PS

Late, late the mind confessed:
wisdom has not sufficed.
I cannot take one step into the light 
without the Christ.

Late, late the heart affirmed:
wild do my heart-beats run
when in the blood-stream sings one wish away
from the Incarnate Son.

Christ is my utmost need.
I lift each breath, each beat for Him to bless,
knowing our language cannot overspeak
our frightening helplessness.

Here where proud morning walks
and we hang wreaths on power and self-command,
I cling with all my strength unto a nail-
investigated hand.

Christ is my only trust.
I am my fear since, down to the lanes of ill,
my steps surprised a dark Iscariot
plotting in my own will.

Past nature called, I cry
who clutch at fingers and tunic folds,
"Lay not on me, O Christ, this fastening.
Yours be the hand that holds."

'Christ Is My Utmost Need' by Jessica Powers 

'The Names of Jesus', the vase

Ascension of Our Lord

-----------------
(the day I entered Carmel)

'Ecce Homo' - 'Christ the Bridegroom'

"Вестники Воскресения", Н. Ге

Метафизика "двойного послания"

[пример семейной пары в ресторане]
Она (пододвигая Ему блюдо с оставшимся лососем): Я наелась, хочешь съесть и это?
Он: Ты уверена? Спасибо. (наполовину доев) Ты уверена, что не хочешь?
Она: Уверена, ешь-ешь.
Он съедает все и переходит к десерту. Она медленно наливается обидой и слезами.
Он: Что такое?
Она: Я не могу поверить, что ты съел всего лосося и не поделился со мной!
Он: Но ведь ты сама предложила...
Она: Неважно, (тут нужна запятая, а не точка с запятой) любящий мужчина так бы не поступил.

1

Несколько лет назад я сконструировала этот пример, который может показаться гротеском, чтобы помочь читателю ощутить, как именно пограничное расстройство личности проявляется в межличностных отношениях. Это – классический пример “double bind”, “двойного послания” (или “двойных пут”), которое всегда сводится к следующему: “что бы ты ни сделал, ты пропал”. Двойное послание можно интуитивно распознать, т.е. почувствовать по эффекту, производимому им на личность: мозг, связанный “по рукам и ногам” двумя противоположными смыслами, содержащимися в одном послании, обычно входит в ступор и теряет способность соображать. Для нормальной здоровой психики пример выше очевиден и прост, хотя и вполне безумен. Она – просто “тю-тю”, грубо скажет здоровый посторонний: сначала настояла на том, чтобы он съел рыбу, а потом сама же и обвинила его в этом; она – мазразматичка: забыла, что она сказала минуту назад или же она – просто садистка. Такой вывод вполне естественен, повторяю, для здорового постороннего человека, но в примере есть один фактор, который кардинально меняет картину: личная вовлеченность в отношения с “ней”. “Она” обвиняет “его” в отсутствии любви к ней, и ее реакция (слезы) убеждает его в том, что “в этом что-то есть” – он виноват, иначе бы она не была так расстроена. Зерно сомнения заронилось в его сознании, крошечное “а что, если?” И, если в его психике имеются подходящие “трещины”, оно начнет прорастать, постепенно удушая его, трансформируя его представление о самом себе и о мире вокруг в ее, патологическое.

Рассмотренное двойное послание имеет многие “подмеханизмы”, приводящие его в действие; один из них – незаметная подмена причины и следствия, перестановка их местами. Мысль “я виноват, потому что она расстроена” – это абберация мысли “я поступил дурно, поэтому она расстроена”. Замечательно здесь то, что вторая мысль вполне правомерна в случае, если человек действительно сделал нечто дурное. Первая мысль правомерна только как повод, отправная точка для проверки совести; способность к рассмотрению возможности наличия собственной вины является свойством нормальной психики и необходимым условием для нормальной жизни в обществе. Именно поэтому рассуждение “я виноват, раз она расстроена” воспринимается как нормальный, привычный ход мыслей, и эти нормальность и привычность, не проверенные логикой и фактами, и помогают двойному посланию работать, до того, что даже иррациональность предполагаемой причины для чувства вины (поедание предложенной рыбы) не может убрать сомнения в самом себе. Далее это сомнение еще больше укрепляется аксиомой, которую все, когда-либо состоявшие в отношениях, слышали хотя бы раз в жизни: “по-настоящему любящий мужчина никогда бы так не поступил”. Не поступил бы как? – Никогда не съел бы рыбу, настойчиво предлагаемую ему? – Нет, не вызвал бы ее слез. И, поскольку он действительно их вызвал – невaжно, как именно – он “не любящий” и его вина доказана, наперекор логике и здравому смыслу.

Вероятно, теперь уже становится достаточно очевидным, что двойное послание всегда использует очень сильную эмоцию, обычно чувство вины, стыда или страха, в осбенности связанную с собственным имиджем, например, страх/ стыд выглядеть нелюбящим, неприятным, эгоистичным, грубым, и т.п. Рассмотренная человеком, свободным от “смирительной рубашки” непосредственной эмоциональной вовлеченности в ситуацию, история сводится к следующему: “Даже если ты предлагаешь мне то, что что тебе самой не нужно, я ни в коем случае не должен это принимать, потому что ты тут же обвинишь меня в этом; ты устраиваешь мне ловушки; ты вообще ничего не хочешь мне дать: даже если ты и даешь, ты делаешь это с целью забрать даваемое назад и вместе с ним меня, т.е., мою личность. Ты хочешь сделать из меня нечто нечто безличностное.”  Здесь явственно видно, как двойное послание, с которого сняли покровы эмоций, выражает суть отношений, а именно ничто, ноль, иллюзию.

Необходимо заметить, что, несмотря на очевидную иррациональность двойного послания, единственный, кто полностью недоступен его влиянию – это человек, кому абсолютно безразлично мнение других, т.е. психопат – или же святой, которому мнение других не безразлично, но которым невозможно манипулировать, просто в силу того, что в его психике нет ничего, что манипуляция может использовать.

Я вспомнила о примере двойного послания в то время, как пыталась поставить себя на место человека, верящего в “там что-то есть”, т.е. не в Бога-Личность христиан и иудеев, а в “что-то”: в “высшие силы”, в “энергии” и т.п. Это было намеренно не интеллектуальное упражнение, сходное с “Schema Therapy”, но в обратном порядке: “Schema Therapy” использует сильное чувство (воспринимаемое как беспричинное, предположительно оторванное от своего забытого источника) для того, чтобы идентифицировать ситуацию в прошлом (источник, который его произвел), я же использовала ситуацию “я и безличностный бог” для того, чтобы произвести чувство. Я ощутила холод, пустоту и бессмысленность. Для меня было совершенно невозможно увидеть хоть какую-то привлекательность или пользу от подобного бога – и на ум пришло двойное послание, агностиков и верящих в безличностного бога, “Бог христиан – это выдумка-конструкция, выстроенная теми, кто нуждается в Боге-Личности”.

Metaphysical double bind

[a couple in a restaurant]
She (moving towards him the dish with the remaining salmon): I had enough, would you like to finish it?
He: Are you sure? Thank you. (half-finishing) Are you sure you don’t want it?
She: Sure, sure, eat.
He eats it all and moves on to dissert. Her eyes are slowly flooding with silent tears.
He: What’s the matter?
She: I cannot believe that you finished all salmon and did not even offer it to me!
He: But you offered it to me yourself…
She: It doesn’t matter; a truly loving man would never do that.

1

I constructed this ridiculous example some time ago, for the purpose of giving the reader a feel of how borderline personality disorder is experienced in a relationship. This is a classic double bind, “whatever you do you lose”. A double bind can be recognised intuitively by its effect on a person; the mind, constrained by two opposite messages incorporated in one, usually goes blank. The example above is very obvious and simple, especially for a normal healthy psyche. “She” is mad, a healthy outsider (i.e., someone who is not emotionally involved with “her”) may say; she offered “him” to eat and then turned it against him; she is senile – forgot what she was saying or she is just a nasty sadist. It is very natural, I repeat, for a healthy outsider, to conclude those things but there is one factor that changes the whole picture, a personal involvement with “her”. She blames him for the lack of love for her, and her reaction (tears) convinces him that “there is something there”, he is guilty otherwise she would not be so upset. The seed of doubt is dropped into the psyche, the tiny “what if?” And, if his psyche has some suitable cracks the seed will begin growing, suffocating him and changing his picture of himself and of the world altogether into her pathological one.  

The double bind above has multiple sub-mechanisms which make it work; one of them is a subtle swap of a cause and an effect. “I am guilty because she is upset” is an aberration of “I did a wrong thing – she is upset”. Note, the second phrase is legitimate if the person indeed did something wrong. The first phrase is legitimate as a pretext for self-examination; to be able to consider the possibility of one’s own fault is a quality of a normal psyche and the basis for normal living with others. Hence “I may be guilty because she is upset” sounds as if it is a normal, habitual line of thought, and this habitual normality of the thoughts, unchallenged by logic and unverified by the facts, is what makes a double bind work, to the point that even the irrationality of the stated reason for feeling guilty (eating the offered fish) cannot remove the self-doubt. Next this self-doubt is strengthened by the maxim which anyone in a relationship probably heard at least once: “a truly loving man (or woman) would never do that”. Would never do what? – Never eat what was pushed upon him? – No, cause tears. And, since he indeed caused her tears – it does not matter how – he is “not loving” and his guilt is proven, over logic and over reason.

It is probably clear now that a double bind always relies on a very strong primordial emotion, typically guilt, shame or fear, especially something to do with the self-image, for example, the fear or shame of appearing to be non-loving, non-likable, egotistic, rude etc. Being considered without the constraint of an immediate emotional involvement, the story boils down to the following: “Even if you offer me something you do not want I should never accept it because you then will blame me for what I accepted; you set up the traps; you do not want to give me anything; when you are giving you do that only for the purpose of taking it back and even more, to rob me off myself, to destroy me, to make me a non-person”. Here we can see how the double bind, being stripped from emotional covers, encapsulates the very essence of the relationship which is nothing, zero, an illusion.

It is necessary to state that, despite the sheer irrationality of a double bind, the only person who is completely immune to it is one who absolutely does not care about others and their opinions i.e. a psychopath – or a saint who cares but is not affected by manipulation because there is nothing in his psyche that such manipulation can use.

I recalled the example of a double bind while trying to place myself in the position of someone who believes in “something there” i.e. not God the Person of Christians or Jews but “something”, “a higher power”, “the force” etc. That was a deliberately non-intellectual exercise similar to one of those found in ‘Schema Therapy’ but in reverse mode. ‘Schema Therapy’ uses a strong [supposedly misplaced] feeling which one is experiencing to locate a situation in the past where it belongs, I used the situation, “me and an impersonal god” to produce the feeling. That feeling was of coldness, emptiness and futility. It was impossible for me to see any attraction or benefit of such a god – and the double bind came to my mind, of agnostics and of believers in an impersonal god, “the Christian God is a self-construct of those who need a personal god”.

Эволюция “Ессе Hомо”

Несколько лет назад, разыскивая в Интернете нужные для моей работы изображения “Ессе Hомо”, я впервые увидела скандально известную фреску “Ессе Hомо” из церкви в  испанской деревне, не так давно никому неизвестной. Испанский “Ессе Hомо” был изуродован в результате попытки престарелой местной жительницы “отреставрировать” его.[1] Теперь именно бесконечные фотографии ее “работы” “Гугл имидж” выдает в первых рядах, а отнюдь не работы Тициана, Эль Греко и бесчисленных других при напечатании в поисковике этих слов, “Ессе Hомо”, “Се Человек”. Вместо страдающего лика Христа (синяки, кровь, боль, унижение и, несмотря на это, светящеееся через все это благородство Сына Человеческого) интересующийся вынужден теперь созерцать кругло-обезьянью рожу с непередаваемым выражением – собственной важности? – торжественного идиотизма?  Как бы ни описывать ee, это поразительно удачный образец комического искусства, нечто столь же заразительное, сколь идиотское. Возможно, торжественный идиотизм (нечто, напоминающее Мистера Бина с его “Матерью Уистлера”) – это именно то, из-за чего изуродованный “Ессе Hомо” сделался чем-то вроде вируса, подменяя собой лица на чуть ли ни всех известных произведениях искусства, как “Тайная вечеря” Леонардо или “Совлечение одежд с Христа” Эль Греко. Интересно в этой истории то, что “отреставрированный” “Ессе Hомо”, похоже, сделался очень эффективным иструментом для обесценивания оригиналов исключительных работ, изображающих Христа.

Эта история загадочно-дика. Допустим, кто-то испортил приличную фреску в храме и теперь на ней идиотское лицо, ну и что? Даже если это лицо и смехотворно, зачем приезжать издалека, чтобы посмотреть на него, если можно увидеть его бесчисленные фотографии в Интернете без каких-либо затрат? Это ведь не шедевр Вермеера (например), который желательно увидеть лицом к лицу.  Зачем воспроизводить его на чашках, футболках, брелках и т.п.? Зачем производить вино “Ессе Hомо”, несмотря на очевидные оскорбительные ассоциации? Зачем писать оперу на этот сюжет и ставить ее, спустя три года после события? Наконец, почему бы просто не восстановить оригинал фрески?

На самом деле, в этих вопросах уже содержится ответ. Все это происходит именно потому, что теперь существуют новая “икона”, новое “паломничество”, новые “реликвии”, новое “священное вино”, новая постановка “Страстей”, новый культ пародии на Христа. Все это есть и в то же время нет ничего, потому что большинство участвующих стало бы отрицать, что они высмеивают Христа (многие, вполне вероятно, ходят в церковь, некоторые даже в ту самую деревенскую церковь, где находится фреска), потому что “в Церкви Божьего Милосердия уже не Христос, а обезьяна” (которую, тем не менее, все еще обозначают как “Ессе Hомо”); потому что вино “Ессе Hомо” – это просто для туристов, это не имеет ничего общего с Христом, стоящим на балконе в терновом венце, которого только что тщательно исполосовали и вот-вот распнут; потому что “это современное чудо того, как Бог воздвиг из руин умирающую деревню”; потому что...

Довольно. Я могла бы задать самый важный вопрос, а именно, почему местная церковь оставила карикатуру на Христа в храме, но мне известен ответ. Это – феномен отделения явлений от их названий, времени от места, смыслов от слов: Месса отделена от “обезьяньего лица” на церковной стене – оно все еще называется “Ессе Hомо”, но это иной “Ессе Hомо”, не Наш Господь, а обезьяна... и мы говорим о другом “Ессе Hомо” во время Евхаристии, и в любом случае, это чудо Божье – нет, не Месса чудо Божие, а изображение того, т.е. этого, не нашего “Ессе Hомо”, а обезьяны." И так далее. Меня мутит от постмодернизмов, постоянно прорывающихся на поверхность всякий раз, когда речь заходит о Путине, Боуи, Патрирхе Кирилле, российской политике, современном искусстве, пограничном расстройстве личности и т.п. Становится все сложнее анализировать что-либо без того, чтобы не иметь с ним дела. Мне уже неоднократно приходилось писать о коллаже смыслов, каждый из которых бессмысленен либо безостановочно меняет свой смысл, или же имеет смысл только в связи с другим, соседним смыслом либо им уничтожается, и т.д. и т.п. Скучно и утомительно писать о ничто, пустоте, пустом пузыре, который жив только потому, что он паразитирует на реальном “Ессе Hомо”. Уберите историю, стоящую за порчей фрески и реальный, благородный и страдающий Лик Ессе Hомо как объект насмешек самодовольной и торжественно-идиотской обезьяны, и явление немедлeнно высохнет и умрет. Никто не захотел бы смотреть на карикатуру, лишенную ссылки на свой прототип; чем более возвышен предмет и хуже его порча, тем больше интереса.

По какой-то странной ассоциации я вспомнила историю о “чуде Божьем”, изуродованном “Ессе Hомо”, в то время как я смотрела видео встречи Папы Римского Франциска и Патриарха Московского Кирилла в аэропорту Гаваны, Куба и, позже, читала их “совместное заявление”. Есть нечто комическое в части фразы, выделенной курсивом, и этот привкус пародии хорошо передает настроение действа. На экране был вполне обычный Патриарх Кирилл, т.е. выглядевший как член Политбюро или сходной организации, который зачем-то вырядился в одежды пресвитера, вполне откровенно довольный собой. Были два ряда высокопоставленных представителей двух Церквей: довольно раскованные, жестикулирующие католики слева и по-солдатски одинаковые и натянутые православные справа; первые выглядели приподнято, посматривая на вторых с живым интересом, в то время как вторые не обращали на них ни малейшего внимания.  И был Папа Франциск – и не было Папы Франциска. Вся сцена была ненатуральной и абсурдной как дурной сон – возможно, у Папы просто не было иного выбора, кроме как исчезнуть? Позже, после прошествия некоторого времени, появилась оболочка индивидуума, а затем и сам индивидуум, наконец, вернулся.  Кажется, есть такое выражение, “идти словно сквозь воду” (и отнюдь не по воде), т.е. продвигаться с трудом, духовно с трудом, и, кажется, есть также и выражение “свинцовые воды”, т.е. гораздо тяжелее, чем обычные, и именно так и выглядел сидящий за столом Папа: неподвижно сидящим и, в то же время, идущим сквозь свинцовые воды. Многие воды. Позже я услышала его слова, о его ощущении присутствия Святого Духа во время личного разговора с Патриархом, зaявление, которое возможно интерпретировать по-разному. Если понимать его как “встреча произошла при содействии Духа Святого”, то эта интерпретация находится в диссонансе с тем, как выглядел и держался Папа.

The evolution of 'Ecce Homo'

Several years ago I came across the infamous ‘Ecce Homo’ from the church in a formerly obscure Spanish village while looking for the real image of ‘Ecce Homo’,  material which I needed for my own art work. The Spanish ‘Esse Homo’ was mutilated as a result of the attempt, by a local elderly woman, to restore it.[1] Now it is endless reproductions of her “work” and not the ‘Ecce Homo’ by Titian, El Greco and countless others that pop up in the Google Images search first when one types the words, ‘Ecce Homo’, (behold the Man). Instead of the suffering face of Christ (bruises, blood, pain, humiliation, and yet the nobility of the Son of Man despite all that) now one is compelled to see the round-monkey-like-face with the indescribable expression of – what? – Self-importance? – Solemn idiocy? However it may be described, it is a very successful work of comic art, something as catching as it is stupid. Perhaps that solemn idiotism (something reminiscent of Mr Bean with his ‘Whistler’s Mother’ adventure) is precisely why the mutilated ‘Ecce Homo’ has become viral, swapped with the faces in almost any well-known work like ‘The Last Supper’ by Leonardo or ‘Disrobement of Christ’ by El Greco. What is interesting about this story is that the “restored” ‘Ecce Homo’ seems to be a very effective tool for devaluing the originals, many of which are very good works, which depict Christ.

The whole story is bizarre. Very well, someone spoiled the decent fresco and now there is an idiotic face, so what? Even if that face is funny why to bother to travel afar to see it if one can easily see its numerous photos in the Internet? – It is not a Vermeer masterpiece (for example) which is preferable to see face to face. Why put this image onto mugs, t-shirts etc? Why produce a wine named ‘Ecce Homo’, with the obvious upsetting associations? Why write the farcical opera based on that story and play it, three years after the event? Finally, why not simply reconstruct the original face?

Actually, those questions are the answers. All this is taking place because it is the new “icon”, new “pilgrimage”, new “relics”, new “sacred wine”, new “passion play”, new cult of the parody of Christ. It is all that and yet nothing because the majority would deny that they mock Christ (many may even go to the Church, some to the church where the fresco is) because “it is no longer Christ there in the Sanc­tu­ary of Mercy Church but a monkey” (still referred to as ‘Ecce Homo’ though); because the wine ‘Ecce Homo’ is just a tourist item, nothing to do with Christ on the balcony wearing the crown of thorns, thoroughly lashed and about to be crucified; because “it is a modern miracle of how God brought revival to the declining village”; because…

Enough. I could ask the most important question, why the local church left the mockery of Christ to remain in the church, but I know the answers already. It is all about segregating the phenomena from their names, times from places, meanings from words: the Mass is segregated from “the monkey face” on the church wall – it is still called ‘Ecce Homo’ but it is a different ‘Ecce Homo’, not Our Lord but the monkey… and we speak about another Ecce Homo during the Eucharist, and it is God’s miracle anyway – not the Mass that is God’s miracle but the image of that, not our ‘Ecce Homo’, the monkey.” And so on. I am sick of the postmodernism which keeps popping up every time I write about Putin, Bowie, Patriarch Kirill, Russian politics, modern art, borderline personality disorder and so on. It is becoming progressively more and more difficult to analyse anything without having to deal with it. So many times I have written about the collage of meanings, each of them has no meaning or ever-changing meaning, meaningful only in a relation to a particular neighbouring meaning or obliterated by it etc. It is boring and tiring to write about nothing, emptiness, an empty bubble. In this particular case, an empty bubble that is alive only because it parasitises the real ‘Ecce Homo’. Remove the story behind the mutilation and the real, noble and suffering Face of the Ecce Homo as what the “self-important solemn and stupid face of the monkey” mocks, and the whole thing will immediately wilt and die. No one would wish to see the mockery without the reference to the prototype; the grander is the subject and grosser the mutilation the more the interest. So the Christ of postmodernists is just a reference, a bleak hyperlink, white font on the yellow background.

By some strange association I recalled the story about “God’s miracle”, the mutilated ‘Ecce Homo’ when I watched the meeting of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill in Havana airport and later read their “joint declaration”. There is something comical in the italic text I think, and this touch of parody sets the general mood. There was the regular Patriarch Kirill i.e. looking like a member of the politburo or some similar organization dressed as presbyter, openly happy about himself. There were two rows of high-standing representatives of two Churches, noticeably more relaxed and animated Catholics on the left and very soldier-like and uniform Orthodox on the right; the former looked somewhat excited, facing the Orthodox while the latter was not interested in the former whatsoever. And there was Pope Francis – and there was no Pope Francis. The whole scene was unnatural and absurd like a bad dream – perhaps the Pope had no choice but to attempt not to be present? Later, after a period of time, the shell of an individual appeared and then the individual himself seemed to return at last. There is a saying in Russian, “walking through the water” meaning that it is a very heavy walk, spiritually, and there is also a saying “lead waters”, that  is even heavier and this is how the sitting-at-the-table Pope appeared to be: sitting motionlessly and yet walking through the lead waters. Many waters.  Later I heard his words about his sense of the presence of the Holy Spirit during the private meeting, a statement which one can interpret in quite different ways. If it is interpreted as “the Holy Spirit” arranged this meeting it appears to be at odds with what the Pope conveyed by his body language.

Prophesy

Trusting God versus “trusting God”

Concluding ‘The curse of choice’, the paper about recreating a borderline/narcissistic mother in the Person of Christ thus creating a fake Christ, I wrote:

“I do not know whether the necessity of restoration of a normal, i.e. as commanded by God, order of attachments explains why a habitual act of sacrifice “all or nothing” can suddenly work with Christ and open up an opportunity for God to act. Is it because the fake god is thrown from her pedestal and now the real God can act? …Perhaps the wisest thing that can be said here is that something happens, and that is it.”

I think that “something” is “trusting God”, nowadays a much overused term which, by association, brings to mind Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s term “cheap grace”. Or perhaps it just looks overused, cheap or even laughable to a person with c-PTSD. The reason for that is simple: such a person has paid for her trust with her ruined life. What the good-willed advisors often fail to understand is that a trauma, the product of childhood abuse inflicted by a parent, is not something that “happened once upon a time” and thus can be “fixed” with the notion “your parent hurt you but God will not, trust Him” although in itself this statement is true.  Yes, God will not hurt her; it is her who will.  And, paradoxically, the more she applies herself to practice trusting God the more pain she will feel. 

Carmelite prayer

The mechanics of evil

An old photo: a hypnotist is pendulum-ing his shiny watch before the eyes of a person-to-be-hypnotized.

An advertisement kitsch in a local newspaper: a witch is staring into a crystal ball.

A work of modern art: a stuffed corpse covered by hundreds of glass beads.

-----------------------------

The only one thing which bothered me after writing two articles about Bowie was “how his stuff works” i.e. how his songs really get under one’s skin. It was beyond my understanding how a committed Christian while knowing very well, for example, about the references to Crowley in ‘Station to station’ still partakes that triumphant sadistic joy the song conveys? What is there that so much violates a human will, and in such a way that the very rape of a will induces a pleasure? Those questions are not just about Bowie – it just happened that “his stuff” is probably the most brilliant of its kind in our time. They are about “how the ultimate staff works”.

As it was already stated in ‘Death as a work of art’ “the real stuff” in general and its particular manifestation, the Bowie’s work, can be adequately addressed only from the position of Christian mysticism. Consider the examples below.


‘The Next Day’, video

A night/sex-club for Catholic clergy. One of them is lashing his own naked back; much blood. The decadent whores, among them one, almost albino, dressed in “bridal”, extremely transparent, attire. One of the whores, together with a priest, brings in a silver plate with two freshly plucked out human eyes. Another one who looks somewhat more humane then others, reluctantly begins dancing with a priest. An old cardinal distributes banknotes in exchange to a kiss of his hand, a sign of submission. A singer, Bowie himself, dressed in “ancient” tunic but with a scarf around his neck, sings and dramatically points at “the most humane whore”; that jester causes the stigmata to appear on her palms. Blood is gashing from them; the white clothes of “the bride” become stained and then soaked in blood. The priest who danced with her and is now standing between her and “the bride” somehow entirely avoids being stained. Everybody is now looking in a trance at the singer; “the bride” has no bloody stains now. Bowie finishes his song and thanks the actors, “Gary” and “Mary” by their names, and then “everybody”.

An interpretation #1: evangelical.

Bowie sings about the “grand whore”, the Catholic Church. A cardinal is Satan = the Catholic Pope. Bowie also mocks stigmata, the typical Catholic case of delusion/ demonic possession. However, he also says something about someone “stuck in a hollow tree” for three days. Could it be Christ? The place is perverse: there they use prostitutes and serve human eyes.

An interpretation #2: Catholic. 

Bowie is mocking the Catholic Church representing it as ran by money, bribes and the lies structure. A lashing himself priest represents the supposed Catholic hypocrisy (“discipline” in a brothel). He mocks Christ and Christianity visa various references (stigmata; allusion to St Mary Magdalene, Bowie himself represents “Christ” etc). Also, the lyrics have multiple hints to the Gospels story.


An interpretation #3: Catholic mystical tradition.

A lashing himself priest is a mockery of Catholic practice of “discipline” but the close-up of his naked back can be also a reference to Christ being lashed as well. Two eyes on the plate are the direct quote of the Western iconography of St Luci (“Light”), commonly depicted holding the plate with two eyes, a virgin and martyr whose eyes were plucked out as a result of her refusal to renounce Christ. The perverse “bride” soaked by blood gashing from stigmata represents the birth of the Church = the Bride of Christ which, according to the Christian teaching, was born from the wound of Christ on the Cross, as a result of His death. The real Church = the Bride of Christ is pure, here she is the worst of perverse whores. It is not even pseudo-Christ (Bowie) who bleeds for the Church there but another female, “St Mary Magdalene”. This can be a hint to the Gnostic texts about “the female principal = “St Mary Magdalene” as the spouse of Christ; “the female principal giving a life to a society of initiated”; it can be just a simple mockery; whatever it is it pollutes the mystical understanding of the Church as the Bride of Christ. Next, the brothel or sex club which “represents” the Church can be seen as the official Church against the will of which right now, from a female, not from Christ, the new Church is born – from the whore and as a whore-bride. In authentic Christianity the Virgin Mary (Virgin, Bride, Mother) is one of the symbols of the Church; there are gnostic stories about her as a whore who conceived from the Roman solder – so it is another blasphemous gnostic reference. The video is stuffed with multitude of symbols but the most visually stunning among them are two eyes on the plate (can be interpreted also as the symbol of “the Church blinds the believers”/ destruction of light “God is light” etc), stigmata and the blood poured onto “the bride”. This is a very sophisticated and dense perversion of the heart of the Catholic, Christian, and even, to some extent, the Old Testament mysticism. However, all the above is rendered “not real = nothing” by Bowie thanking actors for the roles played. It is nothing – “not serious”. It is also “uninitiated can see nothing” statement of gnosis. It is also the return to the chaotic unconscious where the symbols are popping up and sink without any rationale – the religious irrational. Finally, it means that it was “nothing” that created it, for the purpose of rendering all to nothing, and this latter is actually the only true here. Hence, this gnostic game is beyond a simple stage of making something new and twisted with borrowed from Christianity symbols, it is making everything senseless, apart from “I AM” which Bowie represents. It is the gnosis of only One Adept who pulls the strings of puppets (the rest of humanity or the humanity as such).

PS ‘Death as a work of art’: the triumph of the impersonal

It seems to me that Bowie really overdone them all, I mean the artists (musicians, poets, writers) of a similar vein. Not only did he manage to make his death into “a work of art”, he also managed to use it to rip himself off (or to purify as he would probably say) from any remaining traces of humanity. This is truly stunning because death usually brings the humanity of an individual into the unbearable light. The humanity in its nakedness, being placed against death, usually can be seen clearer than ever, by the dying person and those around him. A dying or deceased person is unique and precious to the extreme: he is free from generalisations and categories. And, because we are all mortal we can easily relate to dying or dead human being with compassion. A dying or dead person is also extremely vulnerable and defenceless. This is why it is often said that Jesus Christ was the most human in His Passion and death. All the earthly life of the Son of God was a continuing self-reduction, self-squeezing into that needle point of humanity so we could relate to Him on the Cross – dying – dead – just as a human being, not some impersonal deity on the cross but the Man with his unique personality, as He was well-known to others. Hence His human death on the cross is, for humans, the gate into personal communion with God.

Jesus Christ, being the ideal Man, is the ultimate model of what a human being is supposed to be. This sentence of course is “nothing” or even a subject of mockery for many. Still, one can attempt to imitate Christ as his ideal; one can simply do nothing with Him via removing Him as a point of reference; or one can do everything possible to be not like Him. While the middle case, indifference, does nothing as the reflection of Christ, the first and the last work like positive and negative images which cannot exist without reference to the original. I wonder if Bowie’s fans notice that he acknowledges that despised ideal by his works, his life, and his death. He does it via his progressive embodiment of all that ideal is not. And, while it is usually not so impressive when an artist does it in his art only (there is plenty of such art) or even when an artist styles himself as “the Beast” (again, there is no lack of them around) it is very impressive if one does so with his own death. And not just does so, but does it perfectly, with meticulous attention to detail, without “screwing it up” like Mishima for example who had glorified the aesthetics of death in his writings and yet screwed up his harakiri (that immediately rendered Mishima human).

I find it absolutely astonishing that the man, just a few hours before his own death, issued his last message to the world saying in effect “God is the last thing I want to hear about”. It is stunning not so much because of its content but because of its “artistic form”. Truly, if someone is dying simply cursing God, literally, with own words, it is nothing compared with the postmodernist subtleties as it was done by Bowie. To swear at God is humane because it can be an expression of rage, despair, whatever but it is the personal expression, from a man to God, even in curses. God the Person would “easier” bear personal curses than an impersonal message, not because He is “proud” but because for Him to get a human being to address Him directly, even via curses, is the only way to save him. 

Death as a work of art: Bowie

Unfortunately, I am unable to find two really good, matching stills from Bowie ‘Absolute beginners’ and ‘Blackstar’ to illustrate that what I saw in my mind. I wonder if anyone else noticed the evolution of the “woman with a tail” that happened between 1985 and 2015.

‘Absolute beginners’ was made some time after ‘the Berlin period’ 1977-79 – that was, to me, the only period of mature Bowie when I could not perceive anyone else in his albums, apart from the author himself. For those three years, another person, perceptible to the extreme in the ‘Station to station’ (1976), stepped back.

Perhaps I should say a few words about what the work of the recently deceased artist has been for me. I have been in love with the work of Bowie for many reasons including the excellent stimulus it provided for my own work: his songs and compositions seemed to “loosen” my mind – apart from their other qualities they are very synesthetic. The major reason for my love for his art, as I see it now, was that his work and he himself together were so perfectly blended and embodied what can be very inadequately defined as “the [seeming] omnipotence and freedom of a creator”, the extremely seductive Luciferic aspect of the unreferenced creativity. “I can do anything!” – “I am great” – “I am” – “I AM”.

It is, actually, quiet boring when it is expressed by anyone else who is not – not in that state or does not subscribe to that philosophy, and this inevitable boredom makes the pronouncement of any moral judgement so problematic. A person who creates worlds out of nothing indeed feels omnipotent, free and entitled to do anything if it helps to create more. Any arguments against those notions, that there is dirt and purity, good and bad, and God and evil cannot withstand, the glorious sight of the man “who is all and in whom everything comes together”; male and female both irresistibly decadent and charming, “visionary”, “alien”, “great Arian beast”, “simple dude”, etc, etc, etc and his work, supernaturally varied and potent. Anyone can find anything there, try a persona on himself, borrow the omnipotence and “jump”.

When the “fundamentalist” evangelicals write their angry articles about the satanic nature of rock’n’roll they seem to miss the important point: the songs and compositions which concern them are truly brilliant and the musicians are extremely talented. To fail to acknowledge that is to shoot oneself in the foot; perhaps evangelicals fail to see the brilliance because they lack aesthetic sense?

This is what happened with me. When I listen to the Bowie’s ‘The Next Day’ it was brilliant, very powerful, very stimulating and yet completely infernal, channelling the voice of inferno via the person of Bowie. As I mentioned in my review of ‘The Next Day’ the music caused me to paint the “visual comments” for each song. The process was effortless, felt very rewarding but somewhat impersonal. It was my own creative response to Bowie’s album that made me carefully analyse what was there, and then I had to make a choice, not the simplistic choice which some evangelicals seem to make, between “simply satanic words” and God but between the brilliance, being drunk with my own creativity, feeling that I was a wire through the powerful force was rushing, very original images effortlessly coming to life under my fingers, and my God. I am not going to pretend that it was an easy choice because nothing, nothing can be compared with being drunk with one’s own creative abilities, with putting visons into the palpable art – nothing but God, personal God, being in personal relationship with God. Hence I understand why for those who do not know/ do not want to know God the Person the choice is pretty obvious or even non-existent. This is why I cannot highlight it too much: Bowie is a brilliant artist and he is totally Luciferic and empty at the same time.

The Nativity of Our Lord

(after Sister Joanna Reitlinger)

Sacred Heart

Atonement

И Дух И невеста говорят: прииди!

И Дух и невеста говорят: прииди! И слышавший да скажет: прииди! Жаждущий пусть приходит, и желающий пусть берет воду жизни даром.
(Откровение св. Иоанна Богослова 22:17)

1

Хорошо известно, что догматы Христианской Церкви формулировались в качестве ответа на ереси, возникавшие время от времени и грозившие совратить многих. Это всего лишь мое субъективное восприятие: мне кажется, что чем грандиознее и масшатабнее были ереси, тем большим откровением они звучали и тем более симвoличен был их язык. Чем более примитивны и мелки были ереси, тем более детальным, более чeловечским, так сказать, был догматический ответ Церкви. Я никоим образом не пытаюсь выразать здесь некую богословскую идею, я всего лишь говорю о моем субъективном восприятии. Так, догмат о Непорочном Зачатии Пресвятой Девы Марии всегда казался мне несколько неуклюжей попыткой определить то, что не стоит даже пытаться определять – и это в то время, как я согласна с истиной, выраженной в этом догмате, что Дева Мария должна была быть свободной от последствий первородного греха для того, чтобы стать матерью Иисуса Христа; только точное определение того, “как именно и когда это было достигнуто” внушает мне некую неловкость. Тем не менее, в то время, как я ощущаю, что есть нечто не совсем подобающее в чрезмерно детальном определении действия Бога посредством слишком человеческих доводов, я понимаю, что это было необходимым ответом на протестанские идеи о Пресвятой Деве, которые полностью противоречат учению неразделенной Церкви.[1]

Любопытно, что в межконфессиональных диалогах православные часто приводят свой отказ проникать загрязненным и грубым человеческим умом в божественные тайны в качестве одной из причин неприятия догмата о Непорочном Зачатии (для меня это является наиболее убедительной причиной, т.к. Православная Церковь разделяет идею необходимости некоего очистительного действия Бога, чтобы приготовить Деву Марию к зачатию Христа, но отказывается формулировать “когда и как”[2]).  Православные, как правило, претендуют на меньшую спекулятивность/ схоластику их богословия, т.е. на большую готовность добровольно склониться перед тайной божественных путей, храня почтительное молчание.

Я вспомнила об этих притязаниях на духовную скромность вскоре после того, как некто недавно спросил о моем мнении относительно трилогии “Испанские мистики” Мержковского. Хотя подростком я очень увлекалась серебряным веком, Мержковского я не читала, поэтому я заглянула в его “Трилогию”; настоящее эссе – результат.

The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come’

The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come’. Let everyone who listens answer ‘Come’. Then let all who are thirsty come: all who want it may have the water of life, and have it free.
(Revelation 22:17)


1

It is well known fact that the dogmas of the Christian Church were formulated as a response to the heresies which kept arising from time to time and threatened to seduce many. It is only my subjective perception but it looks to me that the bigger and grander the heresies were the more revelational were the dogmas and the more symbolic was their language. The more primitive and smaller were the heresies the less general and more detailed, the more human so to speak, was the dogmatic response of the Church. By no means am I attempting to make a theological point here, I am speaking only about my subjective perception. For instance, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary has always appeared to me as a somewhat awkward attempt to define something that one should not even try to – and this is while I do agree with the truth expressed by that dogma, that the Virgin Mary must be free from the consequences of the original sin to become the Mother of Jesus Christ; it is the precise definition of “how exactly and when it was achieved” that makes me feel somewhat uneasy. Nevertheless, while feeling that it is somewhat inappropriate to define God’s action in too many details and by far too human reasoning I understand that it was a necessary response to the Protestant views of the Virgin Mary which are totally contrary to the understanding of the Undivided Church[1].           

Interestingly, in their inter-confessional dialog the Eastern Orthodox often list this very refusal to penetrate too deeply, with the polluted and crude humane mind, into the mysteries of God as one of the reasons for their rejection of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (to me it is the most convincing reason because the Orthodox Church shares the thought about the necessity of some purifying action of God to prepare the Virgin for her conception of Christ but refuses to formulate “when and how”[2]). The Orthodox characteristically claim to be less speculative in their theology, i.e. more willing to bow down before the enigma of the God’s ways and to stay in respectable silence. 

Those claims of spiritual modesty popped up in my mind after someone recently asked my opinion about the trilogy ‘Spanish Mystics’ by the Russian writer Dmitry Merzhkovsky. Although I was very much taken by the literature of the Silver Age[3] when I was a teenager I have not read Merezhkovky so I looked into his ‘Trilogy’; this essay is the result.