Changes

But more resonant than how Anakin turned into Darth Vader is When the parallel political question: How did final installment of the Republic turn into the Empire[[Star Wars]] series, or, more precisely, how does a democracy become a dictatorship? Lucas explained that it isn’t that the Empire conquered the Republic, but that the Republic <i>became[[Revenge of the Sith]]</i> the Empire. “One day, Princess Leia and her friends woke up and said, ‘This isn’t brings us the Republic anymore, it’s pivotal moment of the Empire. We are entire saga — the bad guys.’ ” The contemporary connotations change of this reference to Ancient Rome suggest the Star Wars transformation from Republic “good” Anakin Skywalker into the “bad” Darth Vader — it aims to Empire should be read against the background of Hardt draw parallels between our personal and Negri’s <i>Empire</i> (from Nation State to the Global Empire)political decisions.

The political connotations of In a 2002 <i>Time</i> magazine interview, George Lucas explained the Star Wars universe are multiple and inconsistent. Therein resides the “mythic” power of that universe—a universe that includes personal level through a Reaganesque vision type of the Free World versus the Evil Empire; the retreat pop-[[Buddhism]]: "He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things. He can’t let go of the Nation States, which can be given a rightist, nationalist Buchanan-Le Pen twisthis mother; the contradiction he can’t let go of persons his girlfriend. He can’t let go of a noble status (Princesses, Jedi knights, etcthings.) defending the “democratic” republic; and finally, its key insight that “we are the bad guys,” that the Empire emerges through the very way we, the “good guys,” fight the enemy out thereIt makes you greedy. (In today’s “war on terror And when you’re greedy,” the real danger is what this war is turning us into.) Such inconsistencies you are what make on the Star Wars series a political myth proper, which is not so much a narrative with a determinate political meaning, but rather an empty container of multiple, inconsistent and even mutually exclusive meanings. The question “But what does this political myth really mean?” is path to the wrong questiondark side, because its “meaning” is precisely you fear you’re going to serve as this vessel of multiple meaningslose things."

<i>Star Wars IBut more resonant than how Anakin turned into Darth Vader is the parallel political question: The Phantom Menace</i> gave us a crucial hint as to where to orient ourselves in this meleeHow did the [[Republic]] turn into the [[Empire]], or, specificallymore precisely, how does a [[democracy]] become a [[dictatorship]]? Lucas explained that it isn’t that the “Christological” features of Empire conquered the young Anakin (his immaculate conceptionRepublic, his victorious “pod-car” race, with its echoes of but that the famous chariot race in Republic <i>Ben-Hurbecame</i>the Empire. "One day, this “tale of Christ”). Since Star Wars’ ideological framework is Princess Leia and her friends woke up and said, 'This isn’t the New Age pagan universeRepublic anymore, it is quite appropriate that its central figure of Evil should echo Christ's the Empire. Within the pagan horizon, We are the Event of Christ is the ultimate scandalbad guys. ’" The figure contemporary connotations of the Devil is specific this reference to Ancient [[Rome]] suggest the Judeo-Christian tradition. But more than that, Christ himself is the ultimate diabolic figure, insofar as <i>diabolos</i> (Star Wars transformation from Republic to separate, to tear apart the One into Two) is Empire should be read against the opposite background of [[Hardt]] and [[Negri]]’s <i>symbolos[[Empire]]</i> (from [[Nation State]] to gather and unifythe [[Global]] [[Empire]]). He brought the “sword, not peace,” in order to disturb the existing harmonious unity. Or, as Christ told Luke: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” In order for there to be a properly unified “symbolic” community of believers, Christ had to first come and perform the Holy Spirit’s separating “diabolic” founding gesture.

Thus The political connotations of the Christian stance is radically different from Star Wars universe are multiple and inconsistent. Therein resides the teachings 'mythic' power of that universe — a universe that includes a [[Reagan]]esque vision of paganism. In clear contrast to the pagan wisdom that Free World versus the universe is [[Evil Empire]]; the abyss retreat of the primordial Ground in Nation States, which all “false” opposites—Good can be given a rightist, [[nationalism|nationalist]] [[Buchanan]]-[[Le Pen]] twist; the contradiction of persons of a noble status (Princesses, Jedi knights, etc.) defending the 'democratic' republic; and Evilfinally, its key insight that 'we are the bad guys, appearance and reality' that the Empire emerges through the very way we, folly and wisdomthe 'good guys, etc' fight the enemy out there.—coincide (In today’s '[[war on terror]], Christianity proclaims as ' the highest action precisely real danger is what this [[war]] is turning us into.) Such inconsistencies are what paganism condemns as make the source of all evil—the gesture Star Wars series a political myth proper, which is not so much a narrative with a determinate political meaning, but rather an empty container of separationmultiple, of drawing inconsistent and even mutually exclusive [[meaning]]s. The question "But what does this political myth really mean?" is the linewrong question, of clinging because its "[[[meaning]]" is precisely to an element that disturbs the balance serve as this vessel of Allmultiple meanings.

What <i>[[The Phantom Menace|Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace]]</i> gave us a crucial hint as to where to orient ourselves in this means is that melee, specifically, the "[[Christ]]ological" features of the Buddhist allyoung Anakin (his immaculate conception, his victorious "pod-encompassing Compassion has to be opposed to the Christian intolerantcar" race, violent Love. The Buddhist stance is ultimately that with its echoes of the famous chariot race in <i>indifferenceBen-Hur</i>, this "tale of quenching all passions Christ"). Since Star Wars’ ideological framework is the [[New Age]] [[paganism|pagan]] universe, it is quite appropriate that strive its central figure of Evil should echo Christ. Within the pagan horizon, the [[Event]] of Christ is the ultimate scandal. The figure of the Devil is specific to establish differences, while the Judeo-Christian love tradition. But more than that, Christ himself is a violent passion to introduce a the ultimate diabolic figure, insofar as <i>differencediabolos</i>(to separate, a gap in to tear apart the One into Two) is the order opposite of being, <i>symbolos</i> (to privilege gather and elevate some object above othersunify). Love is violence He brought the "sword, not (only) peace," in order to disturb the vulgar sense of the Balkan proverbexisting harmonious unity. Or, “If he doesn’t beat as Christ told Luke: "If anyone comes to meand does not hate his [[father]] and his [[mother]], he doesn’t love me!” The choice of love itself is already violenthis wife and children, as it tears an object out of its context his brothers and elevates it to the Thingsisters — yes even his own life — he cannot be my disciple. " In Montenegrin folklore, the origin order for there to be a properly unified "[[symbolic]]" community of Evil is a beautiful woman: She makes men lose their balancebelievers, she literally destabilizes [[Christ]] had to first come and perform the universe, coloring all things with a tone of partiality[[Holy Spirit]]’s separating "diabolic" founding gesture.

In March, Thus the Christian stance is radically different from the Vatican strongly condemned Dan Brown’s <i>The Da Vinci Code</i> as a book that spreads false teachings (that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that they had descendants, that the true identity of the Grail is Mary’s vagina)[[paganism]]. The Vatican especially rued In clear contrast to the pagan wisdom that the book universe is so popular among the younger generation searching for spiritual guidance. The form abyss of the Vatican’s intervention, primordial Ground in which barely concealed a longing for the good old days when it could simply burn booksall "false" opposites — [[Good]] and [[Evil]], was obviously absurd. (Indeed[[appearance]] and [[reality]], one almost suspects a conspiracy between the Vatican folly and the book’s publisher to give a fresh boost to its saleswisdom, etc.) Nevertheless— coincide, [[Christianity]] proclaims as the highest action precisely what paganism condemns as the content source of all evil — the Vatican’s message was basically correct. <i>The Da Vinci Code</i> effectively re-inscribes Christianity into gesture of [[separation]], of drawing the New Age’s paradigm line, of seeking clinging to an element that disturbs the balance between masculine and feminine principlesof All.

And—back What this means is that the Buddhist all - encompassing Compassion has to be opposed to the Christian intolerant, violent [[Love]]. The Buddhist stance is ultimately that of <i>Revenge indifference</i>, of quenching all passions that strive to establish differences, while the SithChristian love is a violent passion to introduce a <i>[[difference]]</i>—the price for , a [[gap]] in the film’s sticking order of being, to these same New Age motifs privilege and elevate some [[object]] above others. [[Love]] is [[violence]] not (only its ideological confusion, but, simultaneously, its inferior narrative quality. These motifs are why Anakin’s transformation into Darth Vader—the series’ pivotal moment—lacks ) in the proper tragic grandeur. Instead vulgar sense of focusing on Anakin’s hubris as an overwhelming desire to intervenethe Balkan proverb, to do Good"If he doesn’t beat me, to go to the end for those he loves and thus fall to the Dark Sidedoesn’t love me!" The choice of love itself is already violent, Anakin is simply shown as it tears an indecisive warrior who is gradually sliding into Evil by giving way [[object]] out of its context and elevates it to the temptation of Power, by falling under the spell of the evil Emperor[[Thing]]. In other wordsMontenegrin folklore, Lucas lacked the nerve to really apply his parallel between the shift origin of Evil is a beautiful woman: She makes men lose their balance, she literally destabilizes the Republic to Empire and universe, coloring all things with a tone of Anakin to Darth Vader. Anakin should have become a monster out his very excessive attachment with seeing Evil everywhere and fighting itpartiality.

WhereIn March, thenthe Vatican strongly condemned [[Dan Brown]]’s <i>[[The Da Vinci Code]]</i> as a book that spreads false teachings (that [[Jesus]] married Mary Magdalene and that they had descendants, does this leave us? that the true identity of the Grail is Mary’s vagina). The ultimate postmodern irony Vatican especially rued that the book is today’s strange exchange between so popular among the West and younger generation searching for spiritual guidance. The form of the East. At Vatican’s intervention, which barely concealed a longing for the very moment good old days whenit could simply burn books, was obviously absurd. (Indeed, at one almost suspects a conspiracy between the level of “economic infrastructure,” Western technology Vatican and capitalism are triumphing worldwidethe book’s publisher to give a fresh boost to its sales.) Nevertheless, at the level content of “ideological superstructure,” the JudeoVatican’s message was basically correct. <i>The Da Vinci Code</i> effectively re-Christian legacy is threatened in the West itself by inscribes [[Christianity]] into the onslaught of [[New Age “Asiatic” thought. Such Eastern wisdom, from “Western Buddhism” to Taoism, is establishing itself as the hegemonic ideology ]]’s paradigm of global capitalism. But while Western Buddhism presents itself as the remedy against the stress of capitalism’s dynamics—by allowing us to uncouple seeking balance between [[masculine]] and retain some inner peace—it actually functions as the perfect ideological supplement[[feminine]] principles.

Consider And — back to the phenomenon <i>[[Revenge of “future shock”—the popular term for how people today can no longer psychologically cope with the dazzling rhythm of technological development and Sith]]</i> — the accompanying social change. Before one can become accustomed to price for the newest invention, another arrives film’s sticking to take these same New Age motifs is not only its place[[ideology|ideological]] confusion, so that increasingly one but, simultaneously, its inferior narrative quality. These motifs are why Anakin’s transformation into Darth Vader — the series’ pivotal moment — lacks the most elementary “cognitive mappingproper tragic grandeur.” Eastern thought offers a way out that is far superior Instead of focusing on Anakin's hubris as an overwhelming desire to the desperate attempt intervene, to escape into old traditions. The way do [[Good]], to cope with this dizzying change, such wisdom suggests, is go to renounce any attempts the end for those he loves and thus fall to retain control over what goes onthe Dark Side, rejecting such efforts Anakin is simply shown as expressions of an indecisive warrior who is gradually sliding into [[Evil]] by giving way to the modern logic temptation of domination. Instead, one should “let oneself go[[Power]],” drift along, while retaining an inner distance and indifference toward by falling under the mad dance spell of the accelerated processevil Emperor. Such distance is based on In other words, Lucas lacked the insight that all of nerve to really apply his parallel between the upheaval is ultimately just a non-substantial proliferation shift of semblances that do not really concern the innermost kernel Republic to Empire and of our beingAnakin to Darth Vader. Anakin should have become a monster out his very excessive attachment with seeing Evil everywhere and fighting it.

HereWhere, one then, does this leave us? The ultimate [[postmodernism|postmodern]] [[irony]] is almost tempted to resuscitate today’s strange exchange between the [[West]] and the [[East]]. At the oldvery moment when, infamous Marxist cliché at the level of religion as “the opium "economic infrastructure," Western [[technology]] and [[capitalism]] are triumphing worldwide, at the level of the people"ideological superstructure,” as " the imaginary supplement of realJudeo-life misery. The “Western Buddhist” meditative stance Christian legacy is arguably the most efficient way for us to fully participate threatened in the capitalist economy while retaining West itself by the appearance onslaught of sanityNew Age "Asiatic" thought. If Max Weber were alive today Such Eastern wisdom, he would definitely write a secondfrom "[[Western Buddhism]]" to Taoism, supplementary volume is establishing itself as the hegemonic ideology of global capitalism. But while Western Buddhism presents itself as the remedy against the stress of capitalism's dynamics — by allowing us to his <i>Protestant Ethic</i>, titled <i>The Taoist Ethic uncouple and retain some inner peace — it actually functions as the Spirit of Global Capitalism</i>perfect ideological [[supplement]].

herefore, Consider the true companion piece to <i>Star Wars III</i> is Alexander Oey’s 2003 documentary, <i>Sandcastles: Buddhism and Global Finance</i>. A wonderfully ambiguous indication phenomenon of our present ideological predicament, Sandcastles combines "[[future shock]]" — the popular term for how people today can no longer psychologically cope with the commentaries dazzling rhythm of economist Arnoud Boot, sociologist Saskia Sassen technological development and the Tibetan Buddhist teacher Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpocheaccompanying social change. Sassen and Boot discuss Before one can become accustomed to the gigantic scope and powernewest invention, as well as social and economic effectsanother arrives to take its place, of global financeso that increasingly one lacks the most elementary "[[cognitive mapping]]. Capital markets, now valued at $83 trillion, exist within " Eastern thought offers a system based purely on self-interestway out that is far superior to the desperate attempt to escape into old traditions. The way to cope with this dizzying change, in which herd behaviorsuch wisdom suggests, often based is to renounce any attempts to retain control over what goes on rumors, can inflate or destroy rejecting such efforts as expressions of the value of companies—or whole economies—in a matter modern logic of hoursdomination. Khyentse Rinpoche counters them with ruminations about the nature of human perception Instead, one should "let oneself go," drift along, illusion while retaining an [[inner distance]] and enlightenment. He tries to throw a new light on [[indifference]] toward the mad dance of billion-dollar speculations with his philosophico-ethical statement, “Release your attachment to something that the accelerated process. Such distance is not there in reality, but is a perception.” Echoing based on the Buddhist notion insight that there all of the upheaval is no self, only ultimately just a stream non-substantial proliferation of continuous perceptions, Sassen comments about global capital: “It’s [[semblance]]s that do not that there are $83 trillion. It is essentially a continuous set really concern the innermost kernel of movements. It disappears and it reappearsour [[being]].”

But how are we Here, one is almost tempted to read this parallel between resuscitate the Buddhist ontology and old, infamous [[Marxism|Marxist]] cliché of [[religion]] as "[[the structure opium of virtual capitalism’s universe? The documentary tends toward the humanist reading: Seen through a Buddhist lenspeople]], " as the exuberance imaginary [[supplement]] of global financial wealth real-life misery. The "Western Buddhist" meditative stance is illusory, divorced from arguably the objective reality—the very human suffering caused by deals made on trading floors and in boardrooms invisible to most of efficient way for us. However, if one accepts to fully participate in the premise that capitalist economy while retaining the value appearance of material wealth, and one’s experience of reality, is subjectivesanity. If [[Max Weber]] were alive today, and that desire plays he would definitely write a decisive role in both daily life and neoliberal economicssecond, isn’t it also possible supplementary volume to draw the exact opposite conclusion? Perhaps our traditional viewpoint of the world was based on naive notions of a substantialhis <i>[[Protestant Ethic]]</i>, external reality composed of fixed objects, while the hitherto unknown dynamic of “virtual capitalism” confronts us with titled <i>The Taoist Ethic and the illusory nature Spirit of realityGlobal Capitalism</i>. What better proof of the non-substantial nature of reality than a gigantic fortune that can dissolve into nothing in a couple of hours due to a sudden false rumor? Consequently, why complain that financial speculations with futures markets are “divorced from objective reality,” when the basic premise of Buddhist ontology is that there is no “objective reality”?

The only “critical” lesson Therefore, the true companion piece to be drawn from Buddhism’s perspective on virtual capitalism <i>Star Wars III</i> is that one should be aware that we are dealing with a mere theater [[Alexander Oey]]’s 2003 documentary, <i>[[Sandcastles: Buddhism and Global Finance]]</i>. A wonderfully ambiguous indication of our present ideological predicament, Sandcastles combines the commentaries of shadowseconomist Arnoud Boot, with no substantial existencesociologist Saskia Sassen and the Tibetan Buddhist teacher Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche. Thus we need not fully engage ourselves in Sassen and Boot discuss the capitalist gamegigantic scope and power, but play it with an inner distanceas well as social and economic effects, of global finance. Virtual capitalism could thus act as Capital markets, now valued at $83 trillion, exist within a system based purely on self-interest, in which herd behavior, often based on rumors, can inflate or destroy the value of companies — or whole economies — in a first step toward “liberationmatter of hours.” It confronts us Khyentse Rinpoche counters them with ruminations about the fact that nature of human perception, illusion and enlightenment. He tries to throw a new light on the cause mad dance of our suffering billion-dollar speculations with his philosophico-ethical statement, "Release your attachment to something that is not objective reality—there there in reality, but is no such thing—but rather our Desire, our craving for material thingsa perception. All one has to do then, after ridding oneself of " Echoing the false Buddhist notion that there is no self, only a stream of a substantial realitycontinuous perceptions, Sassen comments about global capital: "It’s not that there are $83 trillion. It is simply renounce desire itself and adopt an attitude essentially a continuous set of inner peace and distancemovements. No wonder Buddhism can function as the perfect ideological supplement to virtual capitalism: It allows us to participate in it with an inner distance, keeping our fingers crossed, disappears and our hands clean, as it werereappears."

It But how are we to read this parallel between the Buddhist ontology and the structure of virtual capitalism’s universe? The documentary tends toward the humanist reading: Seen through a Buddhist lens, the exuberance of global financial wealth is illusory, divorced from the objective reality — the very human suffering caused by deals made on trading floors and in boardrooms invisible to most of us. However, if one accepts the premise that the value of material wealth, and one’s experience of reality, is against such subjective, and that desire plays a temptation that we should remain faithful decisive role in both daily life and neoliberal economics, isn’t it also possible to draw the exact opposite conclusion? Perhaps our traditional viewpoint of the Christian legacy world was based on naive notions of a substantial, external reality composed of separationfixed objects, while the hitherto unknown dynamic of "virtual capitalism" confronts us with the illusory nature of elevating some principles above othersreality. What better proof of the non-substantial nature of reality than a gigantic fortune that can dissolve into nothing in a couple of hours due to a sudden false rumor? Consequently, why complain that financial speculations with futures markets are "divorced from objective reality," when the basic premise of Buddhist ontology is that there is no "[[objective reality]]"?