I’m missing something.

That’s OK. Sometimes I pursue strange notions and the more I try to explain them the less clear they become. My bad. Or maybe there’s some kind of astrological impediment to communication this week. Wires are getting crossed all over the place. I’m giving up on this one. Haveagoodweekend.

Iconoclasts think icons obscure what is really there.

I would say that they think it’s more of a dangerous distraction, not that it obscures anything. It doesn’t *hide* it per se….

then what they think has nothing to do with the underlying reality.

Explain, without the Schrodinger cat reference…

Therefore it doesn’t matter who destroys the icon or why.

I don’t get how this necessarily follows from what you’re saying. I’m missing something.

My main point is that it’s what we do next that’s important.

Well what is it that we do next and why is that important?

And also that cynicism has a potential utility beyond its purpose

What do you mean by utility beyond purpose? What is its purpose?

may not be wise to dismiss cynicism out of hand as being completely pointless

I don’t think its completely pointless. I do think it is a defensive measure and that it helps people build their powers of discernment…

1) Iconoclasts think icons obscure what is really there.

2) Cynics think there is nothing really there at all.

3) Unless you’re talking about some kind of Schrodinger’s (sp?) Cat, then what they think has nothing to do with the underlying reality.

Therefore it doesn’t matter who destroys the icon or why. The truth (or lack thereof) is revealed.

My main point is that it’s what we do next that’s important. (And also that cynicism has a potential utility beyond its purpose, so it may not be wise to dismiss cynicism out of hand as being completely pointless.)

However, whether there is anything ‘really there’ or not is a function of the icon, not of the destroyer.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that…

Now, between the government ‘dog-waggers’ and the blogging ‘truth-seekers’, who are the iconoclasts and who are the cynics?

Yeah I think that’s a really good question. And I didn’t think you were being snarky…

Isn’t it possible that (for a given icon) the results could well be the same regardless of the intentions of the destroyer?

When I was a kid, my friends and I would build cubby houses in the woods. Sometimes older kids would come and smash them and we’d have to rebuild. It resulted in a stronger design. Eventually we got into the habit of trying to destroy them ourselves as soon as we’d built them, just to ascertain their strengths and weaknesses. We were performing destructive testing whereas the older kids were just being mean. Either way, the results were the same: tougher and tougher cubby houses. While destruction is necessary for evolution to occur, it’s what one builds out of the rubble that’s really important.

I’m also reminded of the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Bagdhad, which was a widely televised event. Within days photos emerged showing that the statue-toppling ceremony was a typical stage-managed psyop with a rent-a-crowd, not a spontaneous celebration of freedom as it was originally portrayed. Now, between the government ‘dog-waggers’ and the blogging ‘truth-seekers’, who are the iconoclasts and who are the cynics?

Anyways, I like this series of posts so please don’t think I’m being snarky, but sometimes it’s these little things that attract most of my attention.

Tell me, what’s the difference between an iconoclast and a cynic?

I would venture something like: a cynic picks apart images because he thinks there is nothing there. An iconoclast destroys them because he thinks they limit us from what is really there

Another aspect of this is an idea I’ve encountered in many spiritual traditions: the need for a spiritual guide, and for submitting to the authority of his teaching. Usually, insisting that your belief system, religion, etc. must reflect YOUR LIFE is exactly the kind of egocentricism that you need to overcome in order to make any spiritual progress.

NB: it is YOU who is doing the progressing or regressing, YOU whose ideas about the truth are evolving and changing in the current of the times. The truth is what it is, always has been and always will be.

Why, after all, do we care whether an idea is new or revolutionary? Is that supposed to be a mark of greater truth? Isn’t it possible, and even likely, given that truth doesn’t change, that some truths were discovered long ago? Perhaps our fathers and grandfathers, and their grandfathers before them, were right about some of the things they tried to tell us, but we, in our arrogance and belief in “progress”, refused to listen?

Icons and other symbols are like the finger pointing at the moon in that old Zen anecdote. As long as we still understand their purpose and the direction they are pointing, they’re valuable tools. But when we begin to pay more attention to the tool and lose sight of its purpose, it’s time to put it down. And when people have come to think of the tool itself as the point, it’s time to smash it and rediscover real values.

Here’s one traditional way to approach that question of real values and timeless truth:

Leibniz famously asked “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and placed this mystery of existence at the heart of metaphysics. How, out of nothingness, can things come into being? Creation is the original miracle, and the prototype of all the others. It’s a miracle that only God can produce. It is the ur-revelation, a sign or symbol pointing back to Him…

you are proposing no less than a brand new religion and also an ideology to boot?

No, I’m not proposing that whatsoever. I don’t know what I’m proposing, but I’m looking at the idea that your belief system and religion etc ought to reflect YOUR LIFE, instead of somebody else’s life. Maybe that’s not especially revolutionary…

Doesn’t the mass media in all it’s forms always being discussed here already do what you are suggesting in a big way?

Not really. Because it foists someone else’s proposed solutions onto you, rather than you cultivating your own solutions.

it’s important for us to recognize that our current circumstances represent a coming together of all these various shards, these idols which we have smashed from generations past. And it may be that our destiny is to forge from them a new one which meets our needs, today, right now.

you are proposing no less than a brand new religion and also an ideology to boot?
LAWS YES!! Uh, wait a minute. Nah. Do we really need more of those?
Doesn’t the mass media in all it’s forms always being discussed here already do what you are suggesting in a big way? Furiously starting new religions 30 mins at a time, pulling in the past, until the ratings drop to start again.