ANTAGONISMS ARE COMPLEMENTARY March 29, 2009
Posted by Geoffrey Wilson in : Meditations , add a commentANTAGONISMS ARE COMPLEMENTARY – THE DARK KNIGHT
There would be few unfamiliar with the legend of the caped crusader and his impressive array of lethal enemies either licking their lips at the prospect of doing battle with him and making inroads into the heart of Gotham City, or entertaining wild notions of defeating him and thereby assuming the mantle of authority in a struggle to maintain power.
Batman made a name for himself in comic books before shifting to the big screen and enjoyed a tremendous following among both the young and the older. That he has endured over a long passage of time does much to raise the quality of his profile and firmly secure a place in the mythical lore of the hero and the genre. His most outlandish nemesis of course is the Joker – who best typifies the antagonistic but nonetheless complementary nature of their dynamic interplay.
The Joker is the antithesis of Batman. If the caped crusader is the hero, then the Joker is the anti-hero. The two go together – like peas in a pod. In many respects, the Joker is actually the complete opposite of Batman. They are opposites in everything from their appearance to the ideals they espouse with gusto and pride. For example, Batman tends to be a rather large and muscular man, while the Joker is of average height and sinewy. Whereas Batman is averse to killing, the Joker views murder as sport. And as intimidating as he is psychotic, the latter nonetheless still manages to recruit merciless henchmen by the hordes despite his obvious and frighteningly maniacal insanity. Batman works alone with a couple of helpers behind the scenes.
Polar opposition is in fact a trademark of the war waged between the Joker and Batman. Before we get into a discussion of their apparel, suffice it to say that their temperaments are like chalk and cheese. The Joker is ebullient in a typically extroverted way. Batman is more self-contained at least when not in the company of his acquaintances and other social butterflies who are accustomed to his arrogance and distinct flair for the show he puts on as a clever subterfuge – though they don’t know it as such of course!
And so our stealthy nocturnal avenger is at heart a loner. Deeply introspective, he broods and contemplates – the memories of his numerous trials and tribulations weighing heavily on his big broad shoulders – especially the death of his father whose brutal murder he witnesses as an innocent child. Only his surrogate father Alfred, who also happens to be his butler and a man with serious talents of his own, knows the true story behind the caped crusader’s perspective on things. So, it’s hardly surprising that Batman is comfortable in the dark.
In the shadows, Batman is the undisputed king of the jungle, a ninja warrior of sorts who steers the course of the true vigilante, as only a creature of the night and devotee of revenge is competent to do. Indeed, Gotham City becomes reliant upon his prowess, and when the Joker begins to make his meddling and sardonic presence known, the beleaguered public and the officials whose job it is to administer justice, look to their patron saint for help.
Temperaments aside, the villain and the revered servant of the people have other differences worth mentioning that bring them together as much as they set them apart. The use of color in symbolism is one of several. Batman for instance, is a champion of the darkest shades – he uses gray and black to intimidate the criminals he encounters. The Joker relies more heavily on bright colors, such as purple, green, and sometimes orange, to dazzle his foes and yet conceal the hidden depths of his mischief. A case in point is the picture of the demented clown he paints with his lime green hair and ripe red lips. Interestingly, we never get to see the man behind the mask when he is in uniform as much as we are welcomed to view the bleeding mascara of a madman!
This brings us unnervingly to the Joker’s methods therefore, which are both unpredictable and incalculable. He does things according to his own twisted and perverse sense of logic, and does not seem to crave or desire the trappings that money can bring. In other words, his actions lack the necessary thread that conjoins one act to another with any degree of coherency and his motives seem to be without relationship to greed. Nor indeed does he suffer from a fear of the one who wields the proverbial sword of Damocles – in his case, the potential threat posed by the caped crusader.
Batman doesn’t wield the sword of Damocles anyway! In this particular tale from the vault told long ago by Cicero – the Roman orator, Damocles swaps places with the legendary ruler Dionysius II of Syracuse for a day just to get a taste of what it’s like to be in a position of power. There he is in all his glory, with servants beckoning to his every call and need, when out of the blue he looks up to see a sword dangling by a horse’s hair from the ceiling.
The Joker does not suffer from the same fear, which surely must have gripped Damocles as he watched the sword of Dionysius dangle precariously above his head. If he could, he would probably love to be Dionysius. If only to have the power to purge Gotham City of its pretensions through some cleverly conceived display of anarchy or to use any means necessary, to prove that organization and corporate structure is both meaningless and futile.
All things considered, the Joker is an exceptionally devious and cunning operator, and this tends to be his greatest weapon in the fight against Batman, the police, and the District Attorney’s office. He is often confronted by the authorities, but easily evades capture due to a combination of survival instinct, wit, bravado, acumen, and good fortune. While Batman prefers to linger in the shadows, the Joker basks in the spotlight clearly comfortable in the role and adept at manipulating the image he wishes others to see.
Though we may safely infer that he is Batman’s undisputed arch-nemesis, the Joker has always understood his privileged position. In ‘The Dark Knight’, he asks his rival, ‘Why would I kill you? What would I do without you?’ Thus, we know that these two characters are inseparable and mutually dependent on the polarity that their intense interaction provides. Without the Joker’s ruthless ambition, Batman has no outlet for recrimination. And without Batman’s personal crusade, the Joker has no assailant.
True Observation March 11, 2009
Posted by Geoffrey Wilson in : Meditations , add a commentShe looked at the phone, almost as if willing it to ring. But it didn’t. She wanted it to, but it didn’t! At this point, agitation welled up within her, and the thinking of one thought led to another.
In the space of several minutes, what had been the simple observation of a mobile phone turned into hundreds of ideas about the phone. Whereas before her observation of a phone that was not ringing was a ‘fact’, her ideas about the phone were now a ‘non-fact’!
She tried to suppress and control her emotions. Yet this did nothing to assuage the conflict. Her feelings of hate, jealousy, anxiety, fear and insecurity remained. Upon reflection, it is indeed remarkable to consider just how strong the emotions are, and that their expression accurately represents the inglorious passion of suffering. Is one aware of this phenomenon on a level that can be understood? And, are the attachments that one may have to both people and things, based on these emotions?
The fact is not the idea. It is possible to create an idea about the phone, but the phone is a fact. The phone can be touched and picked up. One can look at it and see the shape of it, the colour of it. Is the attachment to it a concept, an idea, or is it a fact?
When one observes the fact, not the idea, not the conclusion or judgment about the fact, but the fact itself, is the fact different from the one who is observing?
When one observes the fact through an idea, one is not looking at the fact. How does one look at the fact? Is attachment a part of oneself or separate from oneself? The phone is separate from oneself. Yet the attachment to the phone and the emotions arising from having ideas about the phone are part of oneself.
Attachment is ‘me’. If there is no attachment, there is no ‘me’. Awareness of one’s emotions is therefore, part of one’s nature. If one is looking at oneself, there is only attachment, the fact, the feeling, the possessiveness in attachment. This is ‘me’. It is a fact!
What is one to do with this fact then? Previously when there was division between ‘me’ and attachment, one tried to do something about attachment. If attachment is ‘me’, one cannot do anything! All one can do is observe it. One cannot act upon it because it is already ‘me’.
There is only observation. If in the observation one begins to choose, and in choosing makes a judgment, saying “One must not be attached”, one is actually saying that attachment is not ‘me’. True observation means therefore that there is no choice.
The pure observation of a fact without reaching a conclusion or forming an opinion about the fact naturally dissolves it. The energy is totally centred in observation and there is complete dissipation of attachment.
Working through the exercise then, she observes the phone. What does she see? She sees a phone. It is turned off. It has buttons and a screen. Now she has an idea about the phone. What is that idea? She also has strong emotions attached to the idea about the phone. What are those emotions?
The phone is a fact. The observation is clear and pure. Her idea about the phone is a ‘non-fact’. It is not real. Her idea about the phone is that it should ring. Why? She wants the phone to ring because she wants to know that somebody has made her a priority. Somebody having made her a priority gives her a sense of self-worth. She has therefore looked for self-worth outside of herself, from another.
She has strong emotions about her idea of the phone. She has become agitated because of her idea of the phone and this has led her to projecting these emotions into the future. Now she has wild imaginings based on the idea she had of the phone.
The wild imaginings based on the idea she had of the phone and sustained by agitation are the speculations gathered together by her when reaching the conclusion that she is not recognised as a priority in someone’s life.
The phone is something apart from her. But attachment, the emotion, is part of herself. Therefore, awareness of her emotions, her attachments, is part of her structure.
If she looks at herself there is no division; there is no duality as the ‘me’ and attachment. There is only attachment, not the word but the fact, the feeling, the emotion, the possessiveness in attachment. That is a fact. That is ‘me’.
What is she to do with ‘me’? If there is ‘me’ and attachment, she could try to suppress it. But if it is ‘me’, what can she do? She can’t do anything. She can only observe. Before, she acted upon it. Now she can’t because it is HER. All she can do is observe.
Observation becomes all important, not what she does about it.