This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.
For the approaching High Holidays, I return to the prophetic via our Zen provocateur. Here’s John Cage, June 1955. Eisenhower time. Going nowhere:
A sound does not view itself as thought, as ought, as needing another sound for its elucidation, as etc.; it has no time for any consideration – it is occupied with the performance of its characteristics: before it has died away it must have made perfectly exact its frequency, its loudness, its length, its overtone structure, the precise morphology of these and of itself.
Urgent, unique, uninformed about history and theory, beyond the imagination, central to its sphere without surface, its becoming is unimpeded, energetically broadcast. There is no escape from its action. It does not exist as one of a series of discrete steps, but as transmission in all directions from the field’s center. It is inextricably synchronous with all other sounds, non-sounds, which later, received by other sets than the ear, operate in the same manner.
A sound accomplishes nothing; without it life would not last out the instant.
And then:
An experimental action, generated by a mind as empty as it was before it became one, thus in accord with the possibility of no matter what, is, on the other hand, practical. It does not move in terms of approximations and errors, as ‘informed’ action by its nature must, for no mental images of what would happen were set up beforehand; it sees things directly as they are: impermanently involved in an infinite play of interpenetrations.
When I read these statements, I wonder. Has our musical friend, via Zen, stumbled upon the prophetic?
Listen to Cage transposed:
The prophetic does not view itself as thought, as ought, as needing another politics for its elucidation, as etc.; it has no time for any consideration – it is occupied with the performance of its characteristics: before it has died away it must have made perfectly exact its frequency, its loudness, its length, its overtone structure, the precise morphology of these and of itself.
Morphology is the study of the structure of anything made up of interconnected or independent parts. We usually think of the prophetic as a one-off and here it seems to be – but not only. On the field of battle the prophetic is its own sound, thus itself, but it is also bound up with the other sounds of humanity, including the sounds of suffering. The prophetic is pre and post-political without being apolitical. It performs itself as itself, for itself and for others.
Urgent, unique, unconcerned with the limitations of history and theory, beyond the normative imagination, central to its sphere without surface, the prophetic becoming is unimpeded, energetically broadcast. There is no escape from prophetic action. The prophetic does not exist as one of a series of discrete steps, but as transmission in all directions from the field’s center. The prophetic is inextricably synchronous with all other, sounds, non-sounds, which later, received by other sets than the ear and mind, operate in the same manner.
Cage strikes home, again transposed: “The prophetic accomplishes nothing; without it life would not last out the instant.”
Which brings me once again to my Prophetic Doxology: “Without the prophetic there is no meaning in life.” And its corollary claims: “There may be no meaning in life. The prophet embodies the possibility of meaning in life.”
Central to its sphere, the prophetic has its own sound and frequency. It is without surface. For the prophetic there is no veneer to disguise itself. This is the prophet’s asceticism. The prophetic becoming is unimpeded, energetically broadcast. This is why the clarity of the prophetic is so disturbing. It isn’t its uniqueness or its intellectual rigor, that field is reserved for the transmitters of knowledge and information. The prophetic is disturbing because its very sound doesn’t mind its own business or look for cliques to confirm its authenticity. This is also the reason the prophetic isn’t going anywhere. The anywhere the prophetic isn’t going is unique. It isn’t somewhere. It isn’t nowhere.
Synchronicity – the coincidence of events that seem related but are not obviously caused one by the other. Prophetic synchronicity – speaking and living justice even though there isn’t a successful payoff in a specific time and place. This means that the prophetic is most often a witness to others who tap into the prophetic somewhere else which is considered nowhere.
Imagine prophetic synchronicity as the sound of one hand clapping heard – without a second hand, or the falling tree in the forest – heard even though it seems there’s no one there.
Now Cage’s second statement rendered in the prophetic:
The prophetic is an experimental action, generated by a mind as empty as it was before it became one, thus in accord with the possibility of no matter what, is, on the other hand, practical. The prophetic does not move in terms of approximations and errors, as ‘informed’ action by its nature must, for no mental images of what would happen were set up beforehand; the prophetic sees things directly as they are: impermanently involved in an infinite play of interpenetrations.
The prophetic isn’t based on calculation. The prophetic must empty its mind of results. By emptying the mind of results, the prophetic becomes one with other prophetic movements. Because the prophetic has emptied its mind of the mental images which are defining, the prophetic defines practicality rather than listening to the critics of utopianism.
Being released from the illusion of permanence, which, of course, doesn’t exist except in argumentation, the prophetic sees directly to the heart of the matter. Unconsumed with causality, the prophetic is released from conformism to even the expectations of fellow travelers. The prophetic is the sound of sounds, among others. The prophetic witness goes where it goes. Then moves on from there.
The prophetic voice is not alone, even in its singularity. It may be crying out in the wilderness as Isaiah 40:3 – depending on the translation – seems to indicate. Though it seems with transposed Cage, it might be better to see the prophetic as having a distinctive sound that would be unfamiliar in its familiarity from tradition. True, the prophetic isn’t accepted locally according to Jesus in Matthew 13:57, but then acceptance or non-acceptance isn’t the prophet’s aim.
The infinite play of interpenetrations is the ultimate result of prophetic singularity – which means tragically that the prophet doesn’t solve the problems at hand or restore what has been taken away. The end of the Job story, where restoration is emphasized, is fiction. In real life, restoration doesn’t happen. If it does, restoration comes through another cycle of theft and destruction.
As it is with Jewish empowerment after the Holocaust. Job-like, what was lost to the Jewish community was “restored” and multiplied manifold. That restoration was accomplished through a deal with the devil. Where once Jews sat on the dung heap, others sit today. To call the Jewish restoration just is to go (un)Rabbi Forman on the Palestinians. Israel as restoration, as justice for the Holocaust, means becoming unglued when it’s even hinted that the price for Jewish restoration was too steep.
Rabbis for Jewish Rights. I don’t hear them in the John Cage transpositions. In the Rabbis for Jewish Rights I hear a conformism to power. With their rabbinic imprimatur, Jews have an official license to speak (un)truth to power.
Rabbi Forman – may I have permission to speak? You say that your permission is needed because the voice of my dissent isn’t yours. It goes too far. Do you mean to the heart of the matter?
Cage slightly adjusted: “The prophetic does not view itself as thought, as ought, as needing permission for its elucidation.”
Think of the prophetic as so anachronistic its sounds resonate as if in an open universe. Especially, when religious and political authorities consort with injustice.
Dear Prof. Ellis,
I found this article and your prosaic way of writing in it to be pleasant. However, unfortunately, I found it confusing for me too. Please let me try to figure this out:“Because the prophetic has emptied its mind of the mental images which are defining, the prophetic defines practicality rather than listening to the critics of utopianism.”
In other words, typically people using “defining” mental images. In other words, when I want to describe an accident down the street, I would typically say something like “a car was damaged.” I have used a mental image: a car, that defines what I am talking about: a standard motor vehicle personally operated by a human driver. However, it seems you are saying that “the prophetic” empties itself of these defining mental images. So in describing a car accident, “the prophetic” would use a different term, that doesn’t define what it is talking about. So instead of referring to a “car”, it could refer to a “cage on wheels”, which leaves open what exactly the image is referring to: a car or a prison wagon or a mobile zoo cage.
Admittedly, “a cage on wheels” actually does define a car, since a car is made out of metal and wheels and is generally contained on all 4 sides. It’s just that the “prophetic” definition is a more loose one.
Similarly, calling someone a “dog” in a figurative way is also defining, although it does not appear to be a standard way to describe someone, since a human and a dog are two different creatures. Nonetheless it is defining the person, because it describes some aspect of the person, meaning he seems dog-like, ie wild.
My impression is that in prophetic literature and prophetic ways of speaking, one can use both literal artistic (car is a form of a cage) forms and also figurative forms (a person can be like a dog). Of course, someone could speak in prophetic poetry and use standard terms too: “good” could actually just mean “good”!
OK, so at least I got through the first part of your sentence. But the second half is even harder for me. It seems you mean that the prophetic defines “practice” and actions, it predicts what will happen. However, the critics of utopianism say that idealistic things won’t happen. “Utopianism” at its root stems from the communist, egalitarian, caring fictional society of “Utopia” described by Thomas More. The term literally means both “good society” and “no society” at the same time. These critics kind of act like skeptics, saying that a good society is too good to occur, but the prophets run against the skepticism by making an optimistic ideal prediction nonetheless. Still, I am not sure the prophets don’t listen to the skeptics at all. It seems to me perhaps they can admit there are obstacles or challenges, but overcome them in the prophecies nonetheless.
Further, you are saying that the prophets define what will happen in practice- ie practicality, but the skeptics don’t actually say what will happen in practice. I don’t know. Maybe some skeptics do define things sometimes. A skeptic could say he is skeptical of an ideal view and then make a prediction to the opposite effect, but one which lacks the kind of ultimate optimism and inspiration you associate with what you call “the prophetic”.
Whew that was alot of thought. It’s kind of tough describing figurative prose by using more prosaic-style writing! How about if someone asks a doctor to describe a medical term and they just throw more medical terms back at you!
:)))))
But actually, thanks for trying to define the prophetic in a more direct way :))))
Peace.
Since I am here anyway, I would like to tell “dear prof Ellis” this is the most beautiful part of the series.