Chekhov presents the interesting idea of how important is one's name and how do we determine what we want to do with the person by their name. If Chekhov didn't put his name on the story how many of us will read it. If Camus puts his name on a story by Jean Genet, does this increase readership. In this sense, he's questioning the ritual in everyday life. The man escapes from his employer, and he escapes from prison and now he feels if he escapes from the law he can make it in Siberia of Russia. It appears every time he searches for freedom he faces a new set of restrictions on his freedom. In each of the three situations his beliefs change, and it's not he's accepting each situation or belief and yet it's one his body of flesh and blood is in a movement, a touching, and a breathing in his existence in the its there-alone. His future potential, projecting, possibilities appear not to expand and yet he keeps walking towards always and not yet his future in time. The man appears to exist to walk to his death in a masochist fashion. He is expressing a freedom to this choice instead of a choice of sadism of serving the sexual interests of the other two men, or those in prison, or those of his employer. This is in Sartre terms is one of choice or freedom and not resignation, resentment, or revenge in the idea of acceptance. Getting to the service of the sexual interests of Chekhov is very difficult.
Of course we don't own the information if the man did frame his mother to get rid of his masochistic life, and become a true sadist. One of his goals of freedom must be to get rid of the mother and the father at one time. The solution of course is the court system does sentence him to prison and he might not expect this in his potential, projecting possibility his actions in the situation. Chekhov isn't nice and clear here. Chekhov is a very sadistic writer and I assume his sexual life is the same. In the killing of both the mother and the father, he creates a nice problem for Freud and his totem and taboo's of sexuality and even now gives good old Margaret Mead a run for her money in anthropology. The man does escape prison and I assume from this he owns a high choice in sadism and not in masochism as he strives for this new freedom as a choice. From this it's easy to assume he will kill the two men he's with and eat them in a cannibal style of choice. He can't leave witnesses now he's confessing to his past. He's already setting up the two. He's a tired old man and will need to rest in the future. The next time they sleep, he will sleep and he will kill them in their sleep. They are so far from civilization here he will at last be free. Either this or they will make Russian tea and he will poison them. He needs their clothes even if they don't fit.
The man here's creating his existence in the situation as he tells the story of his experience in fishing. He's setting up the two men to examine their own freedom and choose the freedom he's offering them and their own death at his hands. They as masochists are more eager to lead him to freedom in order for him as a sadist to lead to their deaths. The two men know they can't live in Siberia and they can't catch fish and they can only lead out their lives by allowing him to live and for them to die. This is the ultimate in Freud's Oedipus complex of not only killing both parents, but also killing the friends who help. This isn't word game of acceptance and belief and it's just dealing with your own potential, projecting possibilities as they occur in the situation of the in its there-alone. This isn't a mental state. This is flesh and blood. There's no relation in, of, for, up, down, or between the mental state of cognition and representations as there are no representations. None of thee three men owns an interest in what ever is true. There's only the physical movement of the walking, the touching, the breathing.
There's always doubt and the two men now want to accept the story of the third man as right now he's making their own existence tolerable. They are of course in bad faith as he intends to kill them as he did to his mother and father. What does he have to loose. The man owns no inner state. He's always and not yet the in its there-alone. In his movement of body, he touches, he breathes, and we say he's performing. He needs no witnesses and he will now kill them soon. These two can own all of the belief they want and they still are going to die. They refuse to accept he needs their bodies for food until he can get to the fishing streams. Each sees the other owns them an obligation to keep the other alive. The problem is out here the totems and taboos of civilization are no longer in effect, if they ever were in effect. A new ritual now starts and it's the eating of one's friends. The men to him are no more than fishes if you want a representation.
If I live with the reality of freedom of choice and my potential, projecting possibilities in the existentialist view, I don't need to consider the possibility of faith, belief, and acceptance and this is the point of view of Sartre and Chekhov.
Copyright January 04, 2003 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@...
page 1 of 1
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]