a cry towards the absurd

The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.Camus
mail list ° site map ° @  

  existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine
( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board

what I see..

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [(the cry) philosophy discussion board]

Posted by I/ on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 at 15:17:51 :

In Reply to: Re: zeitgeist posted by Spratley on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 at 12:14:59 :

..is that some time ago, 40, 50 or maybe more years ago, an individual, or a small group, could make a change. not a small change affecting his/their limited community, but an important change in the world, and the world view, that could move a great part of this world into a new direction (for better or worse).
now, things are parallized, between a couple of groups, with a puppet head as a public image, who could drive the world into despair or happiness within an eyeblink, but don't. they keep it the way it is, supporting some scientific areas that are needed for their interests, and keep the rest of the picture untouched.
It bores me to death, to see that individual action is a utopia nowadays, and that it takes a lot (not just some) of power to make a very small change, that will probably lead nowhere.
I don't think that a big change is going on, in the sense that many years from now, the world will be better.
What I see, is the replacement of man, for every possible task, and the necessary replacement of free will for commanded will, call it machines, robots, or men, it makes no difference. that doesn't mean I sit without doing nothing, but the more I do, the more I feel the impotence, and the big and medium powers that lie way beyond my thinking.

: : I see that you're trying to point me to what's going on politically. But, how blimp pointed out, that's all just external to me, and that is mainly because it's so strictly politically. What of what is going on could inspire someone, really? It's all just bleak bs, I feel.
: -------------------------------
: That is the zeitgeist I was trying to point out! Disenfranchisement coupled with a lack of a better alternative. I believe that we are in the process of making a fundamental change in the way we humans operate in the world. It may take a very long and gruadual time. It may not even happen --maybe the dominant view will win out for the next couple millenia. But for something like this to change, it first has to not work. Then people need to see that it doesn;t work. Then peopl need to abandon it. Then through their compensations after abandonment they find a new way to be. Right now I think people are on the verge of recognizing what about the way we live in the world does not work. Therefore the zeitgeist is dismissive in nature.
: ---------------------------------------------

: The war against terrorism ... religious desert crapheads against consumistic city crapheads, mostly american ones. I feel no sympathy for either side.
: ---------------------------------------------
: Right, that's because both sides operate under the same cultural principles, the same worldview, the same zeitgeist. Something in your own mind recognizes that this worldview is ridiculous, therefore you dislike both sides, thereby disliking the zeitgeist itself.
: ---------------------------------------------

: Globalisation ... some economic trend which doesn't bother me, too, except that I'm a critic of it. I don't like to see anything globalised in this capitalistic way, only the big corporate groups and companies profit from it, and those wealthy enough to afford stocks and shares.
: --------------------------------------------
: Exaclty. Globablization represents a cultural force which you disapprove of. That force is a honogenizing one --everyone the same-- and an exploitative one --growth at all costs. You see flaws with it, therefoer you disagree with it, therefore you don;t pay attention to it or invest attention in it. That is your zeitgeist --one of zeitgeist-less-ness.
: ---------------------------------------------

: Environmentalism ... that's a weak movement, except Genua (a scandal) it didn't have great influence. The politicians in most countries ignore it. If the whole process is still semi-democratic then it's gotten so that politics now supports the apathetic ones, or those that have big money. It seems to have gotten all out of our hands.
: -------------------------------------------
: Environmentalism is weak because at heart it represents a new worldview --a new way of being in hte world. Viewing and respecting nature as an entity with with the right to health and happiness is fundamentally different from the worldview that has reigned for thousands of years. Those who work and think within that dominant worldview beleive that anything that disagrees with their worldview is wrong --that is the Prime Operating Principle of that worldview. Therefore, environmentalism gets no respect. . . in the public forum at least. And the public forum is still of the format of the dominant worldivew.

: Am I making sense? What I'm trying to say is that environmentalism is the closest delegate we have to a new worldivew, a new way of living in the world. The migration from th current worldivew to the next can be measured by the acceptance environmentalism has in the public sphere.
: ---------------------------------------------

: : But I guess what's really disturbing me is the indifference of almost anyone. Also, there's almost nothing left what to cherish. No one who's worthy to be adored. There are no big artists left, all heroes like Jimi Hendrix or Jim Morrison are dead. No teachers like Sartre still live. The best politicians such like Gorbatchov are out of job.
: -------------------------------------------
: My explanation of this would be that the apathy is an encouraging symptom of people's defection from the dominant worldview. The more people that don't care about "what's going on" the closer we are to tearing "what's going on" down. Rebellion through non-participation. The thing about the heroes is, the way we would commonly recognize them is a product of this dominant worldview that is crashing. In the 60's, all the heroes people had were still working within the system. All the political rally-ers we working within the system, thius the system recognized them and publicized them. All the musicians worked within the system and so got recognized. There are heroes all around. They just don't show up in the newspapers because their heroism is counter to what the newspapers serve and represent.
: -------------------------------------------
: : I sometimes think it's just my country and try to read foreign newspapers to get out of it (I can't afford traveling right now, fucking money.). But from what I gather this apathy and indifference and nothingness is everywhere, even in france where I supposed to see at least a bit of action all the time. Even there there's stagnation, as the election proofed. I hate Chirac, what a pimp.
: ------------------------------------------
: My advice is that now that you have a state where peope lhave given up the dominant workdview, its time to forge a new one. Think about how it is right to live in the world. Develop that idea and put it into practice. Grow your own zeitgeist, eh?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Optional Link
Optional Image Link

thecry!!! existentialism