Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: CONCLUSION: RE: Wake the Town and Tell the People

Expand Messages
  • Lewis Vella
    ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 10, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > THE CONSTANT UN-PANGING OF CONSCIENCE IN
      > CIVILIZED MAN
      >
      >
      > Part Three:
      >
      > In the first part of this essay I mentioned that if
      > mankind is to survive
      > the present era, he must at once begin serving the
      > betterment of all
      > humanity and not just the privileged few. Evidently
      > so, then, it shall be
      > and always has been the free man, and not the
      > 'civilized' man, who follows
      > forth with these necessary steps for survival, that,
      > of course, brought
      > about by the free man's need for change.
      >
      > You may see now why, in returning to the 'civilized
      > man, it no longer
      > surprises me to see him do everything in his power
      > to negate not only any
      > new ideas, such as is manifested in a fresh artistic
      > presence, but also
      > every trace of creative consciousness that may
      > extend from such a presence,
      > for to do otherwise, that is, to allow such a
      > presence his fertile ground,
      > the 'civilized' man would be calling forth his own
      > destruction. But as much
      > as the'civilized' man tries his best to prevent the
      > free man from becoming,
      > so it is that the free man becomes relentless in his
      > pursuit of freedom. In
      > the end, however, the free man shall always defeat
      > the 'civilized' man, as
      > it is the free man who, in having already overcome
      > the 'civilized' man's
      > innate fears, becomes the epiphany or 'pangs' of
      > conscience which, as
      > destiny takes her course, advances not only the
      > human intellect but also
      > allows it to enter a clearer state of consciousness.
      > Furthermore, I would go
      > so far as to say that it is the free man as artist
      > who represents a supreme
      > yet ever-alterable essence, who, like the Indian god
      > Shiva, lives to destroy
      > the present, that is to say, lives to re-create
      > anew, with every sleight of
      > hand, God's indestructible presence.
      >
      > Nietzsche best exemplified for us this creative
      > force when he reiterated the
      > phrase "God is dead," meaning, I would say, that the
      > man-made god of the
      > masses who had partially succeeded in silencing the
      > true creative God from
      > within, would now have to be overcome by the free
      > Overman who must take it
      > upon himself to restore his fallen divine essence.
      > In Nietzsche's time as
      > well as in ours, 'civilization' enhances such a
      > godless fallen state by
      > substituting the artist for the artisan, the one who
      > produces by way of
      > technique, rather than creating through God-given
      > insight. 'Civilized' man
      > has since chosen the artisan over the true artist,
      > going so far as to call
      > this artisan an artist, while attempting to label
      > the true artist a fraud or
      > a charlatan, this the 'civilized' mad does because
      > he knows darn well that
      > the artisan cannot change the status quo, and as
      > such is no bit of a threat,
      > whereas the true artist is much more likely to cause
      > a stir. So it is that
      > today's 'artist' who is really none other than the
      > artisan of yesterday, is
      > now as much revered by 'civilization' as are its
      > dead philosophers. This is
      > the sanctioned way of the 'civilized', who, in
      > holding their real artists in
      > contempt, have constructed for themselves, as Sartre
      > also suggested, a
      > sphere of 'bad faith'. Such self-debasement is
      > encouraged not only to
      > restrict the free man's vitality, but also to
      > distort and combine any form
      > of originality with the hidden lies and hypocrisy
      > required to sustain a
      > bourgeois ascendancy above anything creative and
      > genuine. It is these very
      > same lies of 'civilized' man that usually justify
      > capital punishment and why
      > Schopenhauer noted that the longer such punishment
      > was deferred the less
      > significance it would have, implying, of course,
      > that yesterday's
      > 'civilized' man is no longer today's. This is
      > perhaps best depicted in the
      > crucifixion of Christ, where we see for ourselves an
      > execution conducted by
      > 'civilized' men who obviously felt such punishment
      > to be just, all of which,
      > by today's standards, a 'civilized' men would not
      > think twice in admitting
      > that such punitive action was completely unjust.
      >
      > As I have here attempted to demonstrate the
      > inescapable dialectic between
      > 'civilized' man and free man, you may now ask
      > yourselves how then would it
      > be possible to divide Sartre's (or any existential)
      > thought into two
      > congenial paths whereby the aforementioned conflict
      > can be alleviated. We
      > can do this, I would say, by degree, in the same
      > manner human conscience
      > evolves be degree through time. Now as this ML
      > appears to have a definitive
      > split in consciousness, that is, a frame of mind
      > divided by a dichotomy of
      > either Being 'for Other' or Being 'for Itself", I
      > would, as such, like to
      > propose a new year's resolution by suggesting that
      > the ML take on two
      > divergent paths, both of which future dialogue may,
      > according to its
      > character type, advance itself in a constructive and
      > healthy manner. I
      > suggest that one path concern itself more so with
      > the dynamics and scope of
      > Sartre's (and early-20th c. existentialist) thought,
      > while the opposing path
      > be concerned primarily with the content of Sartre's
      > (and early-20th-c)
      > philosophy. This is what I offer as a synthesis of
      > our divergent paths,
      > wherein each of the new sub-paths presented herein
      > shall not only offer the
      > respondents some new ground to forge ahead with, but
      > also allow its
      > respondents the freedom to create a fresh thesis and
      > antithesis to the new
      > challenges presented therein.
      >
      > Copyright: 2002 Lewis Vella


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
      http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.