pamphlet

written by Godfrey Miller

Once, and it was only a few years ago, we said: "Each country has to fix its own affairs up, each in its own way." Later when we fought a war we made great changes in the matter. We began to talk about one world and we liked the concept so much that we said - and I quote a prominent Statesman - "I look forward to the day when all frontiers are broken down". Then the separate concept came again and later again came into prominence the idea of a Total World. There were, in these things, obvious discrepancies. And, in resolving these apparent contradictions, the artists and scientists gave little help, and orthodox education made strong resistance. In among it all our problem received a special refreshing extension from the observation of those who said: "Our world is being questioned by the rest of the universe, and found waiting."

How is it that knowledge or what we considered and prized as knowledge did not help in our urgency? Were we slow in realising the making of a Unity was a difficult, subtle and unstudied matter? Did we fail to realise a little of creative sense was, or would be, of powerful and magical benefit? Why did we progress largely by drift on one hand and war on the other? Shall we suggest that which the poets have written has been among our best helps?

These are enlivening, directing ideas, but not commensurate with the full difficulties. Could it be suggested that our habitual accepted modes and methods of knowing and describing - that is, by literary writing, poetry writing and the spoken word - are short in their potential. That is, that they cannot and do not contain the Truth. They, of necessity, are largely serial and not simultaneous. A unity is not a block, a solid block - nor is it separate things added together like a necklace. We can rule out many organisations we thought were unities - crowds, teams, nations, families and choirs. Our difficulties came with such as choirs: a choir is a unity: it produces music, which description places it largely into functional philosophy. Whereas a thing can be a unity without having a function - particularly one free of what Man would term a function. Ultimately the question will be: Are there not purposeless pure Unities? There are some who believe so, and they adopt a procedure in their work that is both intensive and extensive. Before their periods of thinking - their meditation, for it is the Indian Philosopher we refer to - they eliminate from lives and thoughts much that is ordinarily accepted. In short it has been said a man must be careful to hear not even music. The elimination in even a part of life may seem critical and extreme. But it was - to give a concrete instance - it was from these people that came a great new word into our times. We now have the word co-existence, peaceful co-existence, a phrase promoting a concept that may be, if not boundless, at least extensive through its suggestiveness.

Launching, placing and keeping things in their relationship and actively maintaining their several and separate natures - is the work of the creative person. One can do it on canvas, can do it over a world constitution, or go out to Universe-Space, or the absolute. Do we not have a change of mind? Does not Mr. MacMillan, when he replaces old methods, use what may be called a creative principle, when he says: "We do not go to a conference to beat the other side but, with the other side's help, do we not build a new separate thing?"

When we create unities there must be elements contained, imported, or which we have invented. And so unities can be perhaps merely pretty, function, a little harmful or definitely unguided and evil. And so it became necessary - which might have bearing on philosophies like Bertrand Russell's - "Ye think to build exalted temples unto Truth and your words' effects do but unchain storm spirits from primeval depths of Earth." On the contrary, but still illustrating our hypothesis that we must insert and incorporate elements devised by Man - Dante wrote: "All things are arranged in a certain order and this constitutes the form by which the Universe resembles God." That is a splendid approach to painting a still life.

And in amongst all the warm esoteric dynamics is the Voice of one who writes objectively and from the outside. He writes an article on economics - and is balanced and unemotional as an artist - and is so unimpassioned no one can see what political side he is on. He says: "We are not back in the 19th Century with political and functional groups. Business, governments and unions each are now big and powerful enough to take care of themselves." What a dispassionate way to paint oranges.

Could as a finality the first words of a Buddha Mantrum be taken:

          "I stood in the Presence of the Splendour of the Forms,
            But my Intuitions were not yet pure . . . "

. . . or is this not the Finality but where it all begins.

--||--

back to intro         more on Godfrey Miller