Trump World Grab-Bag--A Collection

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Just Putting Things Out There: The Perfidy of Karl Rove

I have long had a sense that the term "karma" was a spiritual way of stating the scientific fact that any action has an equal and opposite reaction. Or sometimes it only means the much more simple aphorism, "What comes around, goes around."

And so I think it goes with Karl Rove. I'm not sure but that he's on borrowed air, having courted enough billionaires' cash for his Crossroads venture that didn't pay-off with "the math" in the 2012 election that I still can't fathom why he hasn't become some flavor of spinmeister-jerky in a Nevada desert. But regardless, it still does my dark, grudge-prone heart good to hear that Meghan McCain blasted the bejaysus out of Turdblossom's crapulent hide. She quite properly related his comments about the mental health of former SOS Clinton regarding her fall to those very unfortunate and Rovian calls that took place in SC during the 2000 GOP primary bid.

It reveals something very true about Rove's modus operandi, that, once you've understood it, makes him fairly pathetic. His version of oppo is actually a dumb brute-force technique you could call "putting shit out there". It doesn't have to have the ring of truth essential and simon-pure--it just has to be basically plausible to the mouthbreathers. So some shit gets thrown out there that a darker-skinned member of the McCain household is Sen. McCain's biracial lovechild, when Meghan McCain's sister was adopted by her mother in an act of real love, but why would the truth matter--truth takes time to get out. But you can throw a lie at lightning speed, right? And then it just splashes down and ripples out.

Just like Hillary Clinton's head wound is supposed to splash down and ripple out into suppositions about whether she was wearing head trauma kinds of glasses instead of the kind of glasses middle-aged ladies sometimes wear to read like my mom does. It simply doesn't have to be true--it just gets out there. Like, somehow, maybe, bad "math" about the electability of certain candidates gets out there?  You want skewed polls? You want a prince of projectionism, whose oppo also kind of points back at the failings of the kinds of politicians he'd serve, and voila, you have your Rover. He's pathological and he's toxic.He will probably even fuck over the people who hire him or do business with him, because he can just go on FOX News or whatever and make it okay for himself--he thinks.

Does that sound a little harsh? I dunno. I'm just putting it out there.


Anonymous said...

Hi Vixen,
you know I never fail to regret the superficial level at which we in the West have come to view important concepts derivative from the East.

Karma is much too large a subject to tackle in a forum like this.

However, you might be interested to know that karma is of 3 kinds; what one is now making (kriyamanar or vartamana), what one is now receiving, or what from the past is now fructifying (prarabdha), and what one has in storage (sanchita) for the future.

There is karma that brings us pleasure and karma that brings us pain. The word karma translates roughly as simply "action." Those who are advanced see the good and bad karma in the same light because they are transcendental and beyond the point at which karma can ultimately affect them, even if it happens. I.E., they have fully realized the "enlightenment" state.

You must realize that the notions of karma arise from a cosmological perception of the universe that designates 4 different castes which people are born into and cannot be ameliorated.

The deeper levels of cognition enjoyed by seership in the East tell us that people are automatically born into the caste that is most fruitful for them to discharge this karma.

Buddhism reformed this idea to some extent, but not entirely. There are, in fact, 12 different philosophical points of view that evolved out of Indian philosophy. And you can find some variations in their views of Karma.

There is a form of yoga called Karma Yoga. Performing action with no regard or concern for the fruits of that action.

There is a famous tale of a Samurai warrior who was about to behead his enemy. His enemy said some things that got the Samurai's goat, and so he replaced his sword and walked away without injuring his enemy.

Why? Because he could only execute the man in a karma-free state if he were firmly centered in the enlightenment state that transcends the effects of karma. His enemy had caused some emotional reactions, and therefore he could not behead the man with impunity.

From the point of view of karma, Karl Rove is in the position he is in because his karma has led him to be an aristocratic spokesman on the national stage. The people he was speaking about were there because their karma had led them into a subservient position.

In fact, from the point of view of karma, you have set in motion activity that will eventually cause you to be subjugated to all of the scorn and ridicule and derision that you have heaped on others. This is your karma.

From the point of view of karma, minority members who feel persecuted are in this stage because in the past they were the persecutors. And the people who now have authority are the ones they persecuted.

This brief discussion does not begin to talk about karma as it pertains to levels beyond the temporal sphere. However, textual references discuss karma in many guises that relate to the archetypal levels and even up to the absolute proposition of divinity.

One of the things that constantly bemuses me is that you can easily run into people who can tell you about the NY Times book reviews, the Wall Street financial columns, but still know little more about religion than they did in their adolescent rebellion against Sunday school.

Some people have suggested that rather than becoming wiser, we are becoming more banal.

--Formely Amherst

Vixen Strangely said...

Thank you for the additional perspective. I admit, "karma" for me, I guess, as guilty of superficiality as any westerner, is more like a shorthand for the concept of "reciprocity" which is just as useful for discussions of game theory "tit for tat" as for the Wiccan "rule of three". Putting how as a philosophy one might understand it in relation to one's social position is a very valuable perspective.

Speaking of samuri puts me to mind of a play on words I have in the past used as, again, a shorthand for a larger construct with considerable differences in context, of the previous administration having a "bushido" where the only honor lay in winning. As a Bush Administration samuri, he had the capacity to be fiercely loyal, and whatever character assasinations were attempted were in service to his feudal lord. Just as we see killing in war differently than we do the work of a hitman for hire, his self-identification is that, by winning for his team, he is doing exactly what he is supposed to do, and the means need only be skillful--the fall-out for the other side needn't affect him.

Except that, with the spectacular descent in the political fortunes of Team Bush, members of which are unwelcome in certain countries and certain college campuses, Rove has become a kind of ronin. Although he is still loyal to "Team Conservatism", he seems to be in a less-structured environment where his allegiances are tactical and mercenary. If he was seen as aristocratic before, there is a tradition also that would see him less so, now.

Not having a rigid caste system, we have a saying in the west that you should be careful who you kick on the way up, because you'll see them again on the way down. As the moral to my comment after such a wind-up, I guess that might be a little anti-climatic.

And it is true I also have vartamana coming my way--shigata ga nai, neh? One's mental, emotional, spiritual cost-benefit analysis in the end sometimes is--because I do. I get nothing for it. I'm a piddling blogger pinging the nets with a payload of piss and vinegar because the alternative is quiet indignation and an ulcer.

Once I saw a verse written on a bus wall--"I shall not die a natural death, but fighting." I kind of got it.

There is danger, I think though, in the belief that one has the "enlightenment" state at which good or bad karma makes no difference. As always, I lack spirituality, so to me, pain is just pain. In a bushido where honor is winning, loss is the unacceptable. I don't think, to someone like Rove, losing is acceptable. Nor it is marketable for a ronin.

Anonymous said...

Hi Vixen,
I think the answer to your question is probably yes and no.

"In the Yoga Sutras by Patanjali, karma, rather than being fatalistic or mechanistic, is understood as a memory trace or disposition from previous thought or action -- an impulse which can either be acted upon and reinforced or neglected by the exercise of free choice." -- Harold Coward

As a consequence, although karma cannot be eradicated, it can be diminished and minimized so that at such times it imposes itself it is much easier to bear. It is highly recommended that modifications be implemented that shrink bad karma before it catches up with one.

Most of the rhetorical and dialectic slander comes from the ego, while a disagreement in principle can originate in the Self. Jung defines the Self as "related to the conscious mind and related to the unconscious mind, but identical with neither." And part of the important direction in life is for the ego to give up some of its presumption and realize that it shares the house with a greater principle. The ego is said to be the center of consciousness, but the Self is the center of the entire conscious and unconscious.

To minimize karma one would necessarily need to shift their political thinking from the slanderous tongue to a discussion of principle. And instead of trying to claw people to death, try to find diplomatic ways and initiatives to help both sides find the humanity in the people with whom they disagree.

Also the introduction of a really good meditation practice that is pursued on a daily basis and is not a pop-culture little practice, but something stable and reliable. And then of course simply to try and neglect the things that get all the ego needs stirred up and begin to recognize that in there somewhere, like a higher power, is a transpersonal part of us. The Atman, the Self, Adam Kadmon, and many other names.

Probably if this were done it would mitigate the karmic pile that one presently keeps stacking higher and deeper.

(Originally, I had illustrated all this by a reflection on W.B. Yeats's poem "Into the Twilight," but I ran over the word limit. As you know, Yeats was a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, a Rosicrucian magical order. He also helped reinvigorate the Irish fairy faith and was also deeply involved in Spiritualism from a prophetic point of view. A lot of his poetry and plays reflect his interest.)

--Formerly Amherst

Vixen Strangely said...

Hm. As a non-spiritual person, it is difficult for me to compartmentalize my ego and my self, because I consider the ego the observer, and the results of my personal inquiries into the self are necessarily colored by the only tool I seem to have at hand--me. This is dreadfully limiting: I feel like a deterministic materialist--but I conclude that I will tend to see things with my own insight because of the experiences I have.

When I discuss the actions or motivations of others, I tend to think of them not as slander--if I am describing things that have actually been done or said by the subjects of my present ego-driven ire. I'm registering my opinions of them, with is to either be taken with sugar, salt, or strychnine as the reader of them prefers.

There is a tale of a previous incarnation of the Dalai Lama who had killed to prevent others from additional, worse karma--also, many lamaist orders are skilled in martial arts. Could it be, then, that it isn't incumbent on one to passively consider the principles--but even fight for them, if need be? And if one fights, against whom and with what?

It is my hope that the art of a skilled (digital) pen can cut off greater harms as a form of bodhichitta. I may aim to wound--but in my estimation, it is grandmotherly kindness. And more helpful to the corrections of misplaced principles than hot cookies.

I like Yeats. I'm one of those who darkly think about "The Second Coming" when things go haywire. His intersections with the OTO and Pound, who I did my senior paper on (about 20 yrs ago), remind me that a real artist draws from many sources and is open to changes.

Anonymous said...

Hi Vixen,
you may be unaware of your HGA, but your HGA is trying to get through to you.

You're confusing me with someone else. I'm the vicious, right-wing, redneck, NRA supporter, remember?

I'm a VietNam veteran, and I taught boxing and hand to hand combat and realistic weapons training for 8 years. I have a gun in the car and a few in the house, and if some hapless criminal broke in, they would probably receive their eternal reward.

Sometimes I am called on to teach the Qaballah. Occasionally someone will refuse to continue because they cannot tolerate the idea of Geburah on the Tree of Life. Regrettably, the Qaballah cannot be changed to suit their inner Gandhi, and so they simply have to look elsewhere.

Geburah is as holy a sephirah as any other. But the idea is that you unfortunately are called on to hurt people out of necessity. Not for recreation or exploitation. A forceful assertion of your own principle is different than calling people names and accusing them of malevolent qualities.

Jung was an empiricist. He discovered the Self because of prodigious amount of work in dreams where he found this central archetype manifesting itself in various imagery and forms.

Part of the quest is to get some feeble grasp on the idea that there is a transpersonal element. Then a person tries to flesh this out with more understanding and an attempt to develop a relationship with it. When you have developed that ongoing relationship, you have transcended the Separoths below Tipareth.

Before then everyone is in the dark, and in our present age, the Kali Yuga, it is dark indeed.

With your background related to Yeats and the OTO, you might be interested in a fairly new book called "W. B. Yeats -- Twentieth Century Magus" by Susan Johnston Graf. Most books on Yeats recognize his magical interests, but try to minimize it and dwell on other qualities. Graf's book deals with the magical elements head-on and realizes that Yeats's entire life was animated to some extent or another by his magical interests.

I am not sure that when you were in college Yeats's "Per Amica Silentia Lunae" was available. I have it on Kindle, and it is very helpful when trying to understand the dimensions of his thought.

Vixen, your HGA is trying to get through to you. At least try to be receptive.

--Formerly Amherst