http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZdjT1472Y
In this deeply existential song, Human (video link above; lyrics below), by The Killers, with its stirring querying of the meaning of human life, the ultimate question it asks is whether we are merely human or whether we are also dancers, participants in the larger context, the Great Dance of the Universe.
It asks whether humans exist as no more than individuated life forms, scheduled to live out a short existence here on Earth with no eternal prospects after we "cut the cord." Or, whether as humans we are active, ensouled bodies dancing in the Great Recital of the Universe.
We live all-too-brief life spans as individuated life forms, as humans who ask existential questions looking for ultimate, meaningful answers. The lyrics say, "I'm on my knees looking for the answer," but "there is no message we're receiving." This indicates humans exist in an unfathomable universe in which we live as "nervous" beings, with "cold hands" who must assume responsibility for acts of free will as we question our very existence.
At moments in our individuated lives, the lyrics say, we "see an open door" to the Beyond, in which at the last moment of life, "when the call comes" and we are on "the platform" ready for the final take off, we "clear our hearts," kindly acquiesce and "surrender" in a final leap of faith.
The lyrics say humans leave behind grace, virtue, good, soul, romance, devotion--the things that make us distinctly human, but we participate in a larger show, that of being Dancers in the Great Dance of the terpsichorean Universe, the "home" of which we dream.
Notice the band (in the official video) performs in a nonbiological mise-en-scene of nonhuman life forms. The tiger and lion signify the Universe-as-predator on individuated human lives; the vulture signifies death, our absorption into the Great Beyond. The band at the end gazes out beyond Earth, beyond individuated human life, to that open door.
The answer to the plaintive, existential question of whether we exist as humans or as dancers is that we, in essence, exist as both. In truth, we are embodied souls living within the greater OverSoul, the Atma.
The task, then, is disremembering the existential questions--plenty of that anon--and dance now in unfettered pas de deux with the embracing Universe. This song, by The Killers, provides some fullness-of-faith moments in which we can do just that.
Human
by The Killers
I did my best to notice
When the call came down the line
Up to the platform of surrender
I was brought but I was kind
And sometimes I get nervous
When I see an open door
Close your eyes, clear your heart
Cut the cord
Are we human or are we dancers?
My sign is vital, my hands are cold
And I'm on my knees looking for the answer
Are we human or are we dancers?
Pay my respects to grace and virtue
Send my condolences to good
Give my regards to soul and romance
They always did the best they could
And so long to devotion
You taught me everything I know
Wave goodbye, wish me well
You've gotta let me go
Are we human or are we dancers?
My sign is vital, my hands are cold
And I'm on my knees looking for the answer
Are we human or are we dancers?
Will your system be alright
When you dream of home tonight?
There is no message we're receiving
Let me know, is your heart still beating?
Are we human or are we dancers?
My sign is vital, my hands are cold
And I'm on my knees looking for the answer
You've gotta let me know
Are we human or are we dancers?
My sign is vital, my hands are cold
And I'm on my knees looking for the answer
Are we human or are we dancers?
Are we human or are we dancers?
Are we human or are we dancers?
Showing posts with label existential problems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label existential problems. Show all posts
28 February 2009
28 September 2008
THE EXISTENTIAL ELECTION
Unfortunately, there are no good tools external to ourselves to help us decide which presidential candidate to choose in the approaching election. This is due to the problems we face as a nation, which will soon be excruciatingly existential. They will be questions ripping at our core because we have long ignored them and because they will be questions dealing with life and death issues. The questions are about who we see ourselves as a people, where we want to go, and how we could possibly get there.
They will be about priorities: Particularly, how we choose to use dwindling resources, what we choose to spend treasure on, and, painfully, what we have to sacrifice.
We must choose which of the two candidates has the analytical abilities, communication skills, and, possibly, fortitude to tell the American people what we would not want to hear, and to possibly serve one term after he is pilloried for his honest appraisal of our dilemmas.
The last who attempted honesty with the public was Jimmy Carter, who laid it out in a talk, on 15 July 1979, denounced as his "Malaise Speech." Yet, he bravely attempted--in an act of political suicide--to show us that our growing dependence on foreign sources of oil was compromising our freedom and that we would have to sacrifice as a people in our wasteful energy-use and lifestyles.
In the following campaign the Feel-Good candidate effectively labeled Carter a "gloomsayer" and regaled puerile America with a false, utopian vision of unlimited prosperity, spending, and oil. He was the Prophet of Profligacy, as tens of thousands of millionnaires were created and America dreamwalked into a borrowed future.
Carter lost by a landslide; America lost because we could not face the truth of a future living within our means. The new President preached that government was THE problem; yet, it expanded under him. He preached that government spending had to be reduced; yet, under him government spending and the budget deficit exploded. But, Americans were feeling quite good about themselves in their head-in-the-sand, deficit-financed "Morning in America."
Who could best lead us, at this extremely late hour, as our profligate ways become curtailed during the likely long, worldwide recession soon to begin. Who best to reign in the imperial overreach of our military? Who would understand that a Nineteen Eighty-Four-like perpetual war is detrimental to our security and is breaking our military and depleting our coffers? Who understands that the doctrine of preemptive warfare compromises our security? Who understands that the fight against violently radical Islamism should be an internationally unified policing against a criminal conspiracy, not global war. Who understands that the Iraq War is a collossally tragic misadventure that partially resulted from the Pentagon's historically naive "Full-Spectrum Dominance" strategy formulated during the early 1990s? Who has the insight that the roadside IED (improvised explosive device) is a symbol of this fraudulent policy?
The President who came after the President of Feel-Good defiantly exhorted that the "American way of life" was not up for negotiation. Yet, this is EXACTLY what we must do: negotiate within ourselves individually and collectively who we are and want to be. Do we want to continue on with the profligate, dystopian downward slide of the country? We must decide. Who can help us see ourselves?
So, who will tell the American people that the country's problems are not out there, external to us? The relevant tools we need in choosing a President are inside each of us. This is because they are internal problems, inside the collective polity of the American nation, manifesting as existential questions of how we fit in the world--the real world, not the imaginary one in which we have too long been living. Who would, who could, possibly lead us in the painful accounting of truthfully seeing ourselves?
They will be about priorities: Particularly, how we choose to use dwindling resources, what we choose to spend treasure on, and, painfully, what we have to sacrifice.
We must choose which of the two candidates has the analytical abilities, communication skills, and, possibly, fortitude to tell the American people what we would not want to hear, and to possibly serve one term after he is pilloried for his honest appraisal of our dilemmas.
The last who attempted honesty with the public was Jimmy Carter, who laid it out in a talk, on 15 July 1979, denounced as his "Malaise Speech." Yet, he bravely attempted--in an act of political suicide--to show us that our growing dependence on foreign sources of oil was compromising our freedom and that we would have to sacrifice as a people in our wasteful energy-use and lifestyles.
In the following campaign the Feel-Good candidate effectively labeled Carter a "gloomsayer" and regaled puerile America with a false, utopian vision of unlimited prosperity, spending, and oil. He was the Prophet of Profligacy, as tens of thousands of millionnaires were created and America dreamwalked into a borrowed future.
Carter lost by a landslide; America lost because we could not face the truth of a future living within our means. The new President preached that government was THE problem; yet, it expanded under him. He preached that government spending had to be reduced; yet, under him government spending and the budget deficit exploded. But, Americans were feeling quite good about themselves in their head-in-the-sand, deficit-financed "Morning in America."
Who could best lead us, at this extremely late hour, as our profligate ways become curtailed during the likely long, worldwide recession soon to begin. Who best to reign in the imperial overreach of our military? Who would understand that a Nineteen Eighty-Four-like perpetual war is detrimental to our security and is breaking our military and depleting our coffers? Who understands that the doctrine of preemptive warfare compromises our security? Who understands that the fight against violently radical Islamism should be an internationally unified policing against a criminal conspiracy, not global war. Who understands that the Iraq War is a collossally tragic misadventure that partially resulted from the Pentagon's historically naive "Full-Spectrum Dominance" strategy formulated during the early 1990s? Who has the insight that the roadside IED (improvised explosive device) is a symbol of this fraudulent policy?
The President who came after the President of Feel-Good defiantly exhorted that the "American way of life" was not up for negotiation. Yet, this is EXACTLY what we must do: negotiate within ourselves individually and collectively who we are and want to be. Do we want to continue on with the profligate, dystopian downward slide of the country? We must decide. Who can help us see ourselves?
So, who will tell the American people that the country's problems are not out there, external to us? The relevant tools we need in choosing a President are inside each of us. This is because they are internal problems, inside the collective polity of the American nation, manifesting as existential questions of how we fit in the world--the real world, not the imaginary one in which we have too long been living. Who would, who could, possibly lead us in the painful accounting of truthfully seeing ourselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)