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

Freedom is the opiate of Being

Expand Messages
  • Richard Radandt
    How is it one decides to let religion make major decisions on how one leads one s life? The poor, the Being living in rural areas, the Being who s ignorant,
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      How is it one decides to let religion make major decisions on how one leads one's life? The poor, the Being living in rural areas, the Being who's ignorant, and the Being with little transportation and the Being without many possibilities and or means of communications look and see what's at hand. The rituals, the protocols, the totems, and the taboos change. Put the Being in different circumstances and the culture does offer new possibilities. Since I'm Being in the world, I do use what's at hand to get me through the day. The existential is I do focus in an authentic way. A good deal of this is primordial ground. Religion and culture do come out of the existence of the primordial ground. Out of the ground comes capitalism. Capitalism for some wants to exist and to flourish and it uses religion to maintain an authenticity.

      How does capitalism encourage the mass to use religion in order to survive? How does the mass in practice show manifestations of alienation, estrangement and the un authentic in this development of capitalism? How do the mass of Beings deal with the effects of science and technology in relation to their primordial ground in capitalism? How does capitalism and religion try to determine, or influence the decisions of people to give up their surplus value of labor power? How does the surplus value go to a very small percentage of the people? How does the surplus value result in a use to accumulate wealth and create poverty for the mass of Being? Lenin asks this question. Heidegger asks this question. Mao asks this question. Sartre asks this question. The authentic person asks this question. The person living in Being in the world in its there-alone in the primordial ground asks this question.

      The fact I go swimming for two hours or I watch football for two hours doesn't make me either primordial in ground or one living in the realm of the un authentic and in bad faith. The fact I work sixty hours a week as a physicist building the next bomb or I don't work at all doesn't make me either primordial in ground or one living in the realm of the un authentic in bad faith. I still own a focus as I'm in the in its there-alone of Being in the world. This might not be your focus. It might not be you're the in the its there-alone. It might be you aren't a Being in the world. I'm always and not yet driving as I live in the free choice of my own finite, appropriating, potential, projecting possibilities.

      Capitalism does enable the government, the religion, and the institutions to play some function in enabling the Being to produce wealth for the few and to consume in mass. The problem is my eyes are wide open and I'm aware of what I'm doing. I'm aware of what I'm having. I'm aware of how's my Being. That's I'm responsible and I'm free in making my choices. I'm in tune as authentic with the primordial ground and I do live in Being in the world. When I eat, sashimi with chop sticks in a suburban shopping center in the United States as a white boy and when I as a Japanese boy eat sashimi in Tokyo with my fingers in which case do I exist as authentic. Alternatively, is it a case when I'm neither Japanese, white, boy, non-eating, nor non-sashimi do I exist as authentic? My possibilities allow me to move in a thousand different ways and this is my freedom and my responsibility to live in this primordial ground of Being authentic in the world. Being isn't a value and Being isn't a priority. Being is the primordial use of my flesh and blood as body in the care and the concern of my existence inside the movement of life until death. I can't let the other define my Being as my doing and having as Sartre does. This indicates I don't own my Being as freedom. To do this renders me un authentic and in bad faith as I allow the other to determine my Being. To argue Being is first and doing and having are secondary is silly as it demonstrates only the emptiness and the nothingness of the world and one moves from serious philosophy into the abyss of the absurd and the nihilism. Being is movement and it's not motion. William James is wrong as usual. There's nothing sinister about having as I own my body in the in its there-alone and this having is my freedom of choice and my responsibility in Being in the world.

      Copyright November 05, 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page 1 of 1

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.