The Mythic Quest

Giving Up the Gun: James Hillman on Japan

In his exceptional 2004 book, A Terrible Love of War, psychologist James Hillman takes a six-page excursion to talk about Japan’s history with gun control, which I will summarize here.

Guns were introduced in Japan by three Portuguese ‘freebooters’ in 1543 after shooting a duck. Within six years, 500 guns had been ordered by a local lord; by 1575, they were a decisive battle weapon. The Japanese quickly became masters of firearms; in the 16th century, the country boasted a population of 25 million, while England had not even five million residents. Yet by the time Japan opened its doors to international trade in 1853, there were no guns to be found.

While Hillman finds no definitive reason, here are his speculations:

• Japan had a long history of swordsmanship and metallurgy that it was very proud of. With the introduction of guns, all fighters became equal, in a sense; fighting at close proximity no longer mattered, and skill in swordsmanship became a moot point. Orders to kill transitioned from soldiers to the commander.
• Japan’s warrior class was roughly 8% of the total population. With guns, peasants could become lords, something lords did not like, as it threatened their rule.
• With no ‘external gun enemies’ on the coast, an industry built on firearms became frivolous and unnecessary.
• Guns were an ‘outside idea’ from Western missions, and caused a fracture in the warrior psyche.

Yet Hillman finds the most pressing reason to be archetypal and even aesthetic: the warriors had a tradition that they were denying with their clumsy dependency on guns.

It is more important for a person to maintain the aesthetic principles that hold the internal strength of the body’s force in harmonious balance by posture, place of hands, elbows, and legs than to lose this for the sake of the practicality of guns.

Guns, Hillman writes, were never banned in Japan; they simply faded away due to their ugliness and lack of candor. This changed again after opening trade in 1853, though gun violence remains at an incredibly low level in Japan.

Americans often talk about having the highest moral values and most aesthetic culture that influences many countries. Without debating the merits of this statement, this ‘manifest destiny’ is claimed by a large portion of citizens. If we really want such a thing to be true, getting rid of guns and the inevitable murders they bring—to other humans, as well as to animals of all stripes—we could actual create an aesthetic culture we’d be proud to spread.

How To Make $71 Billion A Year: Tax the Churches

While the desire to tax churches is not new, it seems as far from reality as possible at this moment. As has been commented, no atheist could possibly hope to win an election in today’s political climate—a freethinking man like Robert Ingersollwould have no influence with the majority of our electorate. Our cultural dependency on the necessity of faith is affecting our society: According to aUniversity of Tampa study, not taxing churches is taking an estimated $71 billion from our economy every year, and this fact remains largely unquestioned.

The general argument over why churches do not pay taxes goes like this: If there is a separation of church and state, then the state (or fed) has no right to collect money from the church. In exchange, churches cannot use their clout to influence politics. While this would seem to make for cozy bedfellows, it’s impossible to believe that none of the 335,000 congregations in the United States are using their resources for political purposes, especially when just last week the Kansas governor called for a ‘Day of Salvation‘ in his state.

Continue reading on Big Think.

Photo: Vieux Montreal 1899

The Wisdom of Insecurity

Security is perhaps the most well-known illusion human beings have contrived. From the cursory seduction of emotional stability to the wrathful manifestation of raging armies, the painful longing for complete ease blankets our species. Somewhere along our evolutionary trail the quest for safety transformed into an unapologetic demand for protection, from foreigners as well as our own hearts, however errant a goal that might seem.

We’ve pawned the responsibility of security to a higher being through innumerable oblations: crops and virgins and tobacco and dances. In its modern presentation, security is to be achieved through belief—the power of intention, we are told, dictates the parameters for everything we experience. If we don’t feel secure, that is because we haven’t enough faith in the process of discovering our own innate greatness. No longer is our lack of security due to bloodthirsty deities; it is a personal failing that the world is not the haven we are destined to dwell inside of.

Continue reading on Big Think.

Photo: 7:54 am