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

Re: It's never been done before (I wager)

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Louise, thank you very much. Reading this, as well as your accompanying offerings, assures me that philosophy in the public domain is now finally beginning to
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Louise, thank you very much. Reading this, as well as your accompanying offerings, assures me that philosophy in the public domain is now finally beginning to address our most basic necessities for living. I ditto Wil's ditto; we don't belong to ourselves. Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "shadowed_statue" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > Your beautifully-crafted post has led my imagination into a realm where philosophy is fully capable of taking on, and taking up, the nature of the species. Our intelligence as resourceful bipeds is both deficient and superlative, and the net consequence is pollution, in the ancient and modern senses. Philosophy is helpless against blood, against moral pollution, but the very idea of juxtaposing refinement with crudity, of tackling physicality at its stinkiest with narrative, metaphor and reason, leads to a project one could simply name, "Existentialism and Shit". Now there's a title might empty a lecture theatre. If we could solve the problems of our most basic penchant for harm, the not wanting to see, not wanting to know, let it all happen somewhere else, to somebody else, some other time, and find words to describe what does occur, then the channels of desire can flow free. I am not being fanciful, let alone ironical or comical, and at the same time I do not fully understand what I am saying, but would defend it against criticism all the same, unless the critic provided a better enlightenment.
      >
      > So, what are these channels of desire? Not, primarily, the desire for change, but the desire to be aware. The desire for change is natural to us, and its artificial stimulation is harmful to the species, likewise the counter-stimulations which seek to disguise and deflect awareness. It would be good for me to take a step away from verbal abstraction, hence to take up some such theme as "Existentialism and Trees". I do not think I would approach from the direction of rights and responsibilities, but from direct description. Neither shit nor trees have awareness. We are what we are, and it is rare. I mean, looking at it from the viewpoint of species. There are 350,000 known species of beetle, and their awareness, though a wondrous thing, to my sensing, does not touch at all on existential dilemma. We need those beetles, the trees, the multifarious plankton, all of it, and to regard these phenomena as the 'environment' seems faintly ludicrous - we gotta use words, as ever, and yet, must they part us, so resolutely, from that which we describe?
      >
      > Louise
      >
      > ... who wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the August 2010 issue of 'Birds', magazine of the RSPB [Royal Society for the Protection of Birds], and in particular to the article by Simon Barnes, on biodiversity, drawing attention as it does to the language of our engagements with one another, concerning nature under stress. An inspiration. He quotes Gerald Durrell: "People think I'm trying to save fluffy animals. But I'm trying to stop the human race committing suicide."
      >
      > I am not attempting any such similar project, myself. I am trying to be aware, and to write. One might hope this attempt complementary, at least, to all useful projects to preserve the race. If we stopped interfering, the planet could look after itself. Hmm, what does that actually mean? Some thinking required, of the kind that could swim in the lake, no harm.
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.