Existentialism speaks of choice and the social responsibility inherent in
making choices. In choosing for yourself, you choose for others as well.
Other branches of Existentialsm wallow in the multitude of available
choices, which when allowed to overwhelm becomes Nihilism. Existentialism
does not have much to say about "hard and fast" limits to choices, as this
would presuppose something beyond the Existentialist power to choose. Thus
it is not a complete philosophical system, not necessarily helpful in the
real world. Yet it describes the essential problem: you are choosing. And
it seems that historically, people have understood that at an instinctive
level, because they don't like to be pushed around by other people's
choices. Many witches chose to practice the ways of Wikken in secret, and
upon occasion to be burned when caught. Many people fought bloody wars to
repel encroaching invaders and preserve their cultural identity, even
though they often lost. And Desiderius Erasmus did, indeed, insult. For
an interesting perspective on the historical consequences of his satire,
check out http://www.erasmatazz.com/Erasmus.html.
> But we all know that the scum rises to the top.
True when it goes unchallenged. And opposing scum is a tough choice. It's
not even necessarily the right choice, if you value your life and property.
Sometimes secrecy is the right choice. Sometimes fleeing. But these are
still choices, and people have been making them for generations. It is
primarily the Church and the State who have brainwashed the populace into
believing they have no choices. Nothing is new about the Post-Modernist
condition in this regard. Although in terms of human life and limb, the
stakes are somewhat lower (though someone in a ghetto might argue this.)
> Why not define spirituality
> anyway you want, as well as Existentialism? Why not call spirituality,
> i.e., the secure choice to fuck anybody you want and get away with it, a
> wonderful prophylactic and escape? A smart and free choice.
I think if you look at the radical religions of the world, you see exactly
that. What is your point? We are not living in Eden. Yet the world
persists in spite of that fact, it does not completely fall apart. Human
beings are tougher than that, as a species they do not require a kind,
gentle world to make all the choices for them. They make their own choices
and often survive. Not always, but often.
> Well, I guess the answer is because we don't feel it would be moral,
> sort of a belief thing, no real reason. A sort of global dumbing-down,
> what I called "brain dead"could happen to change such feelings. And,
> you see, this all depends on what images go into our heads.
And you think such dumbness has not already occurred in all previous ages?
That no images were previously delivered unto our annointed heads? Sheer
self-importance and self-historicization, to believe that one is
encountering a genuinely new human condition.
Cheers,
Brandon J. Van Every <vanevery@blarg.net> DEC Commodity Graphics
http://www.blarg.net/~vanevery Windows NT Alpha OpenGL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anvil upon which you hammer another's words is as hard or as soft
as you care to make it. Wherein lies insight?
-------------------------------------------------------------
a forum on spatial articulations, perspectives, and procedures
texts are the property of individual authors
for information, email majordomo@forum.documenta.de with
the following line in the message body: info blast
archive at http://www.documenta.de/english/blasta.htm
or http://www.documenta.de/deutsch/blasta.htm
documenta X Kassel and http://www.documenta.de 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------