The unbearable heaviness of ‘sacred’ ideas.
The sacred places around Jerusalem are the abode of very strong centrifugal forces — one will drive the other out….one that has power and force at the moment.
That sacred place has not known peace and harmony, a kind of centripetality — of a non-siloed, transcendental attractor of harmonious well-being for all, at least in recent times….
Wonder why? Who is included in the desire for divine well-being, and who does not belong in that silo?
Whoever occupies that territory only does so in inhuman brutality against the other. So much for sacred places.
Human systems must have the possibility of tapping the forces of powerful attractors, embedded here in the notion of the sacred, (for attractors are generative), and becoming something bigger — to develop then an attractor that includes more than just the original.
That is my point about the “Sacred” attractor — the wondering about why it has failed to produce a better whole.
It remains siloed, anchored to a place and objects, instead of morphing into a more inclusive attractor. The narrownesses, create centrifugality rather than the original centripetality, for it cannot find comment ground, literally or metaphorically.
The conservative status quo inevitably results not even in a peaceful coexistence, rather becomes an instrument of hate and violence.
As a model for the rest of the world — it does not demonstrate how to forge a new and more powerful attractor.
The idea of locating nations, any nation, in such places is problematic, because location then also becomes land, property, blah blah blah. The Capitalists and the politicians take over the Sacred, because the land becomes strategic.
You can see examples in Spain, for example, during the times of the Moors, where the three ideas of the Sacred came together to create a flourishing civilization. The sacred then was not a place.
The architects of the Sacred are to blame too, because they cannot stand up to the Capitalists and the Politicians. They have failed to understand their notions of the sacred in broader and non-geographical terms.
(Give the militarists a non-negotiable boundary, and there will inevitably be war.)
Their notions of the sacred are not grand and strong enough to evolve inclusively — they become slaves to the rigidity of books, specific places and objects.
They cannot see the generative power of an idea or concept that holds the potential for become something as magnificent as the eternal they are trying to reach.
The sacred here is small and anchored and bound in materialities — hardly the expansiveness of spiritual things. It speaks more to the smallness of minds — the limited human mind, bounded, that finds it easier to close doors, and keep others out.
Actually they are no longer architects — they have become occupiers — of all kinds of territories.
Maybe their ideas of the sacred are archaic and antediluvian.
And that perhaps is the problem — a fundamental rigidity, that will not transcend and evolve with the times, an attachment and binding to literalities, rather than the expansiveness of unbound metaphors.
