Wiley Wiggins is always a good source of material worthy of thought and research, and it was at his site that I just read about David Lynch and his connections to Transcendental Meditation. I'd heard of this connection before, but until Herr Wiggins mentioned that TM (oh, the irony in the abbreviation) was a cult of sorts, I'd always thought that David Lynch had simply discovered some kind of pseudo-hippie mind-clearing thing.
Hey, fine. As many of you know, David Lynch has been one of my favorite directors since I was seventeen, and that I admire not only his work but the man himself immensely. His movies and televison work, especially Twin Peaks, have shaped my approach to writing, and viewing the world, in more ways than I feel like relating right now. So what if he's a big fan of meditation or whatever? I'd meditate properly if I had the patience for it, but instead I'm content to watch condensation run down a beer can or follow the spirals of smoke coming from the end of my cigarette.
But, as mentioned, that was before I started reading about Transcendental Meditation. Much like Scientology, it reeks of bullshit, particularly for one reason: it claims that science backs it up.
This is unacceptable. Un-fucking-acceptable. Some of the half-dozen of you that read this blog may be aware that I have an ongoing, albeit far from violent, relationship with Christianity. If I was up to it at the moment, I'd get into that, but suffice to say that I spent a couple formative years being a real asshole of a Christian, and then gave it up in favor of other things. Mind you, I never gave up on it entirely; Christian theology is still on my mind constantly, and while I cannot call myself a Christian anymore, I still feel more affinity for that religion than any other one out there, save perhaps Taoism, and only if Taoism is stripped of its religiosity. (Now that I think about it, that may be the case with Christianity, but to a lesser degree; further thought on the matter is necessary.) Anyway, one thing I've concluded about my approach to religion as a pseudo-insider is that to try and provide it with some kind of rational or scientific basis in order to appease or prove something to nonbelievers is not only futile, but flat-out wrong. (I thank Søren Kierkegaard for this, as well as all the secular existentialists that have provided so much of my basis for a philosophy of life over the past half-dozen years.)
Why is it wrong? Christ, ask your average Baptist. Even they know that faith is exactly that: faith. It doesn't, and shouldn't, rely on any kind of framework outside of that basic tenet. Doing so undermines the linchpin of any religious impulse, although I will not deny that envisioning science as a glorious extension of religious faith- within bounds, mind you; I'm not advocating something idiotic like Creationism or, possibly even worse, Intelligent Design- is a bad thing. I simply do not want to see science used as a tool to prove the validity of religion. Or vice versa. I'm not going to play Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages card here, despite the clarity of his arguments in said book. Faith is faith, and therefore moves as the human heart and mind does; science is science, and relies on everything that faith does not. Refusing to believe in a god is one thing; refusing to believe empirical evidence provided by folks who willingly admit that there is room for error and will correct their views if new data arises, is another.
So, back to my main point. David Lynch's association with Transcendental Meditiation is bullshit, because TM claims that science backs it up. As I understand it, the scientific claims of TM are dubious, and presented to the public in a most selective fashion- i.e. a fashion that will sell TM to anyone who's willing to accept a set of figures and charts at face value. It really disappoints me to hear that Lynch is part of this whole thing.
But.
As I've written in previous entries, an artist's personal views do not necessarily stop me from enjoying their work, and patronizing their current and future endeavors. I will continue to watch any and all films that David Lynch releases, because I have more faith in him as an artist than I do lack of faith in him as an artist swindled by some bullshit swami. On the same note, I hope that anyone who reads my novel (and hopefully novels, in the near future) doesn't turn their back on me because I'm continually fascinated by the notion of the Christian Trinity. I will, however, say this much: I do not espouse any strain of Christian thought that would dare to suborn science in the name of religion. Religious scientists? Sure, as long as they realize that God does not want them to lie in nomine Patris, or, in another case, concoct poisonous lead-based elixirs because some post hoc Taoist gods told 'em it was a good idea.
Applicability aside, religion is about the search for (subjective? objective? I'd go with the former) truth, and to lay the truth aside for the sake of dogma is one hell of a motherfuckin' sin. May whatever god(s) you believe in smite you if you fail to acknowledge that the world around you is simply beyond question. To quote a Danzig t-shirt: "God don't like it."
Finalmente: my brand of foolishness is better than yours, because I'm not raping some other field of knowledge in order to justify my own field of knowledge.
(I hope you read this, Linda, since I have yet to cough up a suitable rant in your presence.)
No comments:
Post a Comment