![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Super Villains & Super Heroes
I accidentally opened up a whole can of worms with that Charles Manson quote. There were lots of great thoughts that people added into the mix, and Max added some great bits on Manson over at his blog. There’s also been a really interesting conversation developing between him and Zac of Alchemical Braindamage about sort of the nature of evil in the world. I won’t try to rehash the whole thing here. But between that and my research into Scientology and some other things, a lot of my ideas on the subject are being put through the ringer. Not so much that I suddenly think evil is cool, but maybe let me approach it from another direction.
One of the big issues that came up in the Manson conversation was basically: did he achieve some kind of gnosis or enlightenment or liberation? Whatever you want to call it. The crux of the argument seems to be that while Manson seems to have a lot of interesting spiritual insights, he also has a lot of crazy screwed up shit that he’s responsible for. I won’t try to argue either group down from their positions, cause I agree with both. I also like the quote from Manson on the subject: “Prison’s in your mind… can’t you see I’m free?”
I was looking for a way to resolve this whole conflict for myself, and suddenly realized I already struck on it when I wrote that piece on Batman and Jesus. Bruce Wayne goes through an initiation-type experience where transcends his Fear and in so doing, his very Self. Interestingly at the moment of liberation, he’s immediately presented with a choice. His Fear controlled him before, forcing him into positions where he was acting automatically. Now that he has transcended his Fear, he’s forced to decide by what Rule he will live his life now. The League of Shadows offers him the path of Absolute Justice, which is what he thought he wanted, but instead he “let’s Jesus into his heart” metaphorically, and chooses the path of Compassion (or well, Compassionate Justice, at least).
I guess what I’m wondering now is: Is gnosis/enlightenment a neutral experience? I’ve always thought it was wholly positive. How could it be anything else? But for me, the question Manson asks is just that. When you’ve transcended the opposites and moved beyond the realm of good and evil, how do you interact with the world? In mythology we hear a lot about Buddhas or Bodhisattvas who turn back at the last moment to liberate all other beings in the world. But rarely do we hear tales of the anti-Bodhisattva who transcends the control system, only to become it.
In Luke 4, we find the story of Jesus’ Temptation in the desert. The second test is:
The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”
What if Jesus was like: “Okay, sure!” What if once Philip K. Dick bonded with the Plasmate, he used it to dominate and control others? Even though I thought the movie sucked, Revenge of the Sith is one of the few pieces of mythology that answers that question. Maybe Charles Manson is another one. Maybe he met the Coyote (one of the original Native American trickster gods) in the desert, and since he believed that “All are One” bowed down before him.
Does that mean Manson didn’t have a genuine transcendent experience? It’s impossible for me to judge. I think what I’m getting at is that gnosis/enlightenment is not the last step. It is actually one of many points at which you are forced to make a critical decision. For Jesus, this came right after his Baptism, right after he was filled with the Holy Spirit. For Batman, it was when he burned down Ra’s Al Ghuls Temple. I think this is what’s meant in the saying: “By their fruits shall you know them.” But I don’t think that their fruits indicate whether or not they’ve been liberated, but what choice they made at that critical juncture.
Maybe the Joker is a better symbol for the choice Manson made, as opposed to Batman. Manson didn’t even dedicate himself to Absolute Cosmic Justice, like Batman was tempted to do. Believing all are one, he dedicated himself to himself. Perhaps too he believed that since he had suffered in his life, he was free to inflict it upon others - since all are one and he was merely re-absorbing it into himself. In any event, I feel like this brings me a bit closer to understanding what it is Manson represents, and why he’s such a thorny issue. I think it also sheds some light for me on all this talk of Ritual Abuse, and the power-mad choices people make in the face of transcendence.
- What is “true” spirituality?
- The need for heroes
- Super Century
- “Super Delegates”
- Givin’ the people what they want
- Prev: Whore of Reason
- Next: Killing the King
July 1st, 2005 at 5:13 pm
I think i sort of posed an answer to that right before you posted this, so i won’t recap it here.
but yeah I totally believe it’s possible to take the anti-bohdisattva move. pretty much all the great teachers say that the closest thing to true evil is to know the truth fully and then turn away from it.
so on the one hand it sucks that there are real supervillains out there, but on the other hand it’s a blessing because where would superheores like us be without them, eh Tim?
I’d have to say batman is a major favorite, but I feel like I lean more towards doc savage or the shadow. those pulp motherfuckers don’t take shit from anyone
July 1st, 2005 at 5:34 pm
I am not sure what zacharius posted, as he refers to, but my thoughts on evil are that it is totally subjective. Any situation presented us, whatever Truths we might be privy to, will always have an equal and opposite force to contradict such. The beauty behind Eastern thoughts that strive to eradicate such is that you begin with no point of moral reference, thus there is no equatable, symbolic reactive agent to your reference point.
But whatever truth you start with, whether your Bruce Wayne, Charles Manson, or Tom Cruise, there will always be the Enemy. Them. An Evil of some sort.
Thus, I will posit that evil does not exist except in reference to yourself and the biases of belief and relativism one takes on.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:44 pm
I think gnosis, for all its uniqueness, is akin to any other experience. In other words, yes, it is neutral. How you apply your gnosis is what determines its good/evil, usefull/useless, positive/negative.
But then you have to grapple with the idea of what gnosis reveals to you. Does it reveal the complete arbitrariness and pointlessness of human existence? Does it render “conventional” morality meaningless? Does it imply that the only true meaning is love and compassion for others?
There are a lot of reactions and interpretations of gnosis. And it begs the question of how do you know you have “authentic” gnosis as opposed to your interpretation of it? It engenders the question of what is “ultimate meaning” and whether gnosis, or false gnosis, moves you further along that path or away from it.
The separation between Batman and Joker is slim, see Moore’s The Killing Joke, the difference being when faced with “true” understanding of reality [in comics at least] Batman chooses compassion and love, whereas Joker embraces chaos and indivuality. The appeal of Batman, I think, is unlike other “heroes” he doesn’t ignore the darkness, or pretend it doesn’t exist, but assumes aspects of it.
But then you have to question whether the dualities presented by such examples are false dualities… which again comes back to the issue of ultimate meaning, morality and significance.
Does Manson’s choice to embrace “evil” mean anything beyond this particular realm of reality or interpretation of the facts? If not, is this representative of anything?
Does gnosis reveal the ultimate meaningless of the human experience or does it show the inherent “goodness” of those human traits - compassion, love, altruism - that we hold as ideal?
And does our interpretation of gnosis, like any experience, say more about ourselves than the experience itself?
Solipsism is a bitch…
July 1st, 2005 at 5:51 pm
here’s el ron operating on roughly the same level as charlie:
we can pick this apart and decipher it. in the space of a few words el ron seems to undergo a number of mental ‘polarity shifts’. he’s probably playing sort of a game with himself and his audience, and he’s obviously lost in the game. you could probably even interpret it, let’s say as a sort of a sermon against negative thinking, mixed up with some unprocessed war memories. its significant in all sorts of ways, symbolically, culturally etc. but is there anything of intrinsic spiritual value here? i dont think so, i think el ron was, like charlie, just totally batshit nuts.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Albion, I think that begs the question of whether or not there is “intrinsic spiritual value” in being “batshit nuts”? You seem to not think so. I’m not so sure…
July 1st, 2005 at 6:09 pm
i guess that depends on your definition of spirituality. mine encompasses more than ’spontaneous realization.’ this stuff strikes me as spiritually rather low-grade. you could drink absinthe and come up with the kind of stuff charlie did. it might even have its own fascinating internal logic. but i would take pains to separate such an experience from what i would personally consider ‘true’ spirituality. i think that if someone can’t bring what’s valuable from their spontaneous spiritual insight into their broader experience and existence, it’s really just flying high. charlie wasn’t free, charlie was a freakin’ slave to his ‘gnosis.’ totally lost in his own labyrinths.
July 1st, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Jesus rejected Satan’s temptation and then returned to society to fulfill his destiny.
What if Jesus had rejected Satan’s temptation and then just stayed in the widerness anyway? Not for 40 days and nights but forever.
What if he discovered he had more in common with the wild animals than people?
Disclaimer: the mark of an educated mind is being able to enterian an idea without accepting it, etc.
July 1st, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Charlie’s real value is as an archetype, the imprisoned prophet who gains credibility from the fact that society seems to fear him so much. when in fact, he hasn’t got the skills to function on the outside anyway. If he did, he’d probably be president by now, or at least secretary of defense:
‘my platform is: get with the program or be destroyed’
No. it’s quite evident that he’s supposed to be the posterboy for the dangers of stepping outside the daddy-consensus.
two thousand years ago manson would’ve been the perfect warrior/shaman/chieftain of some marauding horde of barbarians, a shining example of initiation to his people. Now though, he just aint got the skills to cope…
July 1st, 2005 at 7:43 pm
The point about him being a symbol and example is a good one I think
Charlie is a mirror, he’s like a fusion of freaky opposites, Albert Einstein with a Hitler mustache, Nixon in an Elvis Costume, norman mailer’s white negro, etc etc.
Maybe even Simon Magus falling from the sky and breaking his legs
Its true he could never make it on the outside
But to me what makes him interesting is not the scariness (I don’t find him scary) but the unihibitedness, the way he appears to have completely given himself over to something that is larger than he is, he sings and dances and plays with it and just doesn’t give a shit - The guy provokes intense cognitive dissonance just by existing
It may all be a con, who knows, with someone like that you can never tell
his interview with Geraldo Rivera was and still is one of the funniest fucking things I’ve ever seen
Geraldo asks “So are you a monster or just a misunderstood madman?”
I mean, c’mon. REALLY, c’mon. What Charlie’s answer is at that point almost doesn’t even matter. Just to be there and be asked idiotic questions like that is almost enough. He doesn’t even have to say anything. So instead he starts rapping like he thinks he’s Scatman Crothers at a spoken word night :
“roop de scoo, bop shoo mop,” etc and doing this freaking popping and locking like he’s in breakin’ 2 electric boogaloo.
50,000 Americans died in the Vietnam war, BTW, and millions of Vietnamese.
Charles Manson killed 1 person. That makes him the big villain of the 60s?
Hmm……
Remind never to become the symbolic embodiment of the public’s ambiguous take on some super-passionate controversy. It must be a terrible thing.
July 1st, 2005 at 8:09 pm
zac calls it. whether or not charlie was actually a mind-control experiment, his symbolic function is: hippies = serial killers, so you better walk the straight and narrow.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:21 pm
I just got to thinking, is Batman really a “superhero” or just a troubled idealist in a cape? Every other superhero I can think of would smoosh Batman without his tech gadgets in a heartbeat. Batman has no superpowers. As Zacharius brought up:
If you strip the concept of character of the superhero from Batman, he really is more Manson-like than a Batman fan would want to admit. If in only their shared human mortality. Batman is like a sex-free Zorro. He’s heroic, on the little guy’s side and totally, empathic when it comes to the lure of evil and its power. But again, possesses no superhuman traits. Like Manson. Like the Gnostic interpretation of Jesus. (correct me if I’m wrong on the Jesus bit!)
I guess the question to me is: If you’re fighting for justice you best keep abreast of what the populous you’re presumedly serving condsider justice as well. Manson, if you look at the evolution of certain subcultures and their multisensational symbols, has indeed already become something of a wispy, occultic popcult-ure superhero. Batman, I dare say, is a superhero who’s day has finally dovetailed with the technology of his future. The future is here. If there are Mansons in this world and have been for some time, who then and where, are the batmyn? The microfibers and miniaturized complex tech are waiting.
The deal in Iraq is a perfect example of evil poured out upon a hyper-surreal-macro level that somehow, unfortunately, has not registered with the frightened and unhappy people of Gotham. Who or what do the people consider themselves to be a larger part of, sans their status as Gothamites or Americans what have you? When it comes to evil, why is there such a disconnect between what happens because the authorities said it had to be so and what happens when some (non)random desperate hero/anti-hero (read: “criminal”) makes a system dwelling automaton uncomfortable? A crime’s a crime right? And yet the disconnect exists. The system commits no errors.
So in someways you can begin to envision a day when empathy and random, unconditional heroism, person to person, that’s not fit to be run on the evening news becomes suspect behavior, hence potentially, a crime against the system. If the system creates an evil that can eclipse all known random acts of human depravity, what then becomes both the victim and executor with, I cringe to point out, almost unlimited powers of reinventing itself both backward and forward in time? You guessed it, The System. Therefore, any lone superhero that would jump to the aid of a kitten in a tree or to a contract worker about to get beheaded, becomes one who elucidates a flaw in the system — and is thus a criminal.
Oh my mind is swimming right now. I’ll leave it at that. . . ; )
July 1st, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Reminds me of Tuttle in Brazil. Not that’s a 1980s movie worth watching in 2005!
July 1st, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Actually, I think this sort of thing happens all the time. It may be the rare (counter)initiate who chooses compassion over power. I’m not really sure about that, but I see plenty of evidence of super(trans?)natural awareness in service of narcissistic power. But I also see plenty of humble, every-day kindness.
Perhaps the difference between initiation and counter-initiation is less one of knowledge itself than of the ends to which it is put into service. Again, I don’t really know.
It’s hard for me to get really intellectual about whether gnosis is innately positive or neutral. Most of us who are exchanging ideas here already understand that “good” and “evil” are concepts that apply only in the realm of subjective human experience, not in any absolute sense. However, there is an experiential aspect of gnosis that does not lend itself to debate in a rational/linguistic arena. In my experience, I can’t imagine a gnosis without the empathy and compassion that comes out of a profound awareness of the oneness of all consciousness and the suffering of all incarnate beings. But who knows, maybe I’m just too lowly and unevolved to see beyond it. Not sure that I would want to arrive at a point where I could no longer comprehend another’s suffering.
July 2nd, 2005 at 1:31 pm
[…]
What is “true” spirituality?
Talking about all this Manson stuff has triggered a chain of explosions, so many that it’ […]