Wednesday, 3 February 2010

Terry Pratchett on assisted dying

If you didn't see the lecture on Tuesday evening by Sir Terry Pratchett, the best-selling fantasy novelist, on assisted dying, I strongly recommend it. Pratchett was diaognosed with a rare form of Alzheimer's two years ago, and has since done a lot to increase our awareness of Alzheimer's and our reactions to it. The lecture was watched by over 2 million people in the UK, and came just after a poll that showed four out of five British people support assisted dying for the terminally ill. You can read a transcript here.

Pratchett says we should be able to "shake hands with death", to leave life on our own terms, rather than spending months and years in "death's waiting room", in a twilight state where you are not really there, but also not allowed to pass on. We should be able to choose how we want to die. He said:
I vowed I would live my life as ever to the full and die, before the disease mounted its last attack, in my own home, in a chair on the lawn, with a brandy in my hand to wash down whatever modern version of the "Brompton cocktail" some helpful medic could supply. And with Thomas Tallis on my iPod, I would shake hands with Death...My life. My death. My choice.

The idea of choosing one's death, of dying on one's own terms, with dignity and autonomy (and perhaps some assistance), is very Stoic. Seneca once wrote: 'Just as I choose a ship to sail in, or a house to live, so I choose a death for my passage from life'.

Medieval Christianity, however, erected a whole moral edifice against the Stoic tolerance of suicide and assisted dying - indeed, the word 'suicide' was coined by a 12th century monk in a tract written against Seneca.

The debate between the right to die camp and the sacredness of life camp is still, in some respects, a debate between Stoicism and Medieval Christianity.

Anyway, here is the first section of Pratchett's speech, the rest is also on YouTube:

Saturday, 30 January 2010

Facing death stoically

Tom Daley joined the US Marine Corps in 1978, when he was 17, and retired in 2008, having served 30 years on active duty, and having completed tours in Beirut, in Grenada, in Panama, in the two Iraq wars, and in Afghanistan. He has been injured and evacuated five times while fighting for his country, including during the second battle for Fallujah, in 2004, when he was hit by shrapnel in the chest.


He first encountered Stoicism when taking an introduction to philosophy course as a young military undergraduate. “I wasn’t that impressed by it”, he says. When he was 27, he took a graduate degree in the Humanities, which included a class in existentialism, and through that, Tom encountered Marcus Aurelius, and read his Meditations. He says:


Once I read Marcus Aurelius, I felt like I understood Stoicism. I liked the fact he was a soldier. I liked the fact he was writing for himself. It wasn’t an outreach programme. He was trying to work out how to conduct his own life. I think people should show how to live by example, not by forcing other people to believe what you believe.


Through Aurelius, he encountered and read the other Roman Stoics: Seneca and Epictetus. He took them with him on tour, and read them when he had a spare moment to himself, while training a troop of fighters in Central Asia in 2008. He says:


I never said to them ‘I am a Stoic’. It’s not something I bring up. It’s something I try to show by how I act, by how or who I am. I’ve had people ask me about my belief system, for example when I was in Central Asia and was grouped with people who were all Muslim. They assumed I must be a Christian since I’m American, but I’m not. I didn’t deny it though, because they would be horrified to think I was an unbeliever. They would ask me what I was reading, and of course, they wouldn’t have had the slightest idea what a Stoic was. But I tried to show them, by example.


It wasn’t easy, being posted in the mountains for a year, “among people of far different principles to one’s own”, as Aurelius puts it.


Tom remembers:


At my age [he was 47 in 2008] physical conditioning is much more difficult than when I was a teen. Nevertheless, I was asked to perform a job and I did that job to the best of my ability. Most of the young Central Asian men I spent my year with spent their whole lives fighting in the mountains. They knew those mountains like we know directions to our favorite restaurant. And just like any bored city boy would run an outsider through false directions and unmarked speed traps, they wanted to have their fun with me.


I was asked to lead a patrol, being told it was a singular honor for an outsider. So I led them to our objective along perhaps the most difficult path I could have possibly chosen. This was not intentional, but they didn't correct me like I calculated they would. I am pretty good with terrain analysis and finding a good position. But if you don't know the land, finding that position is much more difficult than you might think. On one trail (and I use the term quite loosely), there was a large rock formation jutting out on one side and a sharp turn to the right when you passed it. Just as I was reaching the crest, I was distracted by the members of the patrol coming up behind and I looked back to see what was happening. It was then that I should have made the sharp right turn, but instead slid down a fairly steep slope which had a small landing at the bottom followed by a cliff of nearly 30 feet. My sliding, of course, tumbled small rocks and debris over the cliff, and right down to a small enemy campsite of approximately 10 persons. They had not been aware of our presence and I was completely unaware that they were in the vicinity.


As you can imagine, adrenaline is pumping when you think you're falling to your death or at least to serious injury, but I was not injured other than scratches and a few bruises, not the least of which was my ego. My patrol ran up the incline leading to where I fell, presumably to laugh at my corpse at the bottom of the cliff, and were immediately met by enemy fire. I somehow managed to take a few poorly aimed shots before the enemy retired. From my standpoint, I was nearly killed, was sloppy in the execution of my job, and caused no harm to the enemy when I encountered them. From my patrol's standpoint, I had seen the enemy, charged down the slope to engage them, and run them off before they could cause casualties to the patrol. Funny how one person's perceptions can differ from another’s.


Probably the most challenging situation he has been in, and the one where he has most used his Stoic beliefs, was the Second Battle for Fallujah, in Iraq, November 2004, which is widely considered the most intense urban fighting involving US forces since Hue, Vietnam in 1968.


During that month, elements of the US Marine Corps and the US Army fought to re-gain control of the ‘city of mosques’, in the centre of Iraq. The city’s initially good relations with US forces had soured after soldiers from the US Airborne Division had shot dead 17 protestors in April 2003, reportedly after being fired on themselves.


In February 2004, control of the city was handed over from the Airborne to the Marine Corps. Then, in March 2004, four American private contractors for Blackwater Security were killed, and photos and video of their mutilated bodies were widely circulated. Within days, the Marine Corps launched Operation Vigilant Resolve to take control of the city back. The Operation caused heavy civilian casualties, and ended with a ceasefire.


Then, over the course of 2004, insurgents built up strong positions within the city, positioning snipers and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) around the city in preparation for another showdown with the Marines. The Pentagon believed the city had become the stronghold of around 5,000 Al Qaeda forces, led by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.


In November 2004, the Marines began a new assault on the city, codenamed Operation Phantom Fury. The US Army moved in first in Bradley Fighting Vehicles, then Marines followed on foot supported by artillery and heavy weapons. They entered in the north of the city, and worked their way south house by house. Tom says:


It was pretty intense. I was responsible for quite a lot. I was a weapons specialist, and advisor to the battalion commander. It was a very dangerous environment. In such situations, it’s very obvious you are mortal.


I would honestly tell myself, in some of those hairy situations, that everybody dies sometimes, and that sometimes, for the good of the whole, you have to put yourself at risk, or send others into risky situations. As Marcus Aurelius says, soldiers are assigned a place - it’s better to stay and die there than to retreat.


Of course, a lot of one’s thinking in such situations is automatic: “You act without thinking, that’s why you train so intensely, to instill automatic responses, so that you see something that needs to be done, like crossing a street, and you do it, automatically.”


He adds:


I would describe Fallujah as like driving in a car, and then the car hits a patch of ice and starts to spin out of control. So you turn the wheels into the skid. It’s instinctual.


It’s after the intense fighting is over that some people develop psychological problems, he says, “when they have time to sit around and think about it”. But he himself seems to have avoided deep psychological wounds, although he was physically wounded and had to be evacuated. He says:


I feel a strong sense of duty, it’s one of the key reasons I’m into Stoicism. People who have served, who have been in conflict, they know what it’s like. They don’t want to go into conflict, and they don’t want to have been there. They know it’s not like the movies, that there’s no glory in it. They’re just doing a job. Sometimes you’re in situations you don’t like, but you have a job to do. Most soldiers love to complain. I try not to complain about what I’m asked to do.


He retired from the Marines in 2008, and recently returned from security work in central Asia. He came back to his wife, and to his newly purchased home - six and a half acres near Dallas, in Texas. He says:


I want to come back, settle, and live a peaceful life. I’ve been unemployed since I’ve been back, though I have been doing some work with the New Stoa community, which I’d like to see expand.


But Tom’s plans didn’t work out like that. He tells me, at the end of the interview, that he had discovered the previous day that he has a brain tumour. He says:


The doctors confirmed it yesterday. I haven’t told my wife yet. I’m going to tell her after Christmas [the interview took place on December 22]. I don’t want to spoil her Christmas. She might not like me keeping it from her, but that’s just how it is. Then the doctors want to operate on me as soon as possible, so that will be first week of January.


I am somewhat stunned, and say how sorry I am to hear it. I ask him how he feels about it. He says:


Well, it’s not what you want to hear. That’s why I was thinking about the house: will my wife be provided for, if something happened to me? In fact, the mortgage is insured, so if something happens, my wife would get to keep the house.


I ask how serious the tumour is. He says:


It’s difficult to get a straight answer from the doctors. They say they want to operate first, and then see. They also want to put a radioactive pellet in my brain.


I’ve done several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been several situations I’ve been in where it’s been likely I would be hit. And I have been injured, five times in my career. But I still never believed I would die in those situations, somehow.


With this situation, it’s different. For one thing, it’s not immediate, while in war death is probably immediate. I also know I’m likely to be injured. I’ve already suffered the loss of some language skills. Like, sometimes I can think of the word I want to say, but for some reason my lips can’t form it. I’ve also had some memory issues. Fortunately, I haven’t lost control of my reason.


A friend of mine passed away in 2007, it was almost exactly the same thing. He had surgery on a tumour in December, and by August he had gone. So I may have around six months left.


I ask him, tentatively, what his attitude is to the prospect of dying. He says:


A part of me thinks ‘this is your fate’, like Socrates facing his death. Another part of me thinks the doctors are here for a reason, that they could help me. Marcus Aurelius says something like, you could have a day left, or 10 years left, but everyone has to go sometime. That’s not being courageous, it’s just accepting the inevitable. Statistically, it doesn’t look good - if everyone in history has died, then it’s pretty likely it will happen to me too. I would prefer it not be tomorrow, but it’s not something I have control over.


Does he believe in an afterlife?


I think so, but there might not be. Again, Marcus Aurelius says, as I remember it, ‘if there is a God, be comforted. If we’re just atoms, then you won’t feel anything anyway’. If there is a God, I am sure he will understand the way I think, and why I think like I do.


Would he say the news has changed him, or changed how he thinks?


I guess people should think constantly about the life they lead. Am I the kind of person I’d like to be? Have I misled anyone? There are things I have no control over - the past, or the future. I get caught up in life like everyone else. I don’t always think first, but I try to review myself and my actions. I am a work in progress. Whether I get to complete that work in progress is not up to me. But I will try now in a more expedited fashion. I would like to have time to write my own version of the Meditations, with advice on how to live, for my son to read.


So, as a Stoic, should he fight his situation, or accept it?


The two aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s like going into battle. I accept that I might die, but it doesn’t mean that I won’t go down without a fight. If it’s my time, then I’ll go without crying. If it’s not my time, then I’ll have fought through it.


Tom went into surgery on January 4, two weeks after our interview. After initially making a good recovery, he underwent complications, and went into a coma. He passed away on the morning of January 26.

Friday, 22 January 2010

Is CBT 'looting' ancient philosophy?

Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers' Magazine, has written two articles raising scepticism about our society's obsession with happiness, and particularly with its current enthusiasm for positive psychology.


The first article, in the Telegraph, said:


what worries me is that our pursuit of happiness is leading us to judge the great intellectual and spiritual traditions of the past according to only one measure: do they increase happiness and reduce misery? That which passes the test is plundered and that which fails is left behind. The result is that wisdom is hollowed out and replaced with a soft centre of caramelised contentment.


If we can find practical, secular advice in the works of Buddhists, stoics and saints, so be it. If Montaigne can soothe your troubled soul, take the balm. The problem is that ways of living and thinking which offer, and demand, so much more, are simply being looted to fill a toolbox for the crass engineering of positive thoughts and warm emotions. The looters are at best blind to the deeper riches on offer, at worst disfiguring the very source of their ill-gotten riches.


To be fair, many of the experts in these fields are fully aware of these dangers. But what about the management consultants, life coaches and even government agencies who are clamouring for their services? By the time the plunderers have themselves been plundered, there could be very little real meat left to nourish more demanding souls. We are witnessing deep thought being driven out by positive thought; true self-awareness sacrificed in the name of shallow happiness.


He returns to his theme in tomorrow's Financial Times, in which he gives a good review of Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, Smile Or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World. Baggini writes:


Ehrenreich describes how she was diagnosed with breast cancer and then discovered that the majority of her fellow sufferers had bought into a bogus ideology that says cancer can make you a better person, and that really wanting to get better is the key to recovery. The flipside of this, of course, is that if you don’t get better, it must somehow be your own fault for being too negative. It also has the perverse implication that it is better to get cancer than not to. “If I had to do it over, would I want breast cancer?” asked sufferer Cindy Cherry. “Absolutely.” As Ehrenreich points out, such an attitude “encourages us to deny reality, submit cheerfully to misfortune, and blame only ourselves for our fate.”


He concludes:


What positive psychology gets right is that when we confront reality, we always have some control over how we then respond to it, and that a lot of misery is avoidable if we try to make the best rather than the worst of things. In practice, however, this sensible advice often degenerates into an excessive optimism, in which reality is whatever we think it to be. But you can’t make the best of a bad situation if you pretend it’s really just a good one in disguise.


These are not new criticisms of CBT and positive psychology. When I wrote a piece on CBT for Prospect, saying that it drew on the ideas and techniques of Stoicism, the philosopher Mark Vernon said CBT was more like 'Stoicism-lite', and that it emptied out the techniques of Stoicism of their moral content, because it didn't sign up to the full Stoic package (belief in the Logos, detachment from all externals, and so on). It was thus an example of the 'pick n' mix' culture of consumerism, in Vernon's estimation.


I think this is a flawed position. Baggini and Vernon seem to be casting themselves as the guardians of the treasures of ancient philosophy, with the likes of Martin Seligman (the inventor of positive psychology) and Albert Ellis (the inventor of CBT) the plunderers and looters of these treasures. Baggini actually uses the word ‘looted’.


But does he think philosophy should be the province only of the highly educated? Does he believe, as the ancients believe, that philosophy has therapeutic value, and if so, should that therapeutic value only be confined to the educated readers of The Philosophers’ Magazine? If philosophy has genuine therapeutic value, then shouldn't we be striving to bring its benefits to as many people as possible?


Trying to adapt the ideas and techniques of ancient philosophy to help ordinary people is not against the spirit of ancient philosophy. It's not a vulgar popularisation of ancient philosophy. On the contrary, it is a return to the original spirit, in which philosophy was not something confined to lecture rooms and drawing rooms, but something that took place on the street (Stoicism literally means 'from the street, or colonnade'), something that genuinely tried to improve lives and relieve suffering.


As Seneca put it:


There is no time for playing around. You have promised to bring help to the shipwrecked, the imprisoned, the sick, the needy, to those whose heads are under the poised axe. Where are you deflecting your attention? What are you doing?


Now it is true that CBT doesn’t embrace all the beliefs of orthodox Stoicism, such as the belief in a providential Logos. Thank God it doesn’t - if CBT signed up to Stoicism’s religious beliefs, it could never be used in state-funded therapy or in education, because that would go against the liberal principle of the separation of church and state. So it would always remain the province of a handful of educated and affluent individuals.


And it would indeed be a great pity if ordinary people did not have access to CBT either in the NHS or in schools, because a large body of scientific research shows that CBT is very effective at helping people overcome depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders. CBT really works, which means that the ideas and techniques of Stoicism really work. The fact that the insights of ancient philosophy have to some extent been validated by modern scientific trials should be cause for celebration among modern philosophers, in my opinion.


Baggini and Vernon are being somewhat fundamentalists - either you sign up entirely to Stoicism, or you should leave it entirely alone. To use some of Stoicism but not all of it is to ‘loot’ it. But are they not eclectic themselves in their approach to philosophy? Do they not use some ideas from some philosophers, while rejecting other of their ideas?


The ancients themselves - Seneca, Cicero, Aurelius, Plato, Posidonius - were also eclectic, and drew from different traditions (Platonism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Pythaogreanism, mystery cults) without being accused of being ‘looters’.


Finally, it is not true that CBT uses the techniques of Stoicism but without any of the ethical context of ancient Greek philosophy.


Yes, CBT doesn’t promote the view that the only true goods are inner goods, and that all externals are indifferent. How could it promote such a view, and still be taught in schools or hospitals?


And yet, if it doesn’t teach complete withdrawal from worldly attachments and aversions, it does still seem to follow the Stoic belief that attachments and aversions are at the root of much mental suffering. Albert Ellis, for example, insisted that many emotional disorders were caused by our rigid demands of ourselves, of other people, and of reality.We tell ourselves ‘I must be successful’, ‘other people must treat me with respect’, ‘the world must be an easy and stress-free environment’. What are such imperatives, but attachments to external outcomes? And when reality fails to oblige us, then we rage against ourselves, or against other people, or against the world.


Now CBT may not advise abandoning all attachments and aversions, but its solution to many emotional disorders is not so far from the Stoic theory of preferreds. Rather than say ‘I must be treated at all times with respect’, it teaches people to be more flexible and to recognize that the world is not always that obliging. Instead, one might say to oneself, ‘I would prefer to be treated with respect at all times, but I recognize that people are often rude and so I am likely to encounter rudeness quite often. I can’t change that, but I can make sure I don’t always take it personally or let it wind me up.’


So CBT does, in fact, teach people a sort of detachment from externals, and it likewise teaches them not to depend entirely on externals for their sense of self-worth, but instead to look within for their self-acceptance.


In fact, although CBT rightly presents itself as an evidence-based science, we should recognize that it also enshrines certain ethical assumptions, as most psychologies do, and that in the case of CBT, these ethical assumptions are Hellenistic.


Firstly, CBT is based on the Socratic precept to “know thyself”, and on the Socratic belief that we can use our awareness and rationality to discover our mental habits and transform them. It shares the optimism of Hellenistic philosophy that the self is malleable and improvable through rational philosophy. Like Buddhism and Stoicism, it tries to foster a critical awareness of, and detachment from, our thoughts and opinions, so that we realize that our beliefs about reality are not the same as reality itself.


Secondly, it promotes the Hellenistic ideal of autonomy - the idea that we can use philosophy to become ‘masters of ourselves’. It promotes the idea that taking responsibility for one’s thoughts and emotions is the cornerstone both of mental health and (implicitly) of morality.


Thirdly, it promotes the idea that being a responsible and autonomous individual takes self-discipline. You have to work at monitoring yourself, regulating yourself, and challenging your self-destructive habits. You have to work at achieving fortitude and constancy in your character.


Fourthly, it is based on the Stoic principle of adaptation, of learning to adapt one’s thoughts and beliefs to the ever-changing nature of reality, to become flexible and resilient in the face of adversity, and not to impose one’s rigid demands onto reality.


Finally, it is based on the Hellenistic principle of autarkia, or self-sufficiency. It is based on the idea that people who depend entirely on a particular external thing for their self-worth are likely to become needy, neurotic and emotionally unbalanced; while someone who has a ‘secure base’ or emotional anchor within themselves is likely to be able to engage with the world and other people in a more meaningful, open and fearless manner.


I make these points to show that, while CBT may distance itself from some of the more overtly religious or metaphysical aspects of Hellenistic philosophy, it nevertheless assumes and absorbs many of the ethical beliefs shared by the main Hellenistic philosophies.


CBT thankfully doesn’t accept the Stoic belief in providence, or the Stoic assertion that all externals are indifferent. But it doesn’t need to. In fact, some of the most famous Stoics of the ancient world were not entirely convinced that the Logos existed. Marcus Aurelius, for one, often expressed the suspicion that the universe was nothing more than atoms randomly floating in a void. But he still effectively used Stoic techniques to manage himself and cope with the ups and downs of his life.


One doesn’t have to believe in God to use Stoic techniques. Some of the techniques of Stoicism were very similar to the techniques of Epicureanism, which held an atomistic view of the universe. Albert Ellis, the man who did most to bring Stoic thinking into the modern world, was a militant atheist.


What you do need to believe and accept is the Stoics’ cognitive theory of emotions - the idea that emotional disorders are caused by irrational or illogical beliefs. If you accept that, then many of the techniques of Stoicism will work for you, regardless of whether you believe in God or not.


And just because CBT is secular doesn’t mean that it simply lifts the techniques of Stoicism, but drained of all ethical content. On the contrary, CBT is soaked in the ethics of ancient Greece. The techniques don’t just make you happier. They make you more responsible, more resilient, more virtuous.


Monday, 11 January 2010

The Tories and the politics of well-being

Louisa and I went to a Demos talk this morning, where David Cameron and Camila Batmanghelidjh (the founder of the charity Kids Company) spoke about the importance of instilling character in young people.


It was the launch of a new 'Inquiry Into Character' organised by Demos, whose director, Richard Reeves, has long been interested in and written about the idea of character-building within the new politics of well-being.


It was a major coup for Demos, to get David Cameron over to give this speech in what is effectively the first week of the election campaign, and there were many big hitter journos in the audience - Nick Robinson of the BBC, Polly Toynbee of the Guardian, and also the flowing-locked philosopher AC Grayling.


Judging by Cameron's speech, it seems the politics of well-being is alive and well, and likely to flourish under the next Tory government. He said:


With a pretty good canon of evidence behind me I would argue that while our innate personalities are part-shaped by genetic inheritance, our character can be learned. There are things we can do to help build responsible character in people.


I know this is tricky territory for a politician. We’re not exactly paragons of virtue ourselves. But to those who think politics should stay away from issues of character and behaviour, I say this: first, look at the scale of our problems. When inequality is at a record high and social mobility has stalled. When the number of people in severe poverty has risen by nearly a million in the last ten years despite billions of pounds of extra spending.


When there are more than 120,000 deaths each year related to obesity, smoking, alcohol and drug misuse. When millions of schoolchildren miss out on learning because their classmates are constantly disruptive. When British families are drowning in nearly one and a half trillion pounds worth of personal debt.


And then ask yourself: do any of these problems relate to personal choices that people make? Or are they all somehow soluble by top down government action, unrelated to what people actually choose to do? Can we hope to solve these problems if we just ignore character and behaviour?

The answer is blindingly obvious. We have a whole host of severe social problems that are caused in part from the wrong personal choices so who can seriously argue that the state should continue to just treat the symptoms of these problems instead of the root causes too?


This is relatively new territory for the Conservative Party. In the past we’ve been guilty of giving the impression that to build a responsible society, all we needed was freedom for the individual plus a strong rule of law from the state. We didn't talk enough about what happened in between. And we were unwilling to intervene more directly in issues of behaviour and character for fear of being intrusive – for twitching the curtains, as it were. 'Leave it all to the bishops' was always the cry.


Even if you don’t buy the idea that good parenting is the key to creating responsible individuals, the evidence shows that it is the single most important determinant of our future success or failure. And I believe that this research produced recently by Demos is truly ground-breaking. It shows that the differences in child outcomes between a child born in poverty and a child born in wealth are no longer statistically significant when both have been raised by “confident and able” parents.


For those who care about fairness and inequality, this is one of the most important findings in a generation. It would be over the top to say that it is to social science what E=MC2 was to physics, but I think it is a real 'sit up and think' moment. That discovery defined the laws of relativity; this one is the new law for social mobility:


What matters most to a child’s life chances is not the wealth of their upbringing but the warmth of their parenting. As Stephen Scott of the National Academy of Parenting Practitioners has said: “Poverty is a factor, but not a central one...It seems to be poverty of the parent-child experience…that leads to poor child outcomes rather than poverty of a material kind”.


Now, of course it can and should be argued that it is easier to achieve good parenting when there is material prosperity but the findings in the study seem so significant that they should help us to settle a fierce debate that has been raging for decades about how we build a fairer society.


The left have always argued that the best way to tackle disadvantage is to redistribute money from the rich to the poor. But the assumptions held for so long, that when it comes to fighting poverty, reducing inequality and increasing opportunity, politics should remain neutral on family life and government should concern itself solely with issues of tax and spending, these assumptions have been proved wrong.


Instead, what we find is this: if we want to give children the best chance in life – whatever background they are from – the right structures need to be in place, strong and secure families, confident and able parents, an ethic of responsibility instilled from a young age.


The nitty gritty were things like recognising all marriages - gay as well as lesbian - and giving them tax breaks when they got married; putting more effort into a programme called Sure Start, to provide counseling and emotional support to parents in the first three years of a child’s life (apparently most marriages break up in the first year after a child’s birth); and also doing more to support academies. The Tories also support a national citizens’ service for 16-year-olds.


It wasn’t a bad speech, but the real firestormer was the reply by Camila Batmanghelidjh of Kids Company, which Lou is going to work for. Her speech was awesome. She said she was heartened that the Tories were finally engaging with the question of young people’s well-being, from a nurturing rather than simply an authoritarian stand-point.


However, she also said she was worried that politicians of all parties were giving nice speeches about young people and well-being but not getting down to the ugly truth - which is that there are 1.5 million children suffering from neglect and abuse, while the child protection system can only help around 35,000 children, so around 31,000 children are de-registered from the child protection register each year in order to make room on the register for new kids.


She said that when something like Baby P happens, when a child is bullied to death by their parents, “the nation is happy to rise up and blame the parents”, rather than the lack of tax money spent on actually protecting children. “We spend £298 million on locking up children, which is around 8 times more than we spend on intervention.”


The problem with many initiatives, she said, was that they assumed a narrative where parents are capable of engaging with social services and going along to counseling sessions and so on, when in fact, some parents are so dysfunctional that this is beyond them - or they simply don’t want to. Who will protect the children then?


Then the Labour MP Frank Field gave a speech, in which he said that the British used to pride themselves on being good parents, “but now they’ve ceased to care”. He suggested parenting should be taught in schools, and also suggested we should have secular versions of the bat mitzvah and baptism ceremonies, “to welcome the child formally into the world, and to recognise formally that they have passed from being a child towards being an adult”.


I was pleased that Cameron is engaging with this area, and he seemed a nice bloke whose heart is in the right place. Not the biggest intellect, and not the greatest public speaker by any means, but I think he cares about people more than, say, Boris Johnson, who in the final analysis only really cares about himself.


It’s easy to talk about character and well-being, but I think the real work in this area is not done by the state but by organisations like Kids Company that give children from broken families somewhere else to go, and someone else to interact with and imitate. I was really impressed by Camila’s passion, and wish her all the best in her work.


Here's a video clip of Cameron's speech:





Saturday, 9 January 2010

Bonobos using language

Susan Savage-Rumbaugh on apes | Video on TED.com

Wednesday, 6 January 2010

Renaissance magic and superheroes

Here's another chapter of the little book / long essay I wrote in 2008, called Everything Is Full of Gods, about the connection between comics, animation, and animism. In this chapter, I talk about Renaissance magic, and how it influenced contemporary comic culture.

The Magus


Florence 1463 AD. In the library of the Villa Careggi, Marcilio Ficino, the greatest scholar of the age, is hard at work. He has recently been made head of a new Platonic academy, based in the Villa Careggi and sponsored by Cosimo De Medici, the ruler of Florence and one of the richest and most powerful men in Europe. Ficino is bent over his desk, translating manuscripts of Plato’s lost works, which have recently been re-discovered and brought over from Byzantium.


But then the door of the library flies open. It is Cosimo De Medici himself. The boss. He is almost 80 years old, frail and sick, but his eyes are shining like a young boy’s, and in his quivering hands is an old and dusty manuscript.


De Medici is an avid book collector, and he has a vast network of scouts sent out across the known world, like so many Indiana Joneses, to discover lost and ancient manuscripts, magical texts that promise superhuman powers to those who find them.


No manuscript has been more sought after than the one he now, finally, holds in his hands – the Corpus Hermeticum, which contain the secret teachings of the great Hermes Trismegistus, the ancient Egyptian prophet, the mightiest magus of them all. He hands over the manuscript to Ficino and tells him to get to work translating it immediately. Plato can wait.


*********


The discovery of the Corpus Hermeticum had a revolutionary effect both on the status of magic in Europe, and on the status of man himself. As Renaissance magic grew in stature, so too did man, who seemed suddenly possessed of great and long-dormant powers – the power to control planets, to command angels and demons, to create gods, practically to become a god himself. As the Corpus put it: “unless you make yourself equal to God, you cannot understand God…Make yourself grow to a greatness beyond measure… raise yourself above all time, become Eternity.”


Somehow, for a century, Renaissance magi managed to disseminate such heretical notions under the eyes of the Vatican. Man, briefly, became a superman. But it was inevitable that there would be a backlash, and when it came, thousands of witches, and even some scholarly magi, were burnt at the stake.


Until the 15th century, the Catholic Church had exercised a ruthless monopoly on magic. Only Christian magic was allowed, such as the Eucharist, exorcism, or the Cult of Saints, and these accepted forms of magic were only allowed to be practiced by official representatives of the Church. Other, more illicit, forms of magic were still quietly practiced in rural communities by the village witch or cunning man. But they were considered vulgar and plebeian by the intellectual elite.


But when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453, a steady stream of ancient manuscripts arrived in Europe by the likes of Plato, Porphyry, even the great Hermes Trismegistus himself, and these texts were far from vulgar. Their discovery and translation during the Renaissance gave a huge amount of intellectual credibility to magic, so that it captured the minds of leading scholars like Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, or Giordano Bruno.


What gave the Corpus Hermeticum such great intellectual credibility was its supposed antiquity. It was generally believed to be the words of Hermes Trismegistus, a magical Egyptian prophet thought to have lived in Egypt in the time of Moses.


The authority for this dating was, chiefly, the third century Church father, Lactantius, who wrote of the powerful and prolific Hermes Trismegistus, who lived many years before Plato and Pythaogoras, and who managed to prophesy the coming of Christ.


Hermes was thus seen by scholars like Ficino as being a very early source for ancient wisdom and magic – earlier than Plato, earlier than Christ, perhaps even earlier than Moses. And this seemed to be borne out by the similarity between the Corpus Hermeticum and Christian, Platonic and Neoplatonic texts, which suggested that Hermes had indeed prophesized Christ’s coming, and had also been the original source of many of the ideas of Plato.


Actually, like many beliefs and suppositions in the history of magic, this turned out to be false. In 1614, the scholar Isaac Casaubon proved more or less unanswerably that the Corpus Hermeticum must have been written many centuries after Plato, probably around the second or third century AD.


That is why it is so full of Neoplatonic and Gnostic ideas – not because it anticipated and influenced Plato, but because it was written centuries after him, and after Christ, in the heady mileu of the second and third century AD, the golden age of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism and magic.


Still, Ficino and other Renaissance magi did not know this, and fully believed that the Corpus Hermeticum was almost as holy and ancient a text as the Bible. The Egyptian magus rose quickly to the status of an honorary prophet of Christianity, on a par with Moses. He appeared on a mosaic in the centre of Sienna Cathedral, and even (scholars believe) in a mural on the walls of the Vatican itself.


The mosaic of Hermes Trismegistus in Sienna Cathedral, with Moses to his left pastedGraphic.pdf


The various short works within the Corpus Hermeticum were not just philosophy. They were magic, believed capable of granting supernatural powers to those magi wise enough to understand them and follow their instructions. They promised to unravel the secrets of nature, which is why Hermetic philosophy was often known as natural philosophy.


Hermeticism, like Neoplatonism, had an animistic view of the universe. Nature was animate, teeming with spirits. The sky was filled with angels and devils. The stars and planets were animate beings. The whole universe was animated, filled with the divine spiritus or pneuma, the celestial matter that connected all beings.


This animate universe was filled with symbols, secret messages and hidden correspondences. Images, words, musical notes and objects here on Earth held mysterious connections to planets, demons and angels in Heaven. ‘As above, so below’, as the alchemical saying put it.


The wise magus could, with the help of his magical texts, learn these hidden correspondences and manipulate them, thereby drawing down spirits from the heavens above into material objects below, or even into his own person. He could marry heaven and earth together, and the offspring of this marriage would be the super-empowered magus himself.


If the magus could unite his mind with the divine mind, then he could travel anywhere he wanted, as fast as the speed of thought. Thus in the Corpus Hermeticum we read: “Command your soul to be in India, to cross the Ocean; in a moment it will be done. Command it to fly up to heaven. It will not need wings; nothing can prevent it. And if you wish to break through the vault of the universe and to contemplate what is beyond – if there is anything beyond the world – you may do it.”


The Gnostic magic of the Corpus promises to free man from his material prison. For example, it asserted that humans are imprisoned by the determinism of the planets, which emanated their good and bad influences through the spiritus mundi. But with Hermetic magic, the magus could escape this determinism, could “break through the envelopes” of the stars.


This particularly impressed Ficino. He was a great believer in astrology, and was terrified by the malevolent influence of the planet Saturn, which was supposed to bring bad luck and depression to those under its influence, particularly bookish scholars like him.


pastedGraphic.pdf


A bust of Marcilio Ficino


The Hermetic texts claimed that the bad emanations of Saturn could be counter-balanced by the more positive influence of other planets, such as the Sun, Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. The magus could draw down the powers of these planets by using certain plants, colours, metals and songs. He could also inscribe images of the planets onto objects, and use these as talismans to “capture the stars” as Ficino put it.


Thus the magus was like the Greek hero, who gained his superpowers through the favour of Jupiter, Venus or Neptune. But while the Greek hero gained the favour of these planet-gods through his genes, the magus was much more in control. He could manipulate the planets as and when he wanted, using his astral magic.


Venus, for example, was a good counterbalance to the bad vibes of Saturn. Ficino recommended singing and playing certain Orphic hymns to bring her influence down, as well as surrounding oneself with green objects (Venus was attracted to the colour green) and invoking her using a talisman engraved with the image of “a woman with her hair unbound riding on a stag, having in her right hand an apple and in her left, flowers, and dressed in white garments”, as the Medieval text the Picatrix describes it.


Astrological talismans, we note in passing, would play a major role in the symbolism of comics half a millennia later. For example, in the DC universe, bored playboy Ted Knight invents a gravity rod that can draw down ‘powerful infra-rays from distant stars’, transforming him into the superhero Starman. The schoolgirl heroines of Sailor Moon, the very successful manga series, transform into Zodiac forces – Sailor Moon, Sailor Mercury, Sailor Mars and so on. Lili, the heroine of the manga comic Zodiac PI, uses astrological forecasts and her magic ‘star-ring’ to solve crimes. And the family at the centre of the manga series Fruit Baskets are possessed by the animal spirits of the Chinese Zodiac.



pastedGraphic.pdf

DC’s Starman



While Ficino was content to try to use astral magic to avoid the depressive influence of Saturn, his bold young apprentice, Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, had altogether grander ambitions for his magic. In 1486, at the tender age of 23, Pico set off for Rome with 900 theses he had written, which he thought would synthesize all knowledge, combine all magical systems, and possibly trigger the second coming of Christ.


The 900 Theses, and the introductory Oration on the Dignity of Man, are an incredible assertion of confidence: both the young Pico’s confidence in himself, and his confidence in the potential of man, and above all his confidence in the power of magic. Indeed, the leading historian of Renaissance magic, Frances Yates, called his Oration “the great charter of Renaissance magic”.


pastedGraphic.pdf


Giovanni Pico della Mirandola


Like a true Gnostic, Pico thought that man was capable of attaining “divine perfection” in this life, and the surest way to do that, he believed, was through the Jewish magic of Kabbalah. This was, for Pico, the essential ingredient in the caldron of Renaissance magic. As he declared in his Theses: “Nothing really effective is possible in magic, unless you add the work of Kabbalah…”


Kabbalah, like the Corpus Hermeticum, was revered by Renaissance scholars like Pico partly because it was thought to be extremely ancient. Its most famous text, the Zohar, was published by a Spanish Rabbi called Moses de Leon in the 13th century, who claimed he had discovered the manuscript, and that it contained the actual sayings of a famous 2nd Century Rabbi, Shimon bar Yochai.


However, like the Hermetic works, it may not have been as ancient as was generally believed. The great scholar of Kabbalah, Gershom Scholem, points out certain telltale signs in the Zohar that suggest it was written much later than the 2nd century, such as the text’s lack of knowledge about the geography of Israel, and some references to events which happened long after the second century. He believes that Moses de Leon himself is the most likely author.


For Scholem, medieval Kabbalah was actually something relatively new in Jewish history, something that first appeared in Provence in the twelfth century, and then flowered in Spain in the thirteenth century. A new mystic and magical strain suddenly appears in Jewish thought, and Scholem believes the source of it was Gnosticism – either the Gnostic ideas circulating in the south of France before the Albigensian Crusade, or from some other source not yet recognized.


In Kabbalah, then, we have similar Gnostic ideas as we meet in the Corpus Hermeticum: the idea that nature is a living, animate being, which is full of hidden symbols and connections if the observer is wise enough to perceive them. Kabbalah also shared with Hermeticism the radical Gnostic idea that the human soul could rise up from its material prison, ascend through the orders of demons and angels, and attain ecstatic union with the Divine in this life, through mystical meditation, and through magic.


This Medieval version of Gnostic magic and mysticism, refined by the learned Jewish community in Spain, was then introduced into the mainstream of western ideas following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by the Spanish Inquisition in 1492, though Kabbalah was at that point already known to a few Hebrew specialists such as Pico.


What supernatural powers did Kabbalah promise? One form of Kabbalist magic, used to tell the future, involved the manipulation of concentric circles, on each of which was written the 22 letters of the sacred Hebrew alphabet. The Kabbalist would then ask a question of the device, and turn the circles at random to see what mystical response it would give.


Kabbalists such as the 13th century scholar Abraham Abulafia used this technique, known as the ars combinatoria, to achieve mystical states of consciousness and to predict the future. A similar sort of device, using letters on two or three concentric wheels, was used by the Christian mystic, Ramon Llull, who also lived in 13th century Spain.


This sort of magical device was the inspiration for the Golden Compass, or alethiometer, which Lyra can magically use to discover the truth in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy. The alethiometer, like Llull’s device, has 36 symbols on its perimeter. Pullman said in an interview with the literary magazine ‘textualities’: “the alethiometer came out of my interest in the Renaissance, the world described so vividly by Frances Yates in The Art of Memory and The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. During the Renaisssance there was a rediscovery of Greek philosophy, and a fascination with what we now call the occult, astrology and alchemy.”


Another form of Kabbalist magic involved the incantation of names, both of angels, and of God Himself. The universe was angels (301,655,172 of them, to be precise), and the magus can invoke them by name, and through them approach the sacred tree of life which Kabbalists, like Shamans, believed connected Earth and the Heavens.


The Kabbalist magus would solemnly invoke the names of angels in the celestial hierarchy, and if the magus’ heart was pure and his incantation correct, he could bring the spirit of the invoked angel down into his being. Pico refers to this magical practice when he says in his Oration: “we invoke Raphael, the celestial healer... In us, now restored to good health, will dwell Gabriel, the force of the Lord, who…will present us to Michael, the high priest…”


Kabbalists ‘discovered’ the existence of hundreds of other angels they could invoke, whose names usually ended in ‘-el’ (which means God in Hebrew), as in Raphael, Michael, Gabriel or Tzadkiel. The creators of Superman, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, would draw on this tradition when they gave Clark Kent the secret name Kal-el.


This beautiful idea in Kabbalah, of the almost domestic proximity of angels to humanity, and the ability of the artist-magus to bring them down to earth, is perhaps one key to the wonderful images in Renaissance art of angels stepping into the rooms of Renaissance homes, like Superman calmly appearing on the balcony of Lois Lane.


pastedGraphic_4.pdf


The Annunciation by Sandro Botticelli


The Kabbalist magus could also use angels and demons as functionaries, if he had the cheek. The late sixteenth century magician Johannes Trithemius believed he could use a network of angels for telepathy, to transmit messages from himself to others, as well as to inform him of “everything that is happening in the world”. As in The Matrix, Gnostic magic seems to have combined with information technology.


And the Kabbalist can also use the many sacred names of God as spells, such as the all-powerful Shemhamphorasch, the 72-letter name of God, which Kabbalists believed that Moses had used to part the Red Sea and defend the Jews from the Egyptian army.


Moses’s use of magic to defend the Jewish community from persecution was typical – Kabbalah magic was only supposed to be used for self-defence, never for attack. There were many legends of Kabbalist wonder-workers, called Ba’alei Shem, or masters of the names, using their powers to protect their communities from Christian persecution.


Of particular interest for our history are the tales of the Tzadikim Nistarim, or ‘hidden saints’. The legend grew up in Kabbalist circles that there are 36 hidden superheroes, possessed of great supernatural power, who are in special favour with God, and on whose continued existence the world depends.


The Nistarim are as humble as they are powerful, and hide their secret identities beneath the exterior appearance of being insignificant, awkward or even cowardly. They don’t even know who the other 35 Nistarim are. They may not even know they themselves are one of the 36. But they will sometimes reveal their great powers to protect the Jewish community from persecution, before disappearing again back into obscurity.


It seems to me possible that this idea influenced the development of the modern superhero, who hides his identity beneath the appearance of being a nebbish like Clark Kent or Peter Parker. We note that there are 36 hidden heroes on Mohinder Suresh’s list in the NBC show Heroes, though not all of these heroes are particularly saintly.


************

Thus, armed with the power of Hermes and the power of Kabbalah, we see before us the Renaissance magus in all his glory: he was a healer and doctor, who could use astral magic to overcome depression, or use the images of alchemy and astrology as archetypes to guide the sick mind back to health, as Jung would do 500 years later. He was a chemist, working in sooty laboratories to discover the essence, or ‘spirit’ of substances in his search for the fabled Philosopher’s Stone. He was an advisor to princes and Popes, telling them what the angels and the stars had told him of the good and bad luck that would befall their kingdoms.


And he was above all an artist. One cannot have a theory of magic that is not at the same time a theory of art, of the power of art to change the world, and of the supreme dignity of the artist-magus.


Thus, in Ficino’s natural magic, the magus’ astrological images have the power to draw down beneficial energies from the planets. This idea, believes Frances Yates, was behind some of the finest Renaissance paintings, and their timeless depiction of classical figures, such as Botticelli’s Primavera.


Renaissance music was considered to have magical powers, like the Orphic hymns that Ficino would sing to the planets to draw down their benevolent influence. The Renaissance writer was also a magus, whose sacred words were able to command angels and demons, as Prospero, Shakespeare’s alter-ego in The Tempest, is able to command Ariel and Caliban.


And the Renaissance magus was also a master of animation, in the original sense of one who can introduce a soul into an inanimate object. He was a god-like creator, able to channel the spirits and give them a form on earth. Thus Shakespeare describes the poet:


“The poet's eye, in fine frenzy rolling,

Doth glance from heaven to Earth, from Earth to heaven.

And as imagination bodies forth

The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen

Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing

A local habitation and a name.”


The most secret and illicit teaching of both Hermetic philosophy and Kabbalah was the idea that it was possible to draw down spirits from the ether and use them to animate statues, or to create artificial beings.


Thus the Hermetic text, the Aesculapius, tells us that the magus is God-like in that he can himself make gods. The magus could evoke “the souls of demons or angels”, and then introduce them into statues or idols, “so that the idols had the power of doing good and evil”.


This old magic idea of animating inanimate objects and then using them to do your bidding has a long history in western art. It appears in the 2nd century AD in a comic fable by Lucian called the Philopseudes, which tells of the hapless friend of a priest of Isis, who overhears the priest saying a animating spell and decides to try it for himself. He animates a pestle, but can’t control it and the pestle goes on the rampage.


The story was picked up and adapted many centuries later by Goethe in his poem The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. And it eventually appeared in animation, appropriately enough, in Walt Disney’s Fantasia, where Mickey the sorcerer’s apprentice casts a spirit into some brooms, who then go beserk and fill a bath until it overflows. In Fantasia, the priest of Isis is called Yensid – Disney backwards. So Disney was directly linking the new art of animation to the ancient and magical tradition of the magus as animator.

pastedGraphic_5.pdf


Mickey as magus


The idea of the magus as animator played a deep role in Kabbalist legends as well, in the myth of the Golem, or artificial man. This legend was particularly attached to the famous chief rabbi of Prague, Judah Loew ben Bezalel. Prague was, at that time, probably the centre of Renaissance magic, thanks to the enthusiasm for the occult felt by the Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolph II, who lived in Prague Castle, and devoted a whole wing of the castle to alchemical experiments.


We know that Rudolph II asked for a private meeting with the rabbi in 1592. It is not known what they discussed, though we do know that rabbi Loew was not a great advocate of magic. Nonetheless, this meeting of a rabbi with the most powerful man in Christendom, taking place as it did on the centenary of the Jews’ expulsion from Spain, was taken by the Jewish diaspora as a confirmation of the rabbi’s wondrous and magical powers.


One particularly popular legend surrounding the rabbi was that he had constructed a man out of clay, a Golem, and then animated it by writing one of the names of God, EMETH, or Truth, on its forehead. The Golem then worked as a domestic menial – we hear the story of how it was ordered to fill a bath and then went beserk and over-filled it.


But the Golem was also, according to some legends, used by the rabbi to protect the Jewish community from anti-Semitic persecution. This doesn’t quite fit with the fact that Jews had a relatively safe existence in Rudolph’s Prague, compared to other parts of Europe. However, Jews in other, less safe parts of the world, such as Poland, seemed to draw much comfort from these tales of the supernatural protection of the Golem.


It has been suggested that the tales of the Golem also helped to influence the modern creation of the superhero. There are some direct examples of the Golem’s influence on comics – the Golem was a superhero in Marvel Comics in the 1970s, a member of the Howling Commandoes, and enemy of the evil ‘Kabbala the Unclean’. Wonder Woman was also supposedly made out of clay by her mother, Hippolyta.



pastedGraphic_6.pdf


Marvel Comics’ Golem


Others have argued the figure of the Golem has underlined the whole concept of the superhero, invented as it was by east European émigrés whose families had fled European anti-Semitism. Superheroes were also magical animated beings who would fight anti-Semitic persecution in legendary tales.


Thus in the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, by Michael Chabon, the hero is a young artist from Prague who escapes the Nazis in a coffin, accompanied by the remains of the Golem. He then moves to New York, becomes a comic book artist, and invents a superhero called the Escapist who battles the Nazis in the comics he writes. By the end of the book, the artist realizes how he is unconsciously drawing on Jewish folklore, and begins a graphic novel about the Golem.


Kabbalist magic had its dangers, however. In some versions of the Golem legend, the monster goes on the rampage, and even kills its creator. Kabbalist spells were also risky. If you uttered the Shemhamphorasch and weren’t sufficiently pure of heart, you could die instantly - this is the premise of the film Pi, by the director, comic book writer and Kabbala-enthusiast Darren Aronofsky. The film tells of a maths and computer genius who discovers the Shemhamphorasch, but almost kills himself in the process.


Kabbalah could connect you to angels, but it could also confront you with demons. If you got your spells wrong, you could become possessed or even devoured by a demon or fallen angel, such as Azazel, Ba’al, or the fearsome Lilith. We are reminded here of the superhero comic, ‘Dial H for Hero’, about a boy who discovers a mysterious dial with letters round the edge, rather like Abulafia’s Kabbalah device. If he spells out H-E-R-O, he is transformed into any one of a thousand superheroes. But if he spells out V-I-L-L-A-I-N, he is possessed by evil spirits.


pastedGraphic.pdf


The greatest risk for a Kabbalist was to be confronted by the King of the Jewish demons, Asmodeus. Alan Moore, the famous writer of comics and also a practicing Kabbalist magus, claims that Asmodeus once appeared to him in the form of a multidimensional red spider, though Moore describes him as witty and slightly smug rather than the embodiment of evil.


But this was the problem with magic in general – there was the risk that it would be seen by the ignorant as demonic and evil. Worse, there was the risk that it really was demonic and evil. After all, didn’t the Aesculapius openly and impiously talk of bringing down demons into statues, and thereby creating your own Gods?


This negative view of magic as demonology existed as far back as Simon Magus, who was supposed to have attained his superpowers by making a pact with devils.


And as the 16th Century progressed, more and more magi found themselves accused of Satanism and demonology. There was Cornelius Agrippa, for example, who was supposedly followed around by a black dog that was really the Devil in disguise. There was Paracelsus, the great alchemist, who was nick-named ‘the Devil’s doctor’, and was frequently kicked out of towns for practicing his dark arts. There was the great English magus, John Dee, who was accused by the Church of being a spy and a Satanist, and who narrowly avoided being sent to the Inquisition when he visited the Holy Roman Emperor in Prague.


There were the legends of the magus Faust, another resident of Prague, which were printed in 1587 and became very popular in the late years of the 16th Century. The tales told of a magus who, in his hunger for fame and knowledge, signed a contract with the Devil giving him supernatural powers for a few years, until his soul is dragged down to hell.


Even the magic-loving emperor himself, Rudolph II, was suspected by the Vatican of having made a deal with Old Nick. Cardinal Filippo Spinelli wrote to Pope Clement VIII in 1600: “It is generally agreed among Catholics in Prague that the Emperor has been bewitched and is in league with the Devil. I have been shown the chair in which His Majesty sits when holding conversations with the Prince of Darkness himself.”


The ugly fate of the hapless emperor seemed to spell out only too clearly the dangers of dabbling in the occult. First his son Don Guilio went mad, and was locked up for raping and mutilating a barber’s daughter. Then the emperor himself went crazy, hiding himself away for weeks in Prague Castle, running through the darkened corridors screaming that his back had changed place with his stomach. He was eventually forced off the imperial throne by his brother, Matthias, who claimed Rudolph spent so much time delving into magic, he was neglecting the affairs of the empire.


Even if you were sceptical that magi could really converse with, command or make deals with devils, it is still easy to see why the Vatican perceived them as a dangerous threat.


Firstly, magi were politically dangerous. They were sometimes spies with Protestant sympathies (as John Dee probably was) and were frequently Messianic revolutionaries as well. Thus Pico believed his Theses would help bring about a cosmic revolution, when all religions would be synthesized into one uber-religion and peace would reign among men.

John Dee believed a similar cosmic revolution was on the way, which would bring about the reconciliation of Catholic and Protestant Europe and a new era of amity and concord.


Giordano Bruno, an outspoken and ecstatic Italian magus who wandered around Europe spreading his Hermetic theories towards the end of the 16th century, believed a new age of love was dawning when the Egyptian mysteries would reign once more, and occult priests like himself would rule the world.


The magi might sound like fun-loving anarchist Gnostics, but there was a darker side to their political beliefs. Many of them saw in Hermeticism not just a way to reach God, but a way to rule the world as well. They were drawn to passages in the Corpus Hermeticum that spoke of a perfect city that Hermes Trismegistus had founded, called Adocentyn, which were watched over by statues, magically animated with the spirits of demons.


These magic statues would make sure that everyone in the city was virtuous. Indeed, they would have no choice but to be virtuous, because the magic would control all their actions, turning them into little marionettes. This Utopian dictatorship appealed greatly to magi like Bruno or Tommaso Campanella. In the idea of a elite of artist-intellectuals manipulating the dumb masses through art and propaganda, it would foreshadow perhaps the dictatorships of the 20th Century.


But, besides their politics, the magi’s religious beliefs were, of course, deeply heretical. The official Church doctrine was that man could not reach God except through Christ, and only in the afterlife. And yet the magi seemed to be claiming the ability to achieve divine perfection in this life, not through the grace of Christ, but through all sorts of other means – star-demons, planets, talismans, Chaldean oracles. Some imprudent magi even suggested that Jesus Himself was, basically, a magus.


This was the rash claim made by Giordano Bruno, who may be the prototype for Lord Asriel in Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights. Bruno, like Asriel, visited Oxford in 1582, and there engaged in furious debate with the Oxford scholastics (or ‘pedants’ as he insisted on calling them) about the possible existence of multiple worlds, just as Asriel would do.


This idea of multiple worlds, which one also finds in the Kabbalah, would have a deep impact on fantasy literature and on comics. It is a key feature of American superhero comics, with a famous DC comic being called Crisis on Multiple Earths.



pastedGraphic.pdf

DC’s Multiple Earths


It also plays a key role in Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights, where Lord Asriel is imprisoned by the Church for heretically asserting the existence of multiple worlds. Eventually, Asriel manages to escape and kill God. Giordano Bruno’s fate was rather more grisly – he was arrested by the Inquisition, kept in prison for eight years, and then burnt at the stake in 1600. His crimes included claiming Jesus was a magus, and “claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds”.


When Bruno was burnt at the stake, it marked the nadir of the fortunes of the artist-magus in European society. It was downhill all the way from there. For 100 years or so, the magus had been an all-powerful, superhuman figure. He had enjoyed audiences with queens, Popes and emperors. He had combined the prophet, the courtier, the healer, chemist and artist, and all these disciplines had assumed a sacred character in his person.


Sadly, the cosmic revolution that many magi believed they were helping to bring about did not happen. The Age of Love failed to materialize. Instead, Europe tore itself apart in a century of bloody religious violence, in which magic itself would be a victim, with thousands of ‘witches’ being burnt at the stake during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. And out of that violence, as we shall see in the next chapter, was born the modern world, one ruled by rational theories of science, physics, economics and statecraft


Ironically, magi like Giordano Bruno may have helped bring about this new rational age, because their natural philosophy, as strange and occult as it may have been, was still experimental, and thus helped to bring down the Catholic Church’s purely speculative Scholasticism. Modern chemistry grew out of Renaissance alchemy, and modern astronomy grew out of Renaissance astrology. So perhaps, like Lord Asriel, the magi really did help to kill God, although this was far from their intention.


With the 17th century clampdown on magic and the coming of the age of rationalism, the idea of an animate universe that could be controlled by magi was gradually pushed to the margins of popular belief. But a few wild souls still cherished this idea, and many of them would end up working in comics.


Some of the most magic-inspired comic and fantasy writers, such as Alan Moore, John Crowley or Neil Gaiman, would often look back to the Renaissance magi for inspiration. Thus Gaiman’s graphic novel 1602 takes Marvel superheroes like the X-Men and Spiderman, and re-imagines them as figures in the court of Queen Elizabeth, with Doctor Strange becoming a John Dee-like magus to the Queen. And Moore has told me that he sees himself as a magus “in the European tradition of Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Giordano Bruno”.


And the magi’s history of clashes with the Catholic Inquisition would also cast a long shadow over superhero comics, in which superheroes like the X-Men would often face persecution by the authorities for their powers, or simply for being different. In 1602, for example, Charles Xavier of the X-Men, or Carlos Javier as he has become, fights to defend his mutants from the Inquisition; while Tomas de Torquemada, the chief inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition who expelled the Jews and Kabbalah from Spain, would appear as one of the most famous comic book villains, in the pages of 2000AD.








Tuesday, 5 January 2010

Funeral therapy


By John Glionna, from the LA Times:

For Jung Joon, the moment of truth arrives for his clients as they slip into the casket and he pounds the lid in place with a wooden hammer.

Insights arise, he says, as they are confronted with total, claustrophobic darkness, left alone to weigh their regrets and ponder eternity.

Jung, a slight 39-year-old with an undertaker's blue suit and a preacher's demeanor, is a resolute counselor on the ever-after who welcomes clients with the invitation, "OK, today let's get close to death."

Jung runs a seminar called the Coffin Academy, where, for $25 each, South Koreans can get a glimpse into the abyss. Over four hours, groups of a dozen or more tearfully write their letters of goodbye and tombstone epitaphs. Finally, they attend their own funerals and try the coffin on for size.

In a candle-lighted chapel, each climbs into one of the austere wooden caskets laid side by side on the floor. Lying face up, their arms crossed over their chests, they close their eyes. And there they rest, for 10 excruciating minutes.

"It's a way to let go of certain things," says Jung, a former insurance company lecturer. "Afterward, you feel refreshed. You're ready to start your life all over again, this time with a clean slate."

Across South Korea, a few entrepreneurs are conducting controversial forums designed to teach clients how to better appreciate life by simulating death. Equal parts Vincent Price and Dale Carnegie, they use mortality as a personal motivator for a variety of behaviors, from a healthier attitude toward work to getting along with family members.

Many firms here see the sessions as an inventive way to stimulate productivity. The Kyobo insurance company, for example, has required all 4,000 of its employees to attend fake funerals like those offered by Jung.

There's another motivation: South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the developed world.

The country tops the 30 member nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in the number of self-inflicted deaths, according to OECD data updated in 2009. And even as the suicide rate of many countries has fallen, South Korea's remains high -- twice that of the United States, statistics show.

Yet critics question the seminars' value in the fight against suicide. Some suggest that the mock funerals are a how-to manual in a nation where, experts say, ruthless competition and financial stress lead many to kill themselves.

"It could lead to fantasies that life in the underworld may be better than real life," says Jang Chang-min, a counselor with the Korean Assn. for Suicide Prevention.