Quete!, dualities, utopias, individualism and history In West, the man always thought double, body and soul, flesh and spirit, matter and idea. In general, the social discourse about man is ambiguous, the Christian tradition condemns the carnal and the spiritual rises to the sublime, eternal, unblemished. However, it is also known that humans are superficial. What is called being superficial?, To look at boobs, noses, legs and asses. People say that what is essential is invisible to the eye but in reality the only thing that matters is to satisfy our senses. However, these elections are nothing more than elections within a classification system (nice ass, ugly ass) that is culture. The taste, as Bourdieu would check, is a social and historical is part of a process or, ultimately, is a process in itself. The "good taste" or "tacky" then, is nothing more than, shall we say, a kind of democratic government where one party sometimes wins and sometimes another. It is common to hear them say to opposition candidates: "If I had ... blabla ... things had been different" and they are right. The contradiction in the light output, then, is imminent: the surface of taste, historical construction, as opposed to the ephemerality of the flesh and the transcendence of spirit. We like boobs, eternal life, we like asses, eternal life, we like the legs, eternal life. How can I get out of this orgy of ambiguity?. No idea, I like tits, fuck. What matters is what you see when you look at the same problem with different glasses: hedonism "here and now" (the famous live for the moment) as opposed to the possibility of transcendence.
Both conceptions, superficial and hedonistic Christian share a certain conception of time itself, is presented in an ahistorical, not to be specifically, but rather, for failing to interest the past, present or future, in general. Hedonistic version knows no future or past and the Christian version, in general, talks about the future of the future, past and present, forgotten. The past, the story literally said, is forgotten in both views, the present, isolated in a no importance in another and the future "close", as a repetition of this in hedonism, unimportant in Christians and the future of future, the future of death, how the only thing important for the Christian.
The body is a psychobiological unit. Beyond the separation of body and soul, not us the possibility of separating both instances, is a system, a drive, everything. However, we note in this whole, two aspects, closely linked to the concept "separatist" in the body and mind: first, the sensitive, perceptual, the other consciousness. Between these two elements there is a relationship of necessity, of solidarity, would not exist without each other as we know it. The sensitivity of man is what he comes into contact with experience, with the historical past, and is shaped precisely for this (experience). The man is an animal aware of its sensitivity and consciousness is only possible by to experience.
The other common point between the two positions is that both are, in essence, theories of happiness. Hedonism is, rather, a method of transient happiness and Christianity is the theory that all life is ephemeral. Hedonism has a purpose and happiness, joy, purpose is, in Christianity, his final death. In the history of the stories, the narrative productions, it is common endpoint, ie "the end". In many cases (mainly in the production of cultural industry), the final is always a happy ending. Life has no end (and less happy), no sequelae, premieres, stars, special effects, the only end is death. The following is only a matter of beliefs that are no weight in this discussion, since what is at stake is life, not death. The hedonistic view, in general, is a holiday position for some fifteen days in Mar del Plata, for others, three years in Ibiza. In general, the hedonists are destined to fail in his plan, so many parties, so many drugs, so many things do nothing to stop. Its simplistic version of what living in contradiction to the tendency complex than man claims of his life. Man tends to the complex, which tends to publish their biographies, have a desire for transcendence.
If at any point in my life Peter Pan enters by my window and I said, "to fly just need fairy dust and a happy memory" I think it would have many problems with memory.
The man is above all a social being, can not do anything that does not for other men. From eighteenth century, the concept of individualism, individualism, began to take hold. Of course, tied to the historical process of transfer from feudalism to capitalism, this cultural revolution rather Psychological, was allowed at the outset, the utopia of "rise" of the future as depositary of the successes and failures. Personally, I think that individualism is the first hypocrisy of human beings, is essentially the negation of the other's need. With the individualist conception (closely associated, perhaps, to the conception of history, Marxist, Marcuse thought to the death instinct of Freud), he refuses, he hides the need for another solidarity, the work of thousands of human beings, social sublimation of libido. Individualistic man wears clothes coming out of the stores and not textiles, walking down paths that seem to have been there, take collective circulating streets built by God and see buildings and houses forever. Individualism, to conceal and deny the other's need, solidarity, also denies and hides the work (and class relations), thus playing the sensitive, the body's own life and in turn , highlights the thinking consciousness. One reason is the challenge of individualism, defiance toward the other, the improvement of person (I do not know what I am, but I'm sure I know what I am or I'm better than them ). This involves creating an "us" and an "other", the difference, otherness, basically, the psychological-cultural construction of a first class identity.
Past is history, more precisely a historical narrative of the experience, individual on the one hand, social and other - this limited by the nostalgia of the past or the utopian desires the future, this hedonic "here and now " This ephemeral, uncertain future. What place have the experience, the sensitivity, awareness, Peter Pan, egoism, solidarity in this issue of time?. The story is the story of man who tends to the complex, the realization of utopia. Death, such a fall of the Berlin Wall, is the disappointment about this, utopia. It is perhaps the moment where we do not know of transcendence or happy endings. So, why live?. This is a question you will not find any consensus on the answers. Nobody knows. Nobody knows because you have to bear travel on a bus full of people, job layoffs, bad notes on partial power, indifference, deaths. Nobody. The man always looks for the complex, and complex, you never know you are looking for, or do not understand you get. And so simple?.
I climb to the group, I notice that there are no seats available, I stand near the side having once downloaded. At another stop, they get two giant bags carried by a poor woman. He was right, the one side of Pompeii fell in Rivadavia. Uncertainty, Who deserves the seat more, the bags with the woman or the young student of communication?. My ass, my comfort, my individuality, I say to myself. Indeed, while I feel feeling guilty. Surely you are going to lose another. Another success: there got a good blonde mammary glands, the bags sit there.
reading the section above, the man of the postmodern individualism associated with comfort, therefore, individualism with her ass. I wonder now, what would have happened if he had said aloud, "Lady, why are you sitting?" And she, her ass, perhaps, and the bags have been happy to seat you had the face of Pompeii?. The answer is simple, I gave my seat to lady. I met her in a second, second that she and the bags should have been in love with me and I, of course, reciprocated that feeling. What happened?. Transcended.
At the time of the grant, there was a kind of rupture. Capitalism did not care, my mother, my girls, my friends, my drunkenness, my concerns. I stopped, somehow, to be me, to meet other self, with its other, with the other and this time the award was one of many moments of transcendence. The grant is the only time where you build four walls and the universe is what has always been, nothing is simple, is solidarity.
Man seeks the transcendental, complex and in this quest is the birthplace of art (understood as a cultural expression, or culture). The first artist was an ordinary man, harassed by the other stronger and more women, maybe. He was a man who walked away from their village and walked through the woods as night fell. In the end, the man reached the lakeshore. At night, the stars swam the lake of delicious fireworks. The moon looked at the man and the man looked at the moon. The silence, the grant, the transcendent, the beautiful, beautiful. What to Do, will have asked the man, after having experienced what you just felt. "This I have to tell," was his response. The man becomes an artist when he is conscious of the ephemeral which is compared to everything that crosses it and it is inaccessible and unmodifiable: life, death, existence. The man did not think, probably "I'm better than the moon, the stars and their reflection in the lake", as would an individualist, a man was found with all the existing and the meeting of the concession, was born the art.
The body-soul dualism, or sensitive, aware, at the time of the grant are one thing. Consciousness is not something that is not sense, consciousness is a sense. The human being is like a sixth sense, if you will. Vision, hearing, taste, smell, touch and humanity. The sense of humanity is the meaning of art and the meaning of the concession and solidarity.
The past as history, as an experience that builds the six senses, the mind it inhabits the sensible (and not the body-soul dualism), the present for the future as a place where history is told and where the question appears on the utopia of modernity (understood under the concept of Peirce's sign, utopia is a sign of an object updated by an interpretant, the sign always takes certain aspects of the object and neglects others. This has a bearing on this text because the utopian view, it's not something that there is a building on it because it takes some existing issues, empowering them, while eliminating others, is a way, critical to see the world): Can a happy world, a happy ending?. My answer is far from the absolutism of yes or no, but honestly, I prefer not. But, does the art express?. The important thing is to build a kind of constant potential to be happy. Basics, is to play our body and our life without which life, as timeline or biographical, has the sole purpose of reproduction. The basic thing is solidarity (removing the evil of individualism), art, passion, romance, sweet and tasty violence of a revolution. The future is history to build, and although the only end is death, we have the right to build / choose a happy ending.
0 comments:
Post a Comment