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

inconsistency?

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    What do you, the human being, possess that is more individual than your body? Your ideas, your art, your literature, your imagination? Guess again. All of
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      What do you, the human being, possess that is more individual than
      your body? Your ideas, your art, your literature, your imagination?
      Guess again. All of these endeavors cannot come close to expressing
      the profound individuality of your body. All of these endeavors are
      social expressions toward resolution of conflict with other,
      statements riddled in the making with the compromise of individuality.
      You cannot conquer, seduce, or slaughter an individual to become more
      individual; and you cannot surrender to, be seduced by, or be
      slaughtered by an individual to become more individual. Outward
      expression is toward others, and in any form, including this one,
      makes you less individual. There are no identical bodies in a species,
      there are many identical views in a story. Fascism rides in on the
      coattails of conformity. The greater the number of people who agree
      about some elusive conception of ethical ideal within the story the
      more fascist the story inevitably becomes. When the enemy becomes
      faceless, you have crossed over into a fascist view. The
      "self"-empowerment attained at this point is the most addictive and
      delusory substance on earth. The mind, the emotion, the honor of a
      man, express away from individuality toward resolution with all
      confidence; because the dignity, the individuality of the body, is
      unthreatened at all times except when the life of the body is
      threatened. Intelligent people understand this unavoidable limitation
      in individuality and freedom: outward expression must be limited in
      order to avoid its disarticulation. Only small communities with a few
      families can positively and effectively think the same kind of story
      and avoid the toxicity of addictive empowerment. In greater numbers
      there is only the fascist view. The story is the most dangerous
      enterprise there is toward and of human existence. When ideas reach
      the meta-assimilative or species-wide effecting stage they can only be
      murderously "de-evolving". Humans instinctively know that it is
      "safer" for the human character to be oppressed. When, as the case in
      America is today and was in Nazi Germany, the MAJORITY clamors that
      it is oppressed; it is just a self-justifying reflection of this
      instinctive knowledge. Living can only safely be gray; convince a few,
      love a few, hate a few, kill a few. There is an event horizon for the
      human individual, an outward expression overload point. It is
      individual and not the same for everyone. Men need to grasp how to
      discover this personal limitation as a natural process of human
      maturity on an individual basis by some other means than expressing
      outward on an experimental experiential or existentially "other
      fellow" effecting basis. This, not synchronicity, is the proper
      purpose of literature and education. Existentially all one can do is
      bargain. Convincing degenerates to fascism. Making a deal tends to at
      least let both parties keep breathing. In the end, for each of us, our
      individual personal-life party can only go on if we strike some kind
      of bargain.

      I have returned to a little better humor in the last few days. Being
      on the receiving end of a large amount of unexpected criticism tends
      to do that to me. I have always had a rather inordinately twisted
      sense of the wry. Science is the ordinary (an innocent bystander),
      much like a pure existentialism (what seems to be); that can be in
      this sense, a body to hide your small story behind and defend yourself
      from the larger stronger fascist story. A shield body to absorb the
      bullets, while you fire back with effect to hold off your larger story
      armed fascist enemy. I am not intellectually lock-step with a single
      human being that I know of; and though I still think being so with a
      few would be OK, it occurs to me at this point; that for most modern
      literate people – inconsistency is far more preserving of
      individuality than reliability; and people who know what they think
      are just as difficult to bargain with as people who don't know what
      they think. Perhaps we should just accept: that we think what we know;
      and bargain with one another for the time to think a little more.

      Trinidad Cruz

      http://www.the-brights.net/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.