

 

I don't deny the issues that concern my correspondent and others like her - in fact, if she goes back to the post which prompted her to write, she'll see that I express my own disquiet about environmental matters (including habitat destruction and the threat to wildlife) - but I do challenge the language used when, as so often, it takes on a religious tone and offers a moral interpretation of events. 

 

I can just about stomach those green activists who think of themselves as eco-warriors - and believe me I hate the language of militancy too - but when they start to also imagine themselves as crusaders and eco-evangelists on a mission to save the planet, then I'm afraid I resort to studied irony as a kind of defence mechanism or antiemetic, because, as Jello Biafra once put it, all religions make me sick [1].         

 

III.

 

Whilst it's obviously not the case that all eco-types are either seeking out a new faith or looking to supplement (and green) an old one, it's pretty clear that some are. That's why I think the author and filmmaker Michael Crichton wasn't too far off the mark to suggest that environmentalism has become the religion of choice for many in today's world.

 

In a 2003 speech, Crichton conveniently outlined some of the ways in which environmentalism has reinterpreted the Judeo-Christian belief system:

 

"There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. 

      

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday ... these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. 

      

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them." [2]

 

To paraphrase Nietzsche: Environmentalism is the heir of Christian moral culture. In other words, it's a new form of ascetic idealism. And, for Nietzscheans at least, that's a problem. As it is for Crichton. As it is for me. Like the latter, I wish to demoralise environmentalism and abandon the mythic (and apocalyptic) fantasies that it likes to peddle - particularly when these are tied to utopian political narratives that always seem to end in tears (and bloodshed).    

 

  

Notes

 

[1] I'm referring to the classic Dead Kennedys song 'Religious Vomit', written by 6025 Cadona, on the 8-track EP In God We Trust, Inc., (Alternative Tentacles, 1981): click here. 

 

[2] Michael Crichton, 'Remarks to the Commonweath Club', San Francisco, (15 Sep 2003): click here to read the full transcript online. The paper is often referred to by the title 'Environmentalism is a Religion'. 

      Interestingly, Crichton fictionalised his arguments on this subject in his novel State of Fear (HarperCollins, 2004). Despite being a work of fiction, the book contains graphs, footnotes, an afterword explicitly setting out his views on global warming, an appendix in which he warns against the politicisation of science, and an extensive bibliography. It should also be noted, however, that many climate scientists, journalists, and green activists have gone on record to say that Crichton's work is an error-strewn and wilfully distorted interpretation of the facts.   

 

See also: Joel Garreau's essay 'Environmentalism as Religion', in The New Atlantis, No. 28, (Summer 2010), pp. 61-74. Garreau usefully traces the move from theology to ecotheology, touching on both neo-paganism and the greening of Christianity. Garreau also comes up with the amusing coinage carbon Calvinism. Click here to read online. 

Element 6

 

 

The chemical element carbon seems to have a bad press these days; people dream of becoming carbon neutral and achieving net zero carbon emissions; they wish to transition to a post-carbon economy and, in the meantime, worry about the size of their carbon footprint (a term popularised by a $250 million ad campaign by BP in an attempt to convince individuals that they too were responsible for greenhouse gases and that it was unfair simply to point the finger of blame at the fossil fuel industry).*

But carbon, despite what eco-evangelists may believe - and unlike suphur, obviously - really isn't diabolical in nature (it is produced within stars, not the burning pits of Hell). 

 

In fact, thanks to its universal abundance, unique diversity of organic compounds, and a rare ability to form polymers in the terrestrial temperature range, carbon is sometimes referred to as the king of elements and serves as a basis for all known life. 

 

The human body, for example, is composed of about 18% carbon and green plants (which are 45% carbon) can't get enough of the stuff, using it as they do to photosynthesise vital organic compounds. 

 

Thus, I don't imagine our vegetal friends are too unhappy that - thanks to human activity - there's now more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there used to be (and before anyone starts wetting their pants about global warming, it's worth remembering that if it wasn't for CO2 and other GHG trapping the sun's heat so that it doesn't escape back into space, the oceans would be frozen solid).

 

Of course, no one's saying that the warmer it is, the better it is; I'm not denying a significant rise in global temperature could be problematic (even for plants - who can only suck up and store so much extra carbon dioxide). I'm simply pointing out to those who mistakenly think of carbon as an evil pollutant which makes the environment dirty and impure, that this isn't the case.  

 

As always, things are complicated - and not helped by those who wish to moralise everything.  

  

* See Mark Kaufman's essay 'The Carbon Footprint Sham' on the digital media and news website Mashable: click here. 

 

 

Heide Hatry's Icons in Ice and an Inconvenient Truth About Polar Bears

Dylan: the All-Singing Snow Bear with Guitar

Heide Hatry (2021) 

For more bears go to Instagram

 

 

There's no doubting the genius of Heide Hatry's Schneebären currently residing in New York's Central Park (near the Upper West Side entrance off 86th Street - hurry before the temperatures rise and they are gone forever). 

   

And, of course, I share her concern with environmental issues and animals threatened with extinction due to habitat destruction, etc. 

 

Having said that, I don't really buy into the idea of a climate emergency or worry about carbon footprints. 

 

And it might also be pointed out that the polar bear population is significantly larger than it was fifty years ago - thanks to a ban on hunting - even if melting Arctic sea ice might very well prove problematic to their welfare (and survival) at some point in the future; scientists project polar bear numbers will have fallen 30% by 2050. 

 

Presently, however, there are an estimated 25,000 of these magnificent creatures walking around and hunting seal pups - mostly in Canada - divided into nineteen distinct sub-populations; some of which are declining, some of which are stable, and two of which are actually increasing in size. 

 

So it's not all bad news; they're certainly not all starving to death and, again, let's remember that in 1971 there were only about 5,000 polar bears left in the wild.  

 

But keep up the good work Heide - and stay warm! Your snow sculptures bring much joy into what is a deeply depressing world right now and like many others I'm deeply touched by them.     

 

 

Pan and Jesus in the Art of Dorothy Brett

Fig 1. Dorothy Brett: Portrait of D. H. Lawrence as Pan and Christ (1963)

Fig. 2. Dorothy Brett: Pan and Christ (date unknown)

 

I would like, if I may, to develop a point added as a note to a recent post discussing an essay by Catherine Brown [1] which mentions a painting by the Anglo-American artist Dorothy Brett entitled Portrait of D. H. Lawrence as Pan and Christ (fig. 1); a work which nicely illustrates Lawrence's dual nature whilst, crucially, making no attempt to reconcile his twin selves.

 

As suggested in the note, the work maintains what Deleuze and Guattari describe as a relation of non-relation. In other words, Brett's very lovely picture illustrates a disjunctive synthesis between divergent forces that somehow manage to communicate by virtue of a difference that passes between them like a spark (or what Lawrence would probably term the Holy Ghost) [2]. 

 

As I also say in the note, if only she'd been thinking with her Nietzsche head on Brett might have called the painting Pan versus the Crucified. But I'm now doubtful she would understand what is meant by this, or why such a twist on the German thinker's original formula provides as useful a key for unlocking Lawrence's philosophical project as Dionysus versus the Crucified does for Nietzsche's own [3]. 

 

For if we are to judge by another painting she produced of Pan and Christ (fig. 2) - in which there is clearly a reconciliation between them (to the extent that they are shown holding hands) - then Brett seems not to grasp the crucial fact that the two gods each have their own flowers, as Brown nicely puts it, and by which she acknowledges that Pan and Christ are antagonists forever separated by a pathos of distance.     

The fact is you can't have horns on your head and wear a crown of thorns - despite the desire of many New Age hippies to create a kind of syncretic religious mishmash. As Lawrence shows in The Escaped Cock, in order for the man who died to resurrect into pagan vitality he has to renounce his mission and his Christhood and accept that the earth doesn't need salvation, it needs tillage and that mankind is better off being watched over by an all-tolerant Pan than a judgemental Jehovah.   

 

Like Elsa in 'The Overtone', you can certainly experience both Jesus and Pan, but not at one and the same time, or in the same way; the former belongs always to the pale light and the latter to the darkness: "'And night shall never be day, and day shall never be night.'" [4]     

 

To imagine them hand-in-hand, as Brett does, is a form of nihilism in that it annihilates the nature of each. As Lawrence notes of another two forces forever divided and at odds - the lion and the unicorn - each exists only by virtue of their inter-opposition: "Remove the opposition and there is a collapse, a sudden crumbling into universal nothingness." [5] 

 

It is the fight of opposites which is holy and there is no reconciliation save in this negation which, for Lawrence, is the unforgivable sin. And Brett has either forgotten this idea, chosen to ignore it, or perhaps never really understood the huge importance it has for Lawrence ... 

 

 

Notes

 

[1] The post in question - Iconography is Never Innocent - can be read by clicking here. See note 4.

[2] In a post on his blog - Larval Subjects - Levi R. Bryant uses non-technical terms to help readers understand what Deleuze and Guattari mean: "Consider the relationship between me and my cat. My cat and I share entirely different worlds even though we inhabit one and the same earth or heteroverse. There is no point where our worlds converge, yet nonetheless certain differential events flash across our distinct and divergent worlds, creating a relation in this non-relation. Somehow our worlds come to be imbricated and entangled with one another, even though they don’t converge on any sort of sameness." To read Bryant's post in full, click here.   

 

[3] See Nietzsche, 'Why I Am a Destiny', in Ecce Homo, where this line appears; or see section 1052 in Book IV of The Will to Power, where Nietzsche explains the distinction between Dionysus and the Crucified as he understands it.   

 

[4] See D. H. Lawrence, 'The Overtone', in St Mawr and Other Stories, ed. Brian Finney, (Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 3-17. The line quoted is on p. 16.

[5] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Crown', in Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays, ed. Michael Herbert, (Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 256.