Topic: Buddhism: Ennis fears the "Thing" (1967); Jack's favorite memory of Ennis (1983)

[jetzenpolis]

...There is one crucial element...from Buddhism:...whereas in the latter, all reason (and therefore virtue itself) is illusion...   

In this sense, "If you can't fix it, you gotta stand it" is truly closer to stoicism in the classic sense, and that the purging of desires in this case only approximates the Buddhist view.  For Ennis looks upon this as a necessary (or necessitated) virtue, rather than as a rejection of all things illusionary...

Reason and illusion is a big topic!

I'm not certain if Buddhism regards reason, itself, as an illusion.  Rather than that, I think Buddhism might say that the premises of what we (as conscious beings) assume about the composition of (our) reality - as a cultural or even personal "structure" of things, events, etc. - are limited forms of knowledge. 

For example, in a well-known Buddhist argument about the illusionary nature of "existence" (as it's perceived by the mind, in its conscious perception of "reality"), an ox-cart is examined.  Start pulling the ox-cart apart.  Take off the wheels.  Take away the axle.  Take away the bed of the ox-cart, etc.  At what point does the ox-cart stop being an "ox-cart"?

Jean-Paul Sartre, the mid-twentieth century French "existentialist" philosopher, asks a similar question.  He distinguishes his existentialism from philosophy, in general, by saying that "existence" precedes "essence."  In Sartre's opinion, this reverses the position that non-existential philosophy took: that all things have an "essence" (that can be defined with a set of carefully described abstract principles). 

Sartre says there is a "real life" example (an ideal version) of whatever sort of "thing" you might choose to contemplate upon.  For example, if you are contemplating the "tea cup," you would have a picture of an ideal "tea cup" in your mind (the perfect example of a tea cup): against which all other examples of a "tea cup" are compared (and to some degree presumably found wanting).

In other words, a "tea cup" is not careful composition based upon a strict set of abstract principles, such as a tea cup being required to have a "handle," a (round) bowl, a saucer beneath it, etc.  Rather there is the picture of an "ideal" (original) tea cup in our mind - against which all other things are compared.  If we find these other things similar enough to our original "perfect" tea cup, we include them among those things (phenomena) we  have previously categorized as also being a "tea cup."

Going further, we can ask how we decide to categorize reality into discrete phenomenon (that we then label as being "different" things from each other). 

"You can't see the forest but for the trees."  Here is an example of how our categorization of things (phenomena) as being different from each other can obstruct our perception of "reality."  We see a bunch of separate trees.  Our categorization of reality, here - at its most simple - is limited to an assessment of things (phenomena) as being either: a "tree" or "not a tree."  Our perception of reality is limited because it does not include the category of "forest" (as a collective assembly of trees in a single location).

Our perception of reality is limited because there is a finite number of ways into which we categorize perception, in other words.

Scientific advancement is often a matter of breaking through, going beyond old categorical perceptions of the natural world, either though direct observation or mathematical calculation.  Einstein's theory of relativity connected the heretofore separate categories of "time" and "space" into "space-time" - with his equation: energy = mass x the squaring of the speed of light.  As you approach the speed of light, time slows (in "relative" comparison to things moving less fast) and space compresses (in "relative" comparison to things moving less fast) in the direction you travel in.

Ennis's perception of what being "queer" was (after he talked to Jack the next evening after the first night they had sex together on Brokeback Mt.) is an example of limited perception.   His idea of who was homosexual did not seem to include somebody like himself, in other words.  (Or he sought to believe that about himself.)

[tpe]

Ennis's categorization of being queer is certainly a fine example of limited perception.  I would even go further to say that the categorization seems to put himself in a separate space, while using Jack as an archetype for everyone else in the sense of queerness.

I think compartmentalization is just one element in Ennis's distinction between himself and the rest of "queerdom."

For one, there is a certain logic to his way of thinking -- in the sense that he takes his love for Jack as the anomaly, and hence of limited/restricted import.  It would seem like the anomaly is tantamount to an illusion, and hence can be compartmentalized as such -- if you ignore it, it will go away.   The distinction between reality and illusion becomes confused, such that he takes reality for illusion and pretense for reality...

[Matt Nasty]

Ennis's categorization of being queer is certainly a fine example of limited perception.  I would even go further to say that the categorization seems to put himself in a separate space, while using Jack as an archetype for everyone else in the sense of queerness.

I think compartmentalization is just one element in Ennis's distinction between himself and the rest of "queerdom."

For one, there is a certain logic to his way of thinking -- in the sense that he takes his love for Jack as the anomaly, and hence of limited/restricted import.  It would seem like the anomaly is tantamount to an illusion, and hence can be compartmentalized as such -- if you ignore it, it will go away.   The distinction between reality and illusion becomes confused, such that he takes reality for illusion and pretense for reality...

wow! well said...really really really well said. i had to read it a few times to take it all in. marvelouse.

[jetzenpolis]

Quote from: tpe on Jun 23, 2008, 09:07 AM

...I do think that Ennis's excuse to Alma was purely a spur of the moment response, in the same way as "He's from Texas" was.  To bring back the Buddhist vein into this, I must say that Ennis being oblivious to Alma while he was packing for the fishing trip is one of those "Zen" moments in the film, where we see Ennis in a totally different plane of consciousness.  It is telling that such as state is rooted on the element of desire.



[/quote]

I agree, Ennis' body may have been there with Alma but his spirit was elsewhere with Jack and I think it was this way many times during that marriage.  

 

Ennis's categorization of being queer is certainly a fine example of limited perception.  I would even go further to say that the categorization seems to put himself in a separate space, while using Jack as an archetype for everyone else in the sense of queerness.

I think compartmentalization is just one element in Ennis's distinction between himself and the rest of "queerdom."

For one, there is a certain logic to his way of thinking -- in the sense that he takes his love for Jack as the anomaly, and hence of limited/restricted import.  It would seem like the anomaly is tantamount to an illusion, and hence can be compartmentalized as such -- if you ignore it, it will go away.   The distinction between reality and illusion becomes confused, such that he takes reality for illusion and pretense for reality...

Ennis's may have been there with Alma, as you point out rimasworld, but his spirit, his mind was off and away with Jack.  Still, Ennis, as you pointed out, tpe, stays with Alma, no matter what.  Ennis is set upon doing what his intellect (his rational mental faculties) tells him his "right." 

Is it his gut, more than his head, that warns him away from the "thing" he and Jack feel toward each other (Ennis afraid of losing control over themselves at the wrong place, at the wrong time)?  Perhaps it is also his intuition - his gut, as opposed to his heart (emotions) - which tells him to stay with Alma (rather than runaway - far, far away - with Jack).

Ennis finds himself in love with Jack.  He's never aware of it while he's on Brokeback Mt.  (Ennis remains unconscious of the true character of his emotions for Jack.)  But these emotions emerge in full force when Jack departs for his parents' ranch in Lightning Flat, WY - after they come down off Brokeback Mt. and fix Jack's truck in Signal, WY.  (Ennis finds himself having "dry heaves."  He feels as if his intestines are being pulled out "yard by yard" as soon as Jack leaves him behind.)  Ennis doesn't feel better for a long time.  But, as he tells Jack in the Siesta Motel in Riverton, WY in 1967 (after the "thing" takes hold of them earlier in the day and Ennis initiates his kiss with Jack at the bottom of the landing steps up to Ennis's & Alma's apartment over the laundromat), he figured out (a year later?) what it was (what he felt in Signal, WY: the dry heaves, feeling as if his intestines were being pulled out "yard by yard").

Obviously, this "anomaly" holds a big place in Ennis's life.  But, precisely as an "anomaly," Ennis finds it difficult to integrate the reality of his homosexuality with his intellectual preconceptions of what (he believes) his life should be (a heterosexual "family" man of the Old West).  He lacks what Zen calls "beginner's mind" toward his own homosexuality.

Jack, too, suffers from illusions.  In Jack's favorite memory (dream) of him, Ennis holds Jack from behind, rocking Jack into a trance, humming Jack a song from childhood.  A "sexless hunger" is satisfied in Jack.  But Jack is not fully conscious (according to Annie Proulx's author's narration of the short story) of what this "sexless hunger" is.  Jack, in other words, is not "fully conscious" of the emotions he feels for Ennis even at the time of their May 1983 argument.  In other words, Jack remains in illusion (about his love for Ennis) very late in the day.

What his gut tells Ennis to do about Jack may be more - a lot more - than just a queston of whether Ennis can accept his own homosexuality.  I agree that Ennis, at least in the beginning (19 years of age, on Brokeback Mt.), places himself outside the type of men he thinks of as being "queer." 

(Annie Proulx has pointed out that these two young men at age 19 years in conservative rural Wyoming in the homophobic early 1960s didn't have many homosexual "role models" in their personal lives from which to draw their perceptions of themselves.  Of course, Ennis had Earl's example - the "tough old bird" gay rancher, who lived with another old gay rancher, Rich.  Ennis suspects his own father might have been committed Earl's murder.)

 

[tpe]

Thanks Matt. 

Quote from: tpe on Jun 23, 2008, 09:07 AM
Obviously, this "anomaly" holds a big place in Ennis's life.  But, precisely as an "anomaly," Ennis finds it difficult to integrate the reality of his homosexuality with his intellectual preconceptions of what (he believes) his life should be (a heterosexual "family" man of the Old West).  He lacks what Zen calls "beginner's mind" toward his own homosexuality.

Jack, too, suffers from illusions.  In Jack's favorite memory (dream) of him, Ennis holds him from behind, rocking him into a trance, humming him a song from childhood.  A "sexless hunger" is satisfied in Jack.  But Jack is not fully conscious (according to Annie Proulx's author's narration of the short story).  Jack, in other words, is not "fully conscious" of the emotions he feels for Ennis even at the time of their May 1983 argument.  In other words, Jack remains in illusion (about his love for Ennis) very late in the day.

What his gut tells Ennis to do about Jack may be more - a lot more - than just a queston of whether Ennis can accept his own homosexuality.  I agree that Ennis, at least in the beginning (19 years of age, on Brokeback Mt.), places himself outside the type of men he thinks of as being "queer." 

(Annie Proulx has pointed out that these two young men at age 19 years in conservative rural Wyoming in the homophobic early 1960s didn't have many homosexual "role models" in their personal lives from which to draw their perceptions of themselves.  Of course, Ennis had Earl's example - the "tough bird" old gay rancher, who lived with another old gay rancher, whose murder Ennis suspects might have been committed by his father.)

Wonderful post here, jetzenpolis!  To be sure, Jack suffers as much from illusions.  In fact, one can say that by the intensity of his passions, his possible end could be taken for a Buddhist moral, with Ennis as the recipient.   It is through Jack that Ennis reaches a deeper realization of things, as much as death was the moment of the dreamer's (i.e., Jack's) awakening.

What his gut tells Ennis to do about Jack may be more - a lot more - than just a queston of whether Ennis can accept his own homosexuality  -- very well said.  The conflict between this reality and Ennis's intellectual preconceptions is the foundation on which the world of Illusion (as far as Ennis is concerned) is built on.  It is the source of his pain and his mental and spiritual anguish.  In many ways, the pain and the passion had become more real than anything else.  For why should there be such pain and anguish -- given that what was only needed was his acceptance of who he was?



   

[jetzenpolis]

Thanks Matt. 

Wonderful post here, jetzenpolis!  To be sure, Jack suffers as much from illusions.  In fact, one can say that by the intensity of his passions, his possible end could be taken for a Buddhist moral, with Ennis as the recipient.   It is through Jack that Ennis reaches a deeper realization of things, as much as death was the moment of the dreamer's (i.e., Jack's) awakening.

What his gut tells Ennis to do about Jack may be more - a lot more - than just a queston of whether Ennis can accept his own homosexuality  -- very well said.  The conflict between this reality and Ennis's intellectual preconceptions is the foundation on which the world of Illusion (as far as Ennis is concerned) is built on.  It is the source of his pain and his mental and spiritual anguish.  In many ways, the pain and the passion had become more real than anything else.  For why should there be such pain and anguish -- given that what was only needed was his acceptance of who he was?



   

thanks for the compliments, tpe! (flattery is always appreciated...)

There are several different ways in which the illusions that fueled the "intensity" of Jack's passions lead possibly to not only his physical demise (at the hands of the "killer mechanics" - as the actors are credited, at the end of the movie) but also to the end of his 20 year long romance with Ennis.  "Sexual addiction," in my view, is an influence on the level of passion that occurs between them.

It is Jack who suffers from sexual addiction.  Ennis is different.  During the agony of his Thanksgiving kitchen argument with Alma, in the house Alma shares with her new grocer husband, Monroe, Alma points out that Ennis used to return "all perky" (not just "perky" but "all" perky, too) from his "fishing trips" with Jack when she and Ennis were married.  Alma knows what Ennis did on his "fishing trips" with Jack (in which no fish were caught and Ennis never opened the new tackle box Alma bought him). 

Obviously, Ennis came back happy from his many "fishing trips" with Jack.  (It was a time, Jack later said in their May 1983 argument, when Ennis "used to come away easy" to spend time together with him).  But his satisfaction upon coming back home to Alma and the girls (in the apartment over the laundromat) also shows that he wasn't having any great feelings of loss after his departure from Jack, either.  (Ennis didn't suffer any of the "loneliness" that Jack did sometimes when they were apart for long.)

In some ways, it's as if Jack's sexual addiction (indicated by his homosexual promiscuity that lasted throughout most, if not all, of his adult life) was a psychological substitute for love (or a lack of love?) in his life.  Jack heatedly responds to Ennis in their May 1983 argument by saying:


"...Tell you what, we coulda had a good life together!  fu**in' real good life!  Had us a place of our own.  But you didn't want it, Ennis!  So what we got now is Brokeback Mountain!  Everything's built on that!  That's all we got, boy, fu**in' all.  So I hope you know that, even if you don't never know the rest!  You count the damn few times we have been together in nearly twenty years and you measure the short !@#$ leash you keep me on - and then you ask me about Mexico and tell me you'll kill me for needing somethin' I don't hardly never get.  You have no idea how bad it gets! I'm not you... I can't make it on a coupla high-altitude fucks once or twice a year! You are too much for me Ennis, you sonofawhoreson bitch!  I wish I knew how to quit you."
 

Time spent on feeding a sexual or any other type of addiction is time spent away from doing other things, such as time spent on loving others.  Addictions (perhaps a form of obsessive/compulsive behavior) absorb all the thoughts of those who have them.

We don't what sexual experience (including homosexual sex) Jack might have had before he met Ennis on Brokeback Mt.  (Jack had worked on Brokeback Mt. the year before he herded with Ennis.) 

When Jack contacts Ennis again in 1967, finding Ennis in Riverton, WY, Annie Proulx's short story narration describes Jack as having ridden the "bulls" rather than "rolled his own."  (Ennis has just declared he's "wrung it out a hunert times" thinking about Jack.  Ennis says that he never thought of anyone else but Jack.  In response, Jack lies and says he's never thought of any other men, either.) 

At the start of their May 1983 argument (initiated by Ennis in response to Jack's complaints that he doesn't get to see Ennis frequently enough), Ennis tells Jack that he knows "what boys like you, Jack, do in Mexico!" 

Finally, when Ennis calls long distance to Childress, TX, after his post card to Jack is returned, Lureen explains that she couldn't contact him because Jack kept the names of all his (presumably male) friends "in his head."  (He kept the names of the men he knew private.  Lureen wouldn't be able to know them, in other words.  My guess is that he didn't want her to know the names of the men he might be having sex with.)

Perhaps what troubles Ennis about Mexico isn't that Jack doesn't remain faithfully monogamous to him as a homosexual lover (since it goes without saying that Ennis has never felt threatened by Jack's wife, Lureen, or even the ranch neighbor's wife Jack claims to be having an affair with).   Rather Ennis may feel that if he ever finds out about "what he doesn't know about," his intimacy with Jack will be reduced to the same level of anonymous sex Jack has with other men.

Even in his favorite memory of Ennis (with Ennis on Brokeback Mt. holding him from behind before the campfire, rocking him into a trance), Jack was not "fully conscious" of the "sexless hunger" in him that had been satisfied by Ennis.  While Jack remains unconscious of it, he loves Ennis.  He tells Ennis that the truth is that he feels so lonely sometimes without Ennis that he can hardly "stand it." 

Yet, despite these obviously strong feelings for Ennis - so large that they compel Jack to seek ways in which they can live together, whether working Jack's parents' ranch in Lighting Flat, WY or moving to Denver to the greater safety of a more tolerant, more anonymous urban life - Jack remains, "at best" less than fully conscious of what he feels for Ennis. 

Jack is certainly conscious of the physical pleasure sex with Ennis gives him.  He exclaims that Ennis must have gotten his great sexual skill from being such an excellent horseback rider.

Certainly, Ennis - an acute observer of himself and others - must have been aware of Jack's lack of self-consciousness about his own emotions. 

Jack seemed to have known there was something wrong between him and Ennis.  Perhaps this is what caused Jack to feel that Ennis was turning away even in his favorite memory of him.

Jack feared that Ennis held him from behind (in his favorite memory of Ennis) so that Ennis wouldn't have to see that it was Jack he was holding in his arms.  Perhaps Ennis did this because he wished to repress the idea that he was sexually attracted to men, rather than women.  But Ennis also preferred anal sex with Alma.  (Presumably he held Alma from behind, too, when he had anal sex with her.)   

What if Jack feared - even in his favorite memory of Ennis - wasn't just that Ennis didn't want to admit he was homosexual?  What if Jack feared that - as the narration says - it was "Jack" whom Ennis didn't want to see he was holding?  In other words, was there some sort of rejection of Jack, as a lover (regardless of the issue of homosexuality), mixed in with Ennis's love for Jack? 

In other words, there might be more to Ennis's ambivalence toward Jack than just the question of Ennis being faced with his own homosexuality.  There is some deeper conflict in their personalities and code of values that lie deeper between them in their view of each other that remains unresolved, unseen.

[tpe]

Again, good insights here.

I must admit that -- for me -- there is something Zen-like in Jack's sexual appetite.  It reflects on the aspect of what the eccentric or non-conformist masters of Zen had been known for, which is the path to enlightenment is though worldly preoccupations and attachments.  One can argue that it is Jack's sensuality and periodic failures to gratify it that keeps him grounded about the true meaning of his love for Ennis.  "Let be, let be" can therefore be looked upon as an encompassing response to the inability to perfectly attain fulfilment of one's desires.  I doubt that he would have realized this in the end, if notfor the 20 years of ungratified/unperfected desire.

[jetzenpolis]

Again, good insights here.

I must admit that -- for me -- there is something Zen-like in Jack's sexual appetite.  It reflects on the aspect of what the eccentric or non-conformist masters of Zen had been known for, which is the path to enlightenment is though worldly preoccupations and attachments.  One can argue that it is Jack's sensuality and periodic failures to gratify it that keeps him grounded about the true meaning of his love for Ennis.  "Let be, let be" can therefore be looked upon as an encompassing response to the inability to perfectly attain fulfilment of one's desires.  I doubt that he would have realized this in the end, if notfor the 20 years of ungratified/unperfected desire.

I agree very much with you, tpe, that Jack's frustrations with Ennis lead him, grudgingly, to a willingness to let go of Ennis.  Even his favorite memory of Ennis is no longer enough to prevent him from leaving Ennis in the end, after their May 1983 argument (in which, as Annie Proulx describes it, all the disagreements between them set aside over the years and studiously ignored suddenly appear as "clouds of steam" venting from the ground beneath their feet).  Here, Jack lets go of his desire for Ennis.  He's saddened by it but he does it.  (There is a memory flashback to Ennis holding Jack from behind on Brokeback Mt., putting him in a trance, humming to him.  Jack watches Ennis leaving in his truck.)

Jack then (almost?) instantly replaces his desire for Ennis with a similar desire for Randall in Childress, TX, another gay married man.  Presumably, Jack still plans to abandon his wife, Lureen, and his son, Bobby, as soon as he can get Randall to join him on his parents' ranch in Lightning Flat, WY. 

But something goes terribly wrong before this can happen.  The "tire iron", in Ennis's view, finally strikes Jack down as did the old gay rancher, Earl.

[tpe]

I agree very much with you, tpe, that Jack's frustrations with Ennis lead him, grudgingly, to a willingness to let go of Ennis.   Even his favorite memory of Ennis is no longer enough to prevent him from leaving Ennis in the end, after their May 1983 argument (in which, as Annie Proulx describes it, all the disagreements between them set aside over the years and studiously ignored suddenly appear as "clouds of steam" venting from the ground beneath their feet).  Here, Jack lets go of his desire for Ennis.  He's saddened by it but he does it.  (There is a memory flashback to Ennis holding Jack from behind on Brokeback Mt., putting him in a trance, humming to him.  Jack watches Ennis leaving in his truck.)

Jack then (almost?) instantly replaces his desire for Ennis with a similar desire for Randall in Childress, TX, another gay married man.  Presumably, Jack still plans to abandon his wife, Lureen, and his son, Bobby, as soon as he can get Randall to join him on his parents' ranch in Lightning Flat, WY. 

But something goes terribly wrong before this can happen.  The "tire iron", in Ennis's view, finally strikes Jack down as did the old gay rancher, Earl.

The point about Randall is interesting.  This ties in to the question of was he truly willing to replace Ennis and live a life with Randall, or was this a form of renunciation whereby the dreamer goes through the motions, knowing full well that he is at the cusp of awakening?  I had always wondered about this -- whether his willingness to live with Randall was meaningful only in that it signified a renunciation...

[jetzenpolis]

The point about Randall is interesting.  This ties in to the question of was he truly willing to replace Ennis and live a life with Randall, or was this a form of renunciation whereby the dreamer goes through the motions, knowing full well that he is at the cusp of awakening?  I had always wondered about this -- whether his willingness to live with Randall was meaningful only in that it signified a renunciation...

My personal take on Brokeback Mt. has always been that, in Jack's eyes, Randall (the "Texas ranch neighbor" in Annie Proulx's short story) was a second male lover.  The Texas ranch neighbor (Randall) replaced Ennis, as someone whom Jack sought to live with. 

Jack's father seems almost gleeful in his malice pointing out that, during the last time Jack visited the Twist family ranch in Lightning Flat, WY (immediately after his May 1983 argument with Ennis), Jack no longer talked about bringing in Ennis del Mar to partner on the Twist family ranch.  Instead, Jack was going to have a "Texas ranch neighbor" as his partner. 

It's interesting to note that Jack's father had little concern for what might happen to Jack's wife, Lureen, or their son, Bobby, in Jack's plans to partner with the "Texas ranch neighbor" (who is never mentioned by name in the short story).  Jack's father only says (in the movie), "he" (Jack) plans to "split up" with his wife and "come back" to the family ranch:


John Twist: Jack used to say, "Ennis Del Mar," he used to say; "I'm gonna bring him up here one of these days, and we'll lick this damn ranch into shape.  Had some half-baked notion the two of you was gonna move up here.  Build a cabin, help run the place.

[pause]

John Twist: Then this spring, he got another fella gonna come up here with him.  Build a place, help run the ranch.  Some ranch neighbor o' his down in Texas.  Was gonna split up with his wife and come back here.  But like most of Jack's ideas... never did come to pass. 


If Jack's father was trying to stab a dagger into Ennis's heart, he could probably find no better weapon than to tell Ennis that Jack had found someone else to be his "ranch partner" (lover).  To his credit, Ennis does not react angrily to what Jack's father says.  He's already lost Jack.  There's nothing he can do to bring him back.

Did Jack's parents know that their son was homosexual?  They know Jack is willing to abandon his wife and son, leave them in Texas, and move in with a "ranch partner" on the family ranch in Lightning Flat, WY.

Jack's father complains that Jack thought he was "special" because he wanted his ashes strewn on Brokeback Mt. (his favorite place that he always talked about).   Maybe Jack's father thought that since Jack was an (unrealistic) "dreamer," Jack also thought he was something "special."

Until Lureen talked to Ennis long distance on the telephone, she always thought Brokeback Mt. was just another place Jack alcoholically dreamed about - where the "bluebirds sing at the whiskey springs."  Jack's father also thought Jack was a "dreamer" who never accomplished anything (by bringing his plans to fruition).

But in what other ways might Jack have seen himself as "special," in his father's eyes?  Perhaps Jack's father thought that Jack shouldn't draw attention to the fact of his homosexuality.  Rather, in his father's eyes, Jack should keep a "low profile," even in death. 

Jack's ashes were to be buried in the family cemetery plot rather than scattered in the place Jack loved best (on Brokeback Mt.).  Jack's father sought to frustrate his son's wishes (his son's dreams, his son's plans) even in death.  Jack was not to be allowed any sense of an independent self, in his father's eyes.

As Jack saw it, he was viewed as the "property" of his father - ranch livestock branded with the "property mark" of his circumcision.  Jack comprehends his father's view of him at a very young age, in boyhood.  After that, things could "never be right" between him and his father.

The use of the phrase "short leash" by Jack - to describe his relationship with Ennis (in the end), at the beginning of their May 1983 argument - is similar to Jack's view of how his father sees him (as livestock ranch property branded by circumcision).  In other words, Jack doesn't feel as if Ennis sees him as fully "human," either.  He feels as if he's at Ennis's beck and call.  The decisions they make together aren't mutually arrived at, through "give and take."  They are dictated by Ennis, who sets the boundaries of the relationship.

 

[tpe]

I also think that Randall was someone that Jack meant to "replace" in his dream for the sweet life, although I wonder whether he himself knew that it was doomed from the start... Did he perhaps know of the futility to go against fate?  His resignation after the final confrontation (again, so Buddhist in its implications) would seem to suggest this.

THis is, of course, in marked contrast to Jack's father -- when we see him in the final scenes.  I should note that some members have considered some of us here to be too harsh on jack's father.  But honestly, I see him as someone who remains in the world of illusion -- the world of the passions and of disillusionment.  His would seem to be the fate of the unenlightened -- that they would not only hate that which is intrinsically good, but have lost all meaning. Did the father and/or the son die in the end? 

quicumque quaesierit animam suam salvare perdet illam et qui perdiderit illam vivificabit eam

And of course, the short leash is tethered to illusion -- the same illusion where Jack's father pinned so much of his hopes and dreams on...

[jetzenpolis]

I also think that Randall was someone that Jack meant to "replace" in his dream for the sweet life, although I wonder whether he himself knew that it was doomed from the start... Did he perhaps know of the futility to go against fate?  His resignation after the final confrontation (again, so Buddhist in its implications) would seem to suggest this.

This is, of course, in marked contrast to Jack's father -- when we see him in the final scenes.  I should note that some members have considered some of us here to be too harsh on jack's father.  But honestly, I see him as someone who remains in the world of illusion -- the world of the passions and of disillusionment.  His would seem to be the fate of the unenlightened -- that they would not only hate that which is intrinsically good, but have lost all meaning. Did the father and/or the son die in the end? 

quicumque quaesierit animam suam salvare perdet illam et qui perdiderit illam vivificabit eam

And of course, the short leash is tethered to illusion -- the same illusion where Jack's father pinned so much of his hopes and dreams on...

Hey!  We've past the 100th post on this topic.  Thanks everyone for your participation: posters and readers, alike, all of you!


I've asked myself, too, tpe, whether Jack was repeating with Randall Malone all that went wrong with Ennis del Mar.  Had he found in Randall's character another Ennis?  It wouldn't surprise me.  Jack is, thus, "fated" to repeat (his own personal) history where he has left it unexamined.

Yet, Jack, to some degree, has made progress in understanding himself and the darker side of his relationship to Ennis by the time of his last confrontation with him (the May 1983 argument).  Jack has begun to question the "short leash" Ennis keeps him on.  Naturally, he's troubled that his lover no longer wishes to see him as frequently - even on trips into a cold, high altitude wilderness where nobody else is ever likely to see them.  Jack puts forward his wishes to go someplace warmer (Mexico) with Ennis, perhaps the first time he's ever done this. 

In the argument, itself, Jack puts it as baldly as possible, Ennis didn't want the "sweet life" together Jack proposed:

"Tell you what, we coulda had a good life together!...Had us a place of our own.  But you didn't want it, Ennis!  So what we got now is Brokeback Mountain!  Everything's built on that! That's all we got, boy, fu**in' all..." 

Jack doesn't see Ennis as being afraid of having a "sweet life" together (as homosexual lovers).  He says Ennis doesn't "want it."

Jack finally sees the limits of his "ride" with Ennis.  He's dissatisfied with Ennis's constraints upon it.  It's not the life he wants.

Perhaps Jack has always known underneath something was wrong between him and Ennis: he wanted Ennis "too much."  There is an imbalance in a romantic affair between two lovers when one is more captivated by the romance than the other.  There is a feeling of expectations not be reciprocated by the less captivated lover.

Anytime you feel you want something "too much," it never feels "right" with you. 

It could be argued that Jack hadn't made up his mind about replacing Ennis with Randall at the time of their May 1983 argument.  It's also possible that Jack hadn't even taken up Randall's offer to spend a weekend in the cabin, yet. 

I think that's unlikely, though.  Jack tells Ennis over a campfire on an earlier trip into the wilderness together that he's cheating on Lureen with a "Texas ranch neighbor's wife."  Ennis jokes that if the Texas rancher catches them, Jack will get what he deserves. 

Jack might be "testing the waters," here, by broaching the topic of infidelity.  Jack may be talking to Ennis in a roundabout way of cheating on Ennis with Randall, the "Texas ranch neighbor," himself.   I think that Ennis & Jack are often in the habit of speaking to each other in a language of hidden truths.

Somehow, Ennis picks up that something is different with Jack during their last trip (the May 1983 argument), I think.  Things between them are "more wrong" than usual, perhaps. 

Their argument starts after Ennis responds to Jack's suggestion they go to Mexico by saying, "Mexico?  Hell Jack, you know me, about all the travelin' I ever done is round a coffee pot lookin' for the handle..."   Ennis responds to Jack's suggestion with self-deprecating humor (intended to deflect his lover's suggestion for change through charm).  He responded to Alma's suggestion that he get a job with the county utilities as an electric lineman with similar self-deprecation by saying that he was "all thumbs" and would probably get electrocuted.

What if it suddenly occurs to Ennis that he's just responded to Jack in the same way (with self-deprecating humor) that he did to Alma - in what, in retrospect, might have been one of the turning points in their marriage that led to Alma's eventual decision to divorce him.  (Annie Proulx said that Ennis felt "vaguely cheated" by his divorce from Alma.  Perhaps this was one of the things that might have lead Alma to cheat on Ennis with her grocer employer, Monroe - assuming she did have an extramarital affair with Monroe).

In that case, did Ennis suddenly become aware of the possibility that Jack might be "cheating" on him, too?   

[manhattangirl]

I love your discussion guys I've learned so much.  I just have one question.  Do you think that Jack was becoming Ennis, as far as his relationship with Randall. 

I can almost see Randall wondering why they can't move beyond any point in their relationship.  I can see Randall going to Jack, but not Jack going to him, but not refusing to lay with him.   I can see Randall confusion, and hurt.    Like old man Twist said of them "like all of Jack's ideas nothing come of it".  Ennis's mark was on Jack, like being branded, Jack was tied to him, physically and emotionally.  This bond could not be broken. 

So Jack became Ennis, Randall became Jack, it's repeating itself.

Just a thought.

[tpe]

Hey!  We've past the 100th post on this topic.  Thanks everyone for your participation: posters and readers, alike, all of you!


I've asked myself, too, tpe, whether Jack was repeating with Randall Malone all that went wrong with Ennis del Mar.  Had he found in Randall's character another Ennis?  It wouldn't surprise me.  Jack is, thus, "fated" to repeat (his own personal) history where he has left it unexamined.

Yet, Jack, to some degree, has made progress in understanding himself and the darker side of his relationship to Ennis by the time of his last confrontation with him (the May 1983 argument).  Jack has begun to question the "short leash" Ennis keeps him on.  Naturally, he's troubled that his lover no longer wishes to see him as frequently - even on trips into a cold, high altitude wilderness where nobody else is ever likely to see them.  Jack puts forward his wishes to go someplace warmer (Mexico) with Ennis, perhaps the first time he's ever done this. 

In the argument, itself, Jack puts it as baldly as possible, Ennis didn't want the "sweet life" together Jack proposed:

"Tell you what, we coulda had a good life together!...Had us a place of our own.  But you didn't want it, Ennis!  So what we got now is Brokeback Mountain!  Everything's built on that! That's all we got, boy, fu**in' all..." 

Jack doesn't see Ennis as being afraid of having a "sweet life" together (as homosexual lovers).  He says Ennis doesn't "want it."

Jack finally sees the limits of his "ride" with Ennis.  He's dissatisfied with Ennis's constraints upon it.  It's not the life he wants.

Perhaps Jack has always known underneath something was wrong between him and Ennis: he wanted Ennis "too much."  There is an imbalance in a romantic affair between two lovers when one is more captivated by the romance than the other.  There is a feeling of expectations not be reciprocated by the less captivated lover.

Anytime you feel you want something "too much," it never feels "right" with you. 

It could be argued that Jack hadn't made up his mind about replacing Ennis with Randall at the time of their May 1983 argument.  It's also possible that Jack hadn't even taken up Randall's offer to spend a weekend in the cabin, yet. 

I think that's unlikely, though.  Jack tells Ennis over a campfire on an earlier trip into the wilderness together that he's cheating on Lureen with a "Texas ranch neighbor's wife."  Ennis jokes that if the Texas rancher catches them, Jack will get what he deserves. 

Jack might be "testing the waters," here, by broaching the topic of infidelity.  Jack may be talking to Ennis in a roundabout way of cheating on Ennis with Randall, the "Texas ranch neighbor," himself.   I think that Ennis & Jack are often in the habit of speaking to each other in a language of hidden truths.

Somehow, Ennis picks up that something is different with Jack during their last trip (the May 1983 argument), I think.  Things between them are "more wrong" than usual, perhaps. 

Their argument starts after Ennis responds to Jack's suggestion they go to Mexico by saying, "Mexico?  Hell Jack, you know me, about all the travelin' I ever done is round a coffee pot lookin' for the handle..."   Ennis responds to Jack's suggestion with self-deprecating humor (intended to deflect his lover's suggestion for change through charm).  He responded to Alma's suggestion that he get a job with the county utilities as an electric lineman with similar self-deprecation by saying that he was "all thumbs" and would probably get electrocuted.

What if it suddenly occurs to Ennis that he's just responded to Jack in the same way (with self-deprecating humor) that he did to Alma - in what, in retrospect, might have been one of the turning points in their marriage that led to Alma's eventual decision to divorce him.  (Annie Proulx said that Ennis felt "vaguely cheated" by his divorce from Alma.  Perhaps this was one of the things that might have lead Alma to cheat on Ennis with her grocer employer, Monroe - assuming she did have an extramarital affair with Monroe).

In that case, did Ennis suddenly become aware of the possibility that Jack might be "cheating" on him, too?   

I love your discussion guys I've learned so much.  I just have one question.  Do you think that Jack was becoming Ennis, as far as his relationship with Randall. 

I can almost see Randall wondering why they can't move beyond any point in their relationship.  I can see Randall going to Jack, but not Jack going to him, but not refusing to lay with him.   I can see Randall confusion, and hurt.    Like old man Twist said of them "like all of Jack's ideas nothing come of it".  Ennis's mark was on Jack, like being branded, Jack was tied to him, physically and emotionally.  This bond could not be broken. 

So Jack became Ennis, Randall became Jack, it's repeating itself.

Just a thought.

Thanks friends!  I apologize for the delayed response, as I had a lot on my mind lately here at work...

I have highlighted a few passages that made a deep impression on me.

First to what jetzenpolis has said, the remembrance of Proust's La prisonniere immediately came to my mind. 

The feeling of excess -- of wanting/loving too much -- is certainly intertwined with the element of renunciation in the last confrontation.  It was very insightful of you, jetzenpolis, to bring up this connection.  I do think that you are right.  One can certainly understand renunciation against the backdrop of a surfeit of desire, and a realization of this in the case of Jack -- who eptomizes at times the sensual and emotive aspects of love -- should be considered a kind of awakening.  The possible decision to move on with Randall perhaps reflects a desire to break from the bonds of wanting too much: to explore, if not bring to fruition, the possibility of life after desire.  It is an interesting proposition, to say the least.  Proust, in the final books of Recherche comes close to touching this subject, especially at the moment when he discusses with Gilbertine the mechanics of the "death" of love, as in the case of someone who sees a former lover after a long separation...  I try to find the english trannsaltion of this passage, as I think it is quite meaningful to the current discussion,  But I can't find it right now...  I will continue to try to locate it online...

MG's elaborated proposition of Jack becoming Ennis, and Randall becoming Jack brings us one step further -- again with heavy Buddhist connotations.  Is it a form of rebirth -- back to the world of illusion?

Very provocative...


 

[jetzenpolis]

I love your discussion guys I've learned so much.  I just have one question.  Do you think that Jack was becoming Ennis, as far as his relationship with Randall. 

I can almost see Randall wondering why they can't move beyond any point in their relationship.  I can see Randall going to Jack, but not Jack going to him, but not refusing to lay with him.   I can see Randall confusion, and hurt.    Like old man Twist said of them "like all of Jack's ideas nothing come of it".  Ennis's mark was on Jack, like being branded, Jack was tied to him, physically and emotionally.  This bond could not be broken. 

So Jack became Ennis, Randall became Jack, it's repeating itself.

Just a thought.

hi manhattangirl!

It's interesting how much the characters switch positions in their different relationships to each other and may also be adopting parts of each other's personalities over time.  Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising, since we (sometimes) better understand each other in our personal lives given enough time (and interest).  We borrow parts of each other's personalities and adopt them to our own lives, as a result.

Whereas Jack was the one who pursued Ennis, it is Randall initiates an invitation to Jack - to spend a weekend in the cabin.  Thus, Jack finds himself in Ennis's position of being (sexually?, romantically?) pursued.   

Jack was the one who seemed most eager in romance with Ennis, initiating plans for them to live together.  But, over time, he finds Ennis more reluctant to spend time with him.  (Jack tells Ennis in their last confrontation - the May 1983 argument - that Ennis used to "come away easy" but now will see him only a couple of...times per year.)

But I also think are a lot of similarities between Randall and Ennis, too (even though the character of Randall appears only briefly, toward the end of the movie, and not at all - as a named character - in Annie Proulx's short story).  I suspect that Jack would fall for another "Ennis" all over again, complete with all the ambiguity of Ennis toward Jack in their relationship. 

We can't be sure what Randall now wants from Jack, either.  Maybe it's only a physical attraction.  Perhaps Randall only wants "getaway" weekends, once in awhile, as a respite from the demands an appearance of heterosexual marriage makes upon both him and Jack.   Or, Randall, too, might not be "fully" conscious of what emotions he might be capable of toward another man (such as love).

Thus, Randall might have been completely taken by surprise if Jack proposed they both leave their wives (and families) behind in Texas and ranch together in Lightning Flat, WY.  Randall might not want to do that with Jack anymore than Ennis did.

In his essay about depression, "Mourning and Melancholia," Sigmund Freud found the effects of depression similar to mourning.  But whom did melancholic (the depressed patient) miss?  Freud thought that those suffering depression might be transferring characteristics from people whom they were close to in their personal life onto themselves.  Not only was there a transference of others' personality characteristics onto their own (now false) interpretation of their own personal psychology, but the depressed also repressed conscious knowledge about the identity of whom these personality characteristics did belong to.  That is, the depressed fail to see in others, close to them, the same characteristics they misinterpret themselves as having.

Thus, Ennis fears the "thing" in himself.  (Admittedly, he also sees it in Jack, too.)  Ennis fears what might happen to them if the "thing" finds them at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

But, if anything, Ennis is not somebody who easily falls prey to his emotions.  He never lets himself be carried away by emotion (at least not too far, anyway).  Yet, he thinks the "thing" (the emotions that seemingly overpowered them beyond all possible "self-control" at the bottom of the landing steps of Ennis's & Alma's apartment over the laundromat in Riverton, WY in 1967) poses a constant threat to his & Jack's physical safety.  (After all, Ennis did look first to see if anybody was watching them before he initiated the kiss with Jack at the bottom of the landing steps.) 

Isn't it Jack, though, who's the one who lets himself be carried away by his emotions?

Similarly, gregarious Jack finds himself so "lonely" at times, when he misses Ennis, he can hardly stand it.  Yet, it isn't' Jack who lives alone.  Jack, the best salesman at the farm implement dealership according to Lureen, meets lots of new people, all the time.  He has many (presumably male) friends, whose names he keeps in his head (where they can't be found by his wife, Lureen).   

Rather, it is Ennis who leads life alone, in his trailer, often moving from one place to another to follow ranch hand jobs from ranch to ranch (according to the short story).  It's Ennis who doesn't see his daughters for a "long time" after his Thanksgiving kitchen argument with his ex-wife, Alma.

Buddhism also talks about such Freudian psychoanalytic concepts as "transference" and "projection" (in which personality attributes of one person is placed into the personality of another person).  In the movie, "Kundun" (1997), directed by Martin Scorsese, about the life of the Dalai Lama, the head of Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama says all the honors people give him as a "divine soul" are only a "projection" of what is actually in their own personality.  That is, people only see good attributes in others' personality because a part of themselves is the same way - however unconscious they are of it.  We are all capable of things we can't imagine (both good and bad, probably).



imdb: Kundun (1997), director: Martin Scorsese
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119485/
 

[tpe]

I would assume that "projection" here is equivalent to the concept of "manifestation" or "emanation".

[jetzenpolis]

I would assume that "projection" here is equivalent to the concept of "manifestation" or "emanation".

No, I think, as it was portrayed in the movie, "Kundun," the view of the Dalai Lama was precisely the same as the psychoanalytic view, whether Sigmund Freud's or Carl Jung's.  That is, we see in others a reflection of ourselves.  The characteristics we see in others are often our own, especially those we are most emotionally struck by, either moving our hearts, in wonder, or disturbing us.

Carl Jung talked about a "shadow" self in much the same way.  Carl Jung described as a "repressed" sense of self that he declared was 90% "pure gold" because we transfer onto our "heroes" what we, ourselves, embody deep within our own personalities.

In his book: "Ex-Friends, Falling Out with Allen Ginsberg, Lionel and Diana Trilling, Lillian Hellman, Hannah Arendt, and Norman Mailer," Norman Podhoretz, now a cultural (and political) conservative describes how Allen Ginsberg came to regard Norman Podhoretz as a "sacred vessel."  As Norman Podhoretz describes it, Allen Ginsberg seems to have developed something of an obsessive dislke for Norman Podhoretz.  The man got under Allen Ginsberg's skin, in other words.  Without fully explaining (or perhaps even understanding it), Norman Podhoretz said that Allen Ginsberg later took this dislike and used it as part of his Buddhist practice to begin viewing Norman Podhoretz as a "sacred vessel."  Whether he like him or not, there was something about Norman Podhoretz's personality that was important for Allen Ginsberg to learn to gain a deeper self-understanding.

This concept of Norman Podhoretz being a "sacred vessel" was taken from Tibetan Buddhism, if I remember the book correctly.

What research I've been able to do quickly on the Internet led to me a quote taken from Jack Kornfeld's "A Path With a Heart":


The genuineness of teacher and teachings becomes a sacred vessel that holds the truth that leads us to awaken our heart. The respected Zen master Suzuki Roshi was described by his student Trudy Dixon in this way: "Because he is just himself, he is a mirror for his students.  When we are with him, we feel our own strengths and shortcomings without any sense of praise or criticism from him.  In his presence we see our original face and the extraordinariness we see is only our own true [Buddha] nature."


But other entries in wikipedia about "sacred vessel" and "Buddhism" also describe a "tulka" (sacred vessel): as a bodhisattva who has the ability to choose which life he will be reborn into again through reincarnation.

I also found some interesting discussion about the Dalai Lama's view of homosexuality.  The head of Tibetan Buddhism is criticized for his conservative views on homosexuality by the ex-Marxist Christopher Hitchens, an iconoclastic social critic who is - at various times, although usually not simultaneously - radically at odds with the political Right, Left, and Center (managing to offend everybody, at one time or another, in other words).  But in an OUT magazine article (Feb./March 1994), the Dalai Lama says that it is OK for two women or two men to have mutually consenting sex with each other.




Amazon.com: "Ex-Friends: Falling Out with Allen Ginsberg, Lionel and Diana Trilling, Lillian Hellman, Hannah Arendt, and Norman Mailer" (Norman Podhoretz)
http://www.amazon.com/Ex-Friends-Falling-Ginsberg-Trilling-Lillian/dp/1893554171/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222734700&sr=1-6

Booknotes.com ("Booknotes," C-SPAN2): Norman Podhoretz author interview about "Ex-Friends" (March 28, 1999)
http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?ProgramID=1508

Google.com: "Essential Buddhism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs and Practices" (Jack Maguire, 2002) - Google Books 288 pages
http://books.google.com/books?id=RgYeSM_savwC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=Buddhism+%22sacred+vessel%22&source=web&ots=kgzhF24lU7&sig=vOBwOeYLJP8JN1zFdWJfkl3y5mo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA145,M1

Jack Maguire quotes: "A Path With A Heart" (Jack Kornfeld)
The genuineness of teacher and teachings becomes a sacred vessel that holds the truth that leads us to awaken our heart. The respected Zen master Suzuki Roshi was described by his student Trudy Dixon in this way: "Because he is just himself, he is a mirror for his students.  When we are with him, we feel our own strengths and shortcomings without any sense of praise or criticism from him.  In his presence we see our original face and the extraordinariness we see is only our own true [Buddha] nature.

Wikipedia: tulku
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulku

Wikipedia: Christopher Hitchens' critiques of specific individuals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens%27_critiques_of_specific_individuals

Wikipedia: Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso,_14th_Dalai_Lama

Sexuality [views on homosexuality, wikipedia entry for: Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama]
In his view, oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not acceptable in Buddhism or for Buddhists, but society otherwise should tolerate gays and lesbians.[56]  He explains in his book Beyond Dogma: "homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself.  What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact".  In 1997 he explained that the basis of that teaching was unknown to him and that he at least had some "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context".[57]  In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama explained "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'.  If you both agree, then I think I would say 'if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay'".[58]

[57] Dalai Lama Urges 'Respect, Compassion, and Full Human Rights for All', including Gays. Conkin, Dennis. Bay Area Reporter, June 19th, 1997

[58] OUT Magazine February/March 1994


 

[tpe]

Yes, Many forms of Buddhism certainly don't object to homosexuality per se.  They pretty much put it on the level of other worldly attachements -- the attachments of the heart and of the passions.  It is of course the aim of every sentient being to free oneself from this cycle of rebirth -- but homosexuality is in no way different from any other attachments that may impede one's attainment of true buddhahood.

[jetzenpolis]

...I can almost see Randall wondering why they can't move beyond any point in their relationship.  I can see Randall going to Jack, but not Jack going to him, but not refusing to lay with him.   I can see Randall confusion, and hurt....

So Jack became Ennis, Randall became Jack, it's repeating itself.

Just a thought.

I've found myself wondering about this sort of contradiction in Jack's & Randall's relationship.  Randall is pursuing Jack, much as Jack pursued Randall.  Then, all of a sudden, everything changes.  Jack is now talking about having a "Texas ranch neighbor" come up to Lightning Flat, WY and splitting from his wife.

What if Randall wasn't Jack's only male lover in Childress, TX?  What if there was a triangle between Jack, Randall, and some other man?

After all, Jack told Ennis in their May 1983 arguement (final confrontation), "...you don't know the half of it."

[tpe]

I've found myself wondering about this sort of contradiction in Jack's & Randall's relationship.  Randall is pursuing Jack, much as Jack pursued Randall.  Then, all of a sudden, everything changes.  Jack is now talking about having a "Texas ranch neighbor" come up to Lightning Flat, WY and splitting from his wife.

What if Randall wasn't Jack's only male lover in Childress, TX?  What if there was a triangle between Jack, Randall, and some other man?

After all, Jack told Ennis in their May 1983 arguement (final confrontation), "...you don't know the half of it."

New Topic?  jetzenpolis, would you want us to create another thread for this subject?

I think that it would have been inconvenient for Jack, given that it was in a small home town where his family resided.  People are bound to talk, and perhaps were already talking about Jack and Randall.    It would seem that Jack was a bit more discreet about casual hookups, and must have gone to the Mexican side in order to gratify himself.  Randall would seem to be the exception, since he was, after all, a "family" friend.  It would be possible that there could also be other family "friends", but Randall would certainly have noticed, given his unfettered access to Jack (i.e., with the knowledge of his and Jack's wife.)

[jetzenpolis]

New Topic?  jetzenpolis, would you want us to create another thread for this subject?

I think that it would have been inconvenient for Jack, given that it was in a small home town where his family resided.  People are bound to talk, and perhaps were already talking about Jack and Randall.    It would seem that Jack was a bit more discreet about casual hookups, and must have gone to the Mexican side in order to gratify himself.  Randall would seem to be the exception, since he was, after all, a "family" friend.  It would be possible that there could also be other family "friends", but Randall would certainly have noticed, given his unfettered access to Jack (i.e., with the knowledge of his and Jack's wife.)

I was thinking the same thing, tpe!  This should be its own topic...

[jetzenpolis]

I would assume that "projection" here is equivalent to the concept of "manifestation" or "emanation".

I'm not well-enough informed about Buddhist philosophy to address the topic of "emanation" with much certainty.  From the two sources below, "The Ontodynamics of Emanation:  An Exercise in Speculative Metaphysical" (by M. Alan Kazlev) and the Wikipedia entry for "Emanationism," an emanation is: a particular, specific, finite form of what is called the "Absolute" in philosophy - whether Eastern or Western, religious or nonreligious philosophy. 

I'm most familiar with the early nineteenth century German "Idealist" philosopher, Georg Hegel's idea of the Absolute.  As I understand it, "change" ("becoming") is viewed as the Absolute (since nothing is permanent.)

The Absolute is a form of "being" that can't be "contradicted" by an opposite idea.  When philosophy talks about "being," it is talking about existence in its broadest possible sense.  Philosophy uses the word "being" as a starting point in its taxonomy of all existence, much as a botanist might divide the plant "kingdom" into a taxonomic universe of particular species of plants, as the Swedish botanist, Carl von Linné (Carl Linnaeus), divided the plant Kingdom into 25 classes in 1754.

"Being," therefore, is the most general term possible that includes anything and everything which has an "existence."  (It may also includes anything and everything that once existed but no longer exists, or has the potential for existence, or even once had the potential for existence.)

But this generalization of "being" makes no distinction between separate forms of being - into which everything in the universe might be divided into, as specific instances of "being" (on all possible planes of existence).  This general, Absolute form of "being" remains undifferentiated, non-specific, amorphous.  It is a broad, bland, homogeneous form "being" that turns all being into an intellectual monolith: an unbroken "totality" of being.

Any sort of differentiation between one thing and another gives each of them a "separate" form of "being."  Thus, going back to Carl Linnaeus, the eighteenth century Swedish botanist, for example, the separation of groups of plants into a "taxonomy" of different species gives each of those species a separate identity (a separate form of "being," in other words).  Further distinction between things are always possible, perhaps infinitely so.  Once Carl Linnaeus divided the plant kingdom into different species, these species could be further divided within themselves into the individual plants (specimens) that belong to a particular group of plants botany has classified together as a "species."

Jean-Paul Sartre, the mid-twentieth century French Existentialist philosopher points out that "being" is contradicted by "non-being" ("nothingness," in other words).  Since there is always a possibility of negation of "being" - since it can always be contradicted by "non-being" (nothingness) - he is led to question whether there can be an Absolute form of "being."

"Manifestation" is the particular form that finite forms of being take in the world.  Again, using botany as an example, the "manifestations" of the plant kingdom would be individual specimens of any particular species of plant.  (But I'm not precisely certain how Buddhism uses the term, "manifestation," though.  I think it might be applied to both: 1. any of the specific forms that a more general principle "manifests" itself in and 2. the specific forms our "Buddhist nature" shows - or "manifests" - itself within us.)





The Ontodynamics of Emanation:  An Exercise in Speculative Metaphysical
(text content by M.Alan Kazlev)
http://www.kheper.net/topics/emanation/emanation.html

Before defining the laws of emanation, a basic proviso needs to be stated.  And that is that emanation does not pertain to the Absolute Reality....all of the stages of manifestation of the Supreme are complementary or non-contridictory with each other.  Nor can there actually be a coming into (or a passing out of) being, because all aspects of the Absolute are eternal in any case, and at the level of the Absolute there is nothing else but the Absolute, so there is nothing for the Emanator to emanate into.  Emanation can only occur within the realm of duality itself.

How then does one get from unity and plenum of Being, as represented by the Absolute or Supreme Godhead/Reality, to the duality of Being and Non-being, and the fact of separate existence, as representative of ordinary (and not only ordinary, but also psychic, spiritual, and even higher) reality?

The answer - and on this point our various sources seem to be in full agreement - is that the Absolute Reality, the Absolute or Supreme Godhead, forms within Itself (all this is speaking metaphorically of course; remember that, ultimately, there is nothing else but the Absolute) a duality, a set of polar opposites.  In this way the One becomes Two, and there is "room" for emanation.

Hence we have the division of the Tao or Tai Chi into Yin and Yang, the division of Paramashiva or Parasamvit into Shiva and Shakti, the division of The One into the Finite and the Infinite, the division of the Light of the En Sof into Hesed and Gevurah...., no matter how many examples are given, they all present the same basic principle, although often approached in different ways and from different perspectives.  For example, the Tantric Shakti is by no means the same as the Taoist Yin (although both are identified with the female principle).  But both Tantricism and Taoism agree that the One becomes Two, and that this is the beginning of creation...

It is at this same level that the process of emanation occurs.  The pure Monistic teaching (for example Advaita Vedanta or Prajnaparamita Buddhism) is beyond emanation, but if the origin and nature of the cosmos and finite existence is to be taken into account (which most of these Monists are not interested in doing, because of their single-minded dedication to Liberation) then the theory of emanation has to be considered.

My own understanding of the original Polarisation of the Absolute - the One becoming Two - is that it is the polarisation of the Absolute or Supreme into the Absolute Itself, and the self-veiling of the Absolute.  In other words, into infinite Being and infinite Non-being, or Light and Dark, Spirit and Matter, Abundance and Lack, Self and Not-self.

So we have the two polarities, the two aspects, each infinite.  On the one hand, the Supreme revealing Itself as Itself; as infinite Consciousness, Light, Love, Power, Bliss, Divinity, Perfection, Creativity, etc; the pole of Absolute Spirit.  On the other hand, the Supreme veiling or conceiling Itself; as infinite non-consciousness, deprivation, formlessness, receptivity, and non-being; what Plotinus would have called hyle.  The Supreme in Its own transcendent nature is of course beyond, but also includes, both these poles, in total unity and harmony.

From the polarity of the Supreme revealing Itself as Itself, the Supreme emanates or radiates out as infinite plenitude all the gods, worlds, beings, and evolutions, into the Supreme veiling Itself as non-consciousness or hyle.

That radiation out from the positive to the negative pole of the Absolute constitutes the process of emanation, and it follows specific laws.  These laws have been elaborated in a number of different occult and philosophical teachings: Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, Theosophy, and elsewhere.  In the rest of this chapter I will present a brief and unavoidably incomplete definition of these laws of creation.  Incomplete, because it would require a weighty volume, and many many philosophical statements and definitions, to do justice to this subject.  The Neoplatonist Proclus for example wrote a large book, The Elements of Theology, which thankfully has survived to the present day, in which he attempts a comprehensive definition of the laws of Emanation.  But even that work, invaluable as it is, is not complete, because it is only written from a specifically Neoplatonic perspective, and hence does not cover the other equally valid perspectives of different esoteric teachings on this subject.

 

Wikipedia: Emanationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanation

Emanationism is Platonic monism, and an idea in the cosmology or cosmogony of certain religious or philosophical systems. Emanation from the Latin 'emanare' meaning "to flow from", is the mode by which all things are derived from the First Reality, or Principle. All things are derived from the first reality or perfect god by steps of degradation to lesser degrees of the first reality or god, and at every step the emanating beings are less pure, less perfect, less divine. Emanationism is a transcendent principle from which everything is derived, and is opposed to both Creationism (wherein the universe is created by a sentient God who is separate from creation) and evolutionism/materialism (which posits no underlying subjective and/or ontological nature behind phenomena, being immanent).

Key Principles
That complex things are created in nature is not in question...Rather, the two principles that are in question are the locus for creation and whether a sentient, self-aware Absolute (‘God’) is a necessity for creation. Emanationists such as Pythagoras, Plotinus, Gotama, and others argued that complex patterns in nature were a natural consequence of procession from the One (Hen, Absolute).

According to Emanationism, the Absolute, its nature and its activity must be inseparably one thing only, namely will, such that the nature and activity of the Absolute is both one and the same (again, will) and by its very nature is also its activity ‘to will’ and wills things to be or occur, thereby maintaining the center of the logical system of Emanationism...

[tpe]

I was thinking the same thing, tpe!  This should be its own topic...

OT: Sorry for the late response, jetzenpolis  (I was in Brussels last week.  )  Would you want to start the new thread, perhaps quoting the above in the starting post? 

[tpe]

I'm not well-enough informed about Buddhist philosophy to address the topic of "emanation" with much certainty.  From the two sources below, "The Ontodynamics of Emanation:  An Exercise in Speculative Metaphysical" (by M. Alan Kazlev) and the Wikipedia entry for "Emanationism," an emanation is: a particular, specific, finite form of what is called the "Absolute" in philosophy - whether Eastern or Western, religious or nonreligious philosophy. 

Thanks jetzenpolis.  I have a lot to catch up on in the forum, but I need to read this more carefully before I respond.  I will get back to you on this one I have thought about this a bit more deeply.

[jetzenpolis]

...The Absolute is a form of "being" that can't be "contradicted" by an opposite idea.  When philosophy talks about "being," it is talking about existence in its broadest possible sense.  Philosophy uses the word "being" as a starting point in its taxonomy of all existence...

"Being," therefore, is the most general term possible that includes anything and everything which has an "existence."  (It may also includes anything and everything that once existed but no longer exists, or has the potential for existence, or even once had the potential for existence.)

But this generalization of "being" makes no distinction between separate forms of being - into which everything in the universe might be divided into, as specific instances of "being" (on all possible planes of existence).  This general, Absolute form of "being" remains undifferentiated, non-specific, amorphous.  It is a broad, bland, homogeneous form "being" that turns all being into an intellectual monolith: an unbroken "totality" of being.

Any sort of differentiation between one thing and another gives each of them a "separate" form of "being."  Thus, going back to Carl Linnaeus, the eighteenth century Swedish botanist, for example, the separation of groups of plants into a "taxonomy" of different species gives each of those species a separate identity (a separate form of "being," in other words).  Further distinction between things are always possible, perhaps infinitely so...

Jean-Paul Sartre, the mid-twentieth century French Existentialist philosopher points out that "being" is contradicted by "non-being" ("nothingness," in other words).  Since there is always a possibility of negation of "being" - since it can always be contradicted by "non-being" (nothingness) - he is led to question whether there can be an Absolute form of "being."...

Hegel's "Absolute"

In Hegel's philosophical system, the dialectic method builds up a sort of pyramid of thought over time (either personally or within the history of various human cultures).  At the bottom, are the most specific forms (the division of Being into the various things we find in the World, in the Universe, in Existence: according to how we culturally divide them into their most simple, indivisible forms - as specified within the limits of our conscious thought).  At the top, is the most generalized universal principle within Hegel's thought: the Absolute.
 
In order to get from the bottom to the top of this pyramid, Hegel employs the dialectic to reveal the ever greater "unities" that encompass the smaller ideas (the identities of more specific things) within ever larger ideas.  Furthermore, the smaller ideas are each paired with their opposite - before they are brought together under a larger, unifying principle. 

For example, "tall" and "short" are opposite ideas.  But these two smaller opposing principles are then unified under the larger concept of "size."

In turn, Hegel might match the idea of "size" with its opposite - perhaps "weight."  These two larger principles are encompassed within an ever larger principle, such as "mass" - which in physics is measured as "mass = weight X volume". 

This enlargement of ideas into ever more general, more universal forms must eventually lead to an end point (for Hegel): the Absolute.

As I understand it, Hegel thought he found the Absolute in the idea of the "beginning."  Of course, every "beginning" [of one thing] is necessarily the "ending" [of another thing].  "Beginning" and "Ending" are nothing more than two sides of the same coin: "change."

Thus, for Hegel, "change" (or "beginning") becomes the ultimate principle of the Absolute.

Needless to say, critics might point out that "change" can be paired with an opposite idea of "permanence."  Presumably, again employing Hegel's dialectic, a unity (a "unifying" principle, in other words) must be found that encloses within its grasp both the idea of "change" and "permanence."  Perhaps "change" and "permanence" can both be described (categorized) as "forms of being that occur within the dimension of time."

We come back to "Being," again.  ("Time," itself, is a specific form of the greater, larger, more inconclusive concept [principle] of "being.")

Again, as the French Existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre says, "being" is contradicted by "nothingness" ("non-being").


Wikipedia: "Absolute idealism" [Hegel's Absolute Idealism]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism

Absolute idealism is an ontologically monistic philosophy attributed to G.W.F. Hegel. It is Hegel's account of how being is ultimately comprehensible as an all-inclusive whole. Hegel asserted that in order for the thinking subject (human reason or consciousness) to be able to know its object (the world) at all, there must be in some sense an identity of thought and being. Otherwise, the subject would never have access to the object and we would have no certainty about any of our knowledge of the world. To account for the differences between thought and being, however, as well as the richness and diversity of each, the unity of thought and being cannot be expressed as the abstract identity "A=A". Absolute idealism is the attempt to demonstrate this unity using a new "speculative" philosophical method, which requires new concepts and rules of logic. According to Hegel, the absolute ground of being is essentially a dynamic, historical process of necessity that unfolds by itself in the form of increasingly complex forms of being and of consciousness, ultimately giving rise to all the diversity in the world and in the concepts with which we think and make sense of the world.

Teachings
For Hegel, the interaction of opposites generates in dialectical fashion all concepts we use in order to understand the world. Moreover, this development occurs not only in the individual mind, but also through history. In the Phenomenology of Spirit, for example, Hegel presents a history of human consciousness as a journey through stages of explanations of the world. Each successive explanation created problems and oppositions within itself, leading to tensions which could only be overcome by adopting a view that could accommodate these oppositions in a higher unity. At the base of spirit lies a rational development. This means that the absolute itself is exactly that rational development. The assertion that "All reality is spirit" means that all of reality rationally orders itself and while doing so creates the oppositions we find in it. Even nature is not different from the spirit since it itself is ordered by the determinations given to us by spirit. Nature, as that which is not spirit is so determined by spirit, therefore it follows that nature is not absolutely other, but understood as other and therefore not essentially alien.

The aim of Hegel was to show that we do not relate to the world as if it is other from us, but that we continue to find ourselves back into that world. With the realisation that both my mind and the world are ordered according to the same rational principles, our access to the world has been made secure, a security which was lost after Kant proclaimed the 'Ding an sich' ['Thing in-itself'] to be ultimately inaccessible.

The Absolute Idealist position should be distinguished from Berkeleyan idealism (Berkeley), Transcendental Idealism (Kant), subjective idealism (Fichte), and Objective idealism (Schelling).


Wikipedia: "Monism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monistic

Monism is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the Universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities: or theology may support the view that there is one God, with many manifestations in different religions.

[tpe]

WE should nonetheless note that Hegel's notion of the Absolute was, in hindsight, fraught with problems.    Witness what some philosophers and historians had interpreted (in his "De orbitis Planetarum") to be his implied "proof" of 7 planets in the solar system.  While people continue to argue as to whether or not this was really what he intended to put forth, it is reasonable to say that Heidegger's reaction to the Hegelian view of the Absolute is also called for.  Phenomenology (i.e., Heidegger's Fundamental Ontology) also has it's place, and I think that BBM has a very similar world view to this.