(circa 2006, by me)

Il fut un temps, bien avant notre ère, (environ le sixième siècle,) le premier maître du Zen traversa des montagnes féroces et des fleuves impassibles de l'Inde jusqu'au temple Shaolin en Chine. Aussitôt qu'il arriva à la montagne où se trouve le temple Shaolin, il décida de se mettre à une méditation qui dura neuf années. Pourtant, pendant la troisième année de méditation, il se fut endormi et arracha ses paupières afin qu'il ne puisse jamais s'endormir pendant sa méditation une autre fois de plus. Puis, les vieilles paupières de Bodhidharma atterrirent sur la terre riche du printemps et les premières plantes de thé poussèrent. C'est ainsi que tous les moines du Zen Bouddhisme boivent du thé pour qu'ils puissent ne pas s'endormir pendant leur méditation.

When I was an idealistic freshman at Reed College, I met an extraordinary scholar. He was a senior, well dressed and ready for his oral thesis defense. One day I sat with him outside for lunch. A small crowd had gathered around him as he entertained questions pertaining to his thesis, in preparation for his impending defense. His thesis was bold and unequivocal: "All institutions are fundamentally corrupt; ethical institutions on this planet do not exist." He related his thesis somehow to the political philosophy of John Rawls, and also to the Talmud, though how he synthesized his information now escapes me. That evening, I saw him outside the Paradox Café. He asked me if he could borrow a quarter so he could buy a cigarette. Since I admired him so much, I said: "Sure. But just know I hope you are trying to quit; smoking is such a repugnant habit." "Zach, if you knew why I smoke cigarettes, you would not say that..." "Oh? Well, um, so why do you smoke?" "I'll tell you after I get the cig." He lit his cigarette, and said: "A couple years ago I was out on a lake with my best friend. Something happened to the canoe. I tried to save him. He drowned. Since then I have been a chain-smoker." "My God. I don't know what to say. I am so sorry, man." That was the last I heard from him. A year later I found out he had committed suicide. He had finished his oral defense and handed in the final draft of his thesis, was ready to receive his diploma, when Reed told him that he could not graduate because the way in which he fulfilled his science requirement was untenable according to their standards of excellence. He killed himself soon thereafter.

One day, you might open your indolent eyes, and notice that the most compassionate bodhisattvas happen to be living in your backyard, and the most passionate poets happen to be your best friends.

The first time I remember writing an original poem was for a 3rd grade class at the École Active Bilingue in Paris. I learned how to speak English before learning to speak French, but learned to write in French before learning to write in English. The teacher asked the class to write a poem (in French) following the rhyme-scheme of another poet. I did not fully understand the directions and wrote a poem about a Guinea Pig using a rhyme-scheme I invented myself. When I showed the poem to my teacher, she scolded me and said I did not pay close enough attention to the instructions that she explicitly explained. She proceeded to rip up my poem and throw it in the trash. To this day I still remember the first two stanzas of my poem, although the last two stanzas escape me. Thinking back on it now, I find an element of poetic justice in the fact that my first memory of total and abject humiliation coincided with my first memory of writing poetry, a pursuit that today is my most passionate and consuming.

To take the self as an object and to take the other as a subject are both objectificatory processes. Vice versa: to take the self as a subject and the other as an object are also both objectificatory processes. Prior to linguistically-structured thought, the self is not an object nor is the other a subject. Prior to linguistically-structured thought, there is only selfless and otherless awareness, life unqualified. Many in the field of mainstream psychology/psychiatry argue that when adult human beings begin to operate in the aforementioned state (in which the self/other dichotomy collapses) it is a regression to infant solipsism, and the person in question is psychotic. Solipsism implies that I, or self, alone exists. However: the selfless and otherless awareness of an infant cannot be solipsistic, because both the solipsism of subjectivity (I) and the anti-solipsism of objectivity (You) are mere conceptual inferences that originate only from linguistically-structured thought. If the aforementioned state is one of psychosis, then we must reduce most great artists and great mystics to lunatics. My first axiom, in other words, is: Both the subjectification of self and the objectification of other are objectificatory processes. By "objectificatory" I mean framed, contextualized, spatially and temporally located. Linguistically-structured thought is a constant framing, contextualization, and locating of basic and ineffable awareness, of life unqualified. A controversial point: Many assume that the most psychotic rapist necessarily objectifies the raped. I argue that this is a misunderstanding of objectification. The most psychotic rapist does not subjectify the self nor objectify the other. The most psychotic rapist is an empty vessel through which primordial compulsions take place. This is NOT an argument for raping people. It is an argument for understanding more competently and holistically one type of consciousness that compels persons to commit the most horrific crimes. Without the framing, contextualizing, and locating of awareness (life unqualified), demonic forces tend to manifest themselves: so-called psychosis, schizophrenia, mania, etc. These forces are not intrinsically evil. Kahlil Gibran says: "What is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?" He goes on to say: "Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts it drinks even of dead waters." I offered psychotic rape as the most extreme example of demonic possession. There are innumerable others. I am not talking about literal demons, for any who are confused by my use of religious terminology. Prior to subjectivity and objectivity, neither good nor evil exists. Nonetheless, we live in a society whose very foundation rests on the assumption that linguistically-structured thought can realistically apprehend the world. We cannot become anti-social automata who eat grass and ingest the sunlight. Anarcho-primitivism is untenable. I have only read a single book by Jacques Derrida: "The Gift of Death." Derrida's main argument in the above text is endlessly significant but endlessly unintelligible. Many of you may think my words are also unintelligible. If so, I challenge you to take a look at "The Gift of Death." There is only one thesis I took from the text in question: that religion's highest aim is not simply the rapture of the unificatory state of mystical consciousness, (in which linguistically-structured thought collapses), but the process of fully engaging in the infinite ethical conundrums that come with the advent of subjectivity and objectivity, self and other. Mystical consciousness without (necessarily objectificatory) ethical frameworks leads persons like the infamous guru Adi Da to rape all of his consorts and to financially exploit all of his followers. It is what led Manson, who declared "All is One" and "I am Nobody" to kill innumerable beings. The holistic or integral approach to religion/mysticism includes both the collapse and embrace of all dichotomization. The worst mystics are those who "attain heaven in one leap and leave a demon their place." (Meister Eckhart.) The worst political activists are those who seek to exorcise demons only in others, and to create heaven on earth without finding the kingdom of heaven within themselves. When Gandhi was asked if his work was truly altruistic, he responded by dialectically inverting the notion that all true moral action is exclusively for the sake of others: Gandhi replied: "What I do is for my self and my self alone." Gandhi was both a genius political activist and a serious spiritual seeker, though he too had his flaws and idealizations. As a side note, I recently read a quote that says, "Our actions are mostly flaws stitched together with good intentions." I like that. Although I always intend to do good, I fail again and again, ad perpetuem. Nonetheless, I will not cease from cultivating my greatest intentions. I wrote earlier that even the advent and exponential proliferation of objectification itself has only ever happened within the vast fields of subjectivity we call persons. In actuality I believe neither in subjectivity nor objectivity, but both are unavoidable modes in which we must learn to function. Another way of framing this paradox is that even duality is nondual; or, in clearer terms, that even when we experience ourselves as subjects and others as objects, and vice versa, that too is happening within (and as) the basic, ineffable awareness of unqualified life, which never came from anywhere and has nowhere to go. Many may point out that my own philosophical verbiage is extremely objectificatory. It is. Whitman knew that contradiction was not necessarily a bad thing. Whitman was large and contained multitudes. I aspire to be more like him. With that said, please go out for a beer with your friends, read a good poem, take a hot bath, go to bed, whatever. I am going to take my own advice now and go to bed, with the hope that tomorrow I become a little bit less of a demon than I was yesterday, and the day before.

In the final analysis, no comprehensive theory of art will ever inspire good artists as well as good art itself. It is better to follow your intuition than to follow theoretical prescriptions. Nonetheless, my intuition led me to write what I believe is good theory, which itself is a kind of art and also can be written with nothing but love. The last thing I want to do however is confuse the territory with the map. But maps can be cool too. Especially if they glow in the dark and illuminate the territory.