"it's not that i couldn't find a partner. sure, there are people around.
but i just don't want to have another relationship. i want something else.
i want someone who stays with me forever. someone who supports me. someone who is like me.
someone who understands my emotions. someone who understands my thoughts. someone who understands me.
someone who understands my dreams. someone who believes in me. who follows me. someone who gives me strength and encourages me. who has similiar ideas to mine. someone who has similiar goals in life. someone who likes similiar things.
i know, maybe this is too much too ask for. but this is what i want. this is what i yearn for."
"these are indeed high goals and aims. but you poor being spent time and energy searching for a person like this, when you've already found this person and would've noticed had you taken a closer look."
"i already found and know this person? who is it?"
"you are it yourself".
"i am it? how can this be possible?"
"just think about it. you are the one who will always stay with you. you understand your dreams and you believe in your dreams. you follow your goals and you like the things you do. you can give yourself strength and support. you are like you are. you can understand yourself. you can understand your emotions. you can understand your thoughts.
you are the one you were searching for all this time. love yourself."
Artistic Intentions
to most part, there has always been a very basic idea behind all my artistic efforts and activities.
an idea i for a long time now believe to be true (with some periods of doubts now and then), and that many people i met in my life told me would be useless, impossible or even dangerous.
that idea is: you can do what you want.
let me explain how this could relate to art.
when creating art or music, one often has very clear concepts inside one's mind of what one does want to achieve.
yet when presenting the art to other people, there is a very common reaction: "yes, this is already very nice, but if you would change this or that, you could be really succesful with your art". now it's of course nice if art still can be improved. but usually, this advice runs against the concepts that one has set oneself.
the idea here is: you can't follow your own concepts, you have to adapt to those that are already around.
but this is wrong. you can follow your own ideas.
now we live in a world, where in music, for example, there are almost hundreds of different scenes, subcultures, with even further subgenres and so on. when one does art, people always give one the good advice that one should soften up one's standarts a bit and try to appeal to one of these categories. they say that if one does not do that - basically, at least to conform in some way - one will not get any recognition for one's art, one will not get many supporters. but, as i said, this is completely wrong. the point is:
to not cater to *any* scene or subculture, as niche as it might be. to completely do only the art that one does want to do.
(of course there are also artists who are dedicated to one scene, and create art that fits to that scene, and this is okay too. but this was not the way i wanted to go.).
it is possible to gain recognition and reach a larger audience, even if you only do not more and not less than exactly what you want to, in music and art.
as i said, i believed this idea to be true; and through my activities i found proof that it is true.
of course, the added point here is that this is not only true for art, but also for the rest of society, and the rest of the world.
it is possible. you can do what you want and be succesful with that.
an idea i for a long time now believe to be true (with some periods of doubts now and then), and that many people i met in my life told me would be useless, impossible or even dangerous.
that idea is: you can do what you want.
let me explain how this could relate to art.
when creating art or music, one often has very clear concepts inside one's mind of what one does want to achieve.
yet when presenting the art to other people, there is a very common reaction: "yes, this is already very nice, but if you would change this or that, you could be really succesful with your art". now it's of course nice if art still can be improved. but usually, this advice runs against the concepts that one has set oneself.
the idea here is: you can't follow your own concepts, you have to adapt to those that are already around.
but this is wrong. you can follow your own ideas.
now we live in a world, where in music, for example, there are almost hundreds of different scenes, subcultures, with even further subgenres and so on. when one does art, people always give one the good advice that one should soften up one's standarts a bit and try to appeal to one of these categories. they say that if one does not do that - basically, at least to conform in some way - one will not get any recognition for one's art, one will not get many supporters. but, as i said, this is completely wrong. the point is:
to not cater to *any* scene or subculture, as niche as it might be. to completely do only the art that one does want to do.
(of course there are also artists who are dedicated to one scene, and create art that fits to that scene, and this is okay too. but this was not the way i wanted to go.).
it is possible to gain recognition and reach a larger audience, even if you only do not more and not less than exactly what you want to, in music and art.
as i said, i believed this idea to be true; and through my activities i found proof that it is true.
of course, the added point here is that this is not only true for art, but also for the rest of society, and the rest of the world.
it is possible. you can do what you want and be succesful with that.
The Artist
there has been a change in the way artistic genius is been portrayed and explained.
in the past, a brilliant artist was seen as something unreachable, indescribable, who was pretty much above everything.
nowadays it is seen quite different, basically the complete other way round.
if you read some of the newer biographies of bands or artists, it always starts with that there are musical or artistic movements around that were the beginning point, or "spark", of their music. then, or before, usually some social and political events or struggles that were important at that time are added that provide a second part of the framework that they think created the art of the specific band or person.
on a side note, they always manage to center it somewhat all around mainstream music or art each time.
was it an industrial musician? well, "he had one of the more peculiar mainstream bands that had a major influence on him". industrial music gets put in the context of mainstream music in another way too: was it a mainstream musician? "he also incorporated methods of industrial music in his art", and so on. this way, the mainstream always gets a special spot and seemingly no artist could totally break from it (which, in reality, is something that is of course very much possible).
now let's get back to the point. which is that artistic genius works in a complete different way.
artists, when they're good, *break free* from social rules and structures, from existing artistic movement.
they rise to the top. they and their art cannot be sufficiently defined by the movements and their restrictions.
they rise above them. with their art they are outside the common social, political and artistic concepts.
now in the past this was widely known, or at least people were much more aware of it then today.
noone would've defined the classic composers, or authors, as being mere parts of a certain artistic movement, as being a mere representation of social or cultural struggles.
as i said, they were seen as having created something unreachable, and their genius as being indescribable.
similiar, it is highly annoying that artists are placed in a certain time or era. "these type of sonic experimentation by the band is a typical example of the 60s", and such.
an artistic genius, or a genius band, basically never fits to the time they are or were in.
their art is ahead of their time, timeless.
the political and social change and uprisings in the 60s did not bring forth the major rebel artists, authors, activist of that era; *they* did bring forth the social and political movements. they did create the change. without them, the 60s might have been just another boring decade without much going on.
surely, influences from all directions might be an important aspect of art. but it is just that, an aspect.
the artistic genius is above these things.
in the past, a brilliant artist was seen as something unreachable, indescribable, who was pretty much above everything.
nowadays it is seen quite different, basically the complete other way round.
if you read some of the newer biographies of bands or artists, it always starts with that there are musical or artistic movements around that were the beginning point, or "spark", of their music. then, or before, usually some social and political events or struggles that were important at that time are added that provide a second part of the framework that they think created the art of the specific band or person.
on a side note, they always manage to center it somewhat all around mainstream music or art each time.
was it an industrial musician? well, "he had one of the more peculiar mainstream bands that had a major influence on him". industrial music gets put in the context of mainstream music in another way too: was it a mainstream musician? "he also incorporated methods of industrial music in his art", and so on. this way, the mainstream always gets a special spot and seemingly no artist could totally break from it (which, in reality, is something that is of course very much possible).
now let's get back to the point. which is that artistic genius works in a complete different way.
artists, when they're good, *break free* from social rules and structures, from existing artistic movement.
they rise to the top. they and their art cannot be sufficiently defined by the movements and their restrictions.
they rise above them. with their art they are outside the common social, political and artistic concepts.
now in the past this was widely known, or at least people were much more aware of it then today.
noone would've defined the classic composers, or authors, as being mere parts of a certain artistic movement, as being a mere representation of social or cultural struggles.
as i said, they were seen as having created something unreachable, and their genius as being indescribable.
similiar, it is highly annoying that artists are placed in a certain time or era. "these type of sonic experimentation by the band is a typical example of the 60s", and such.
an artistic genius, or a genius band, basically never fits to the time they are or were in.
their art is ahead of their time, timeless.
the political and social change and uprisings in the 60s did not bring forth the major rebel artists, authors, activist of that era; *they* did bring forth the social and political movements. they did create the change. without them, the 60s might have been just another boring decade without much going on.
surely, influences from all directions might be an important aspect of art. but it is just that, an aspect.
the artistic genius is above these things.
On Beauty
we live in a society in which beauty plays a major part. a beautiful person will always have it so much easier than someone who is not. an ugly person might even end up as an outcast. being beautiful brings plenty of advantages in almost any area of society with it, while being not can bring quite a lot obstacles and problems.
i think it should be obvious that this *power* that is giving to the concept of beauty in society should be largely criticised.
but what is beauty exactly?
beauty is an ideal. in my opininion, any ideal generally is something that is dangerous and should be rejected, the same goes for beauty. but let us see what exactly this ideal of beauty is.
beauty is the idea to subjugate the human body to a certain set of philosophies, concepts, thought.
to hide the direct physicality of the body and instead turn it into a representation of abstract ideas.
the human body is part of nature. it is feral. the mind has no direct control of the body, not in the way we have control about our acts and other things.
your hair grows wild and your facial features are like nature want them to be, not like you intend them to be.
and the body is physical.
and this is why people hate the body. instead they want to submit it to ideas, as mentioned above.
this is why there is so much focus on symmetry when it comes to the beauty of body and face, and the quest for similiar - maybe one could call it "geometric" - qualities (a study i seen once concluded that most people find those faces of men and women the most beautiful that look somewhat *geometrically* pure).
because these are abstract concepts and the body has to submit to them.
similiar, the ideas the body is subjected to are those that are generally held high in the specific society.
in our society, blond hair is - at least to an extend - attributed with purity, a certain type of boldness, being correct, etc. (at least in fiction - in older fiction also things such as bravery are attributed).
since these are also the ideals of our society, blond hair is thus seen as beautiful.
let me further explain this concept. if you would just let your body be like it is and never do anything to control it, let your hair grow, as a woman not use make up (and keep your physical face as it is), and so on, then you'd probably be considered to be ugly by others. if you did nothing to interfere and change it, your looks wouldn't get much approval by others.
or think about piercings, tattoos. some tattoos almost look like scars. yet they are seen beautiful by a lot of people(even if maybe not by the majority - also don't get me wrong, i love tattoos too), while an actual scar would not, even if it looked the same way.
if you'd delibaretedly get a tattoo in the design of a scar, still people would not be as repulsed as by a real scar, and this could actually become a fashion (or maybe already was) in some circles.
because this is then something intentional, that comes from the mind, while the latter would be something comes from your body.
there is so much hostility against the body in the concept of beauty.
now in our society it's necessary to keep a certain standard of beauty in order to not run into many problems (athough an all-out natural body revolution sounds like a nice concept too that maybe could be put into practice). yet be aware that the ideal of beauty is useless and without meaning, and try to be free of it at least for yourself.
it is the actual, physical body - as imperfect and ugly it might be - that is amazing.
i think it should be obvious that this *power* that is giving to the concept of beauty in society should be largely criticised.
but what is beauty exactly?
beauty is an ideal. in my opininion, any ideal generally is something that is dangerous and should be rejected, the same goes for beauty. but let us see what exactly this ideal of beauty is.
beauty is the idea to subjugate the human body to a certain set of philosophies, concepts, thought.
to hide the direct physicality of the body and instead turn it into a representation of abstract ideas.
the human body is part of nature. it is feral. the mind has no direct control of the body, not in the way we have control about our acts and other things.
your hair grows wild and your facial features are like nature want them to be, not like you intend them to be.
and the body is physical.
and this is why people hate the body. instead they want to submit it to ideas, as mentioned above.
this is why there is so much focus on symmetry when it comes to the beauty of body and face, and the quest for similiar - maybe one could call it "geometric" - qualities (a study i seen once concluded that most people find those faces of men and women the most beautiful that look somewhat *geometrically* pure).
because these are abstract concepts and the body has to submit to them.
similiar, the ideas the body is subjected to are those that are generally held high in the specific society.
in our society, blond hair is - at least to an extend - attributed with purity, a certain type of boldness, being correct, etc. (at least in fiction - in older fiction also things such as bravery are attributed).
since these are also the ideals of our society, blond hair is thus seen as beautiful.
let me further explain this concept. if you would just let your body be like it is and never do anything to control it, let your hair grow, as a woman not use make up (and keep your physical face as it is), and so on, then you'd probably be considered to be ugly by others. if you did nothing to interfere and change it, your looks wouldn't get much approval by others.
or think about piercings, tattoos. some tattoos almost look like scars. yet they are seen beautiful by a lot of people(even if maybe not by the majority - also don't get me wrong, i love tattoos too), while an actual scar would not, even if it looked the same way.
if you'd delibaretedly get a tattoo in the design of a scar, still people would not be as repulsed as by a real scar, and this could actually become a fashion (or maybe already was) in some circles.
because this is then something intentional, that comes from the mind, while the latter would be something comes from your body.
there is so much hostility against the body in the concept of beauty.
now in our society it's necessary to keep a certain standard of beauty in order to not run into many problems (athough an all-out natural body revolution sounds like a nice concept too that maybe could be put into practice). yet be aware that the ideal of beauty is useless and without meaning, and try to be free of it at least for yourself.
it is the actual, physical body - as imperfect and ugly it might be - that is amazing.
Two Ways
at an early age i realized that there are basically two approaches one can have towards things such as life and the world. one of understanding, listening, being willing to learn, accepting, being able to stand back too, liberating, not trying to force oneself onto things, compassion, passion, tolerating, being able to give and not only take too...
and the second way being of oppression, trying to aggressively bend things one's own way, destruction, restricting, imprisoning, taking but giving nothing, cheating and stealing.
now these are general terms and might not give the complete picture.
after all there is justified aggression too, for example when fighting injustice.
also when others only take from you and do not give, it might be correct to stop giving too.
and aswell the above might sound very hippiesque, which might be wrong too (or isn't it?).
so let me explain a bit better what i mean with these two ways.
an artist might try to create an artwork. yet he has run out of ideas, doesn't feel very creative that day.
if it doesn't work the way he wants, it might be better he stops this attempt for now, and tries it again next day, and he might create a great work of art.
or he might be a painter who is in the middle of painting a picture he finds stunningly beautiful. now in the middle of this act, he runs out of red paint and has no easy way to replace it for a reason.
now in the first way, he could try to finish the picture without using red anymore - and could create something excellent again.
way number two, on the other hand, could mean that he freaks out and doesn't get any farther with his painting, or he goes out of his way to obtain the red paint, and then ends up being so frustrated that his work doesn't amount to anything good either.
now it's very obvious that most people, and most of the world, follows the second way and not the first.
for example, problems with other nations are often tried to be solved by force or war, or restrictions, instead of finding a solution based on listening to each other, and on equality and tolerance.
similiar, when there is a problem within society, the voice of those who call for forceful action are often the loudest, again not applying tolerance, resilience and patience.
now in social interaction, a lot of people act the same. they want to be better than others, have more power, have power over others, be dominating. instead of doing the opposite.
and when dealing, coping with, and trying to understand the world and life too, people try to follow the way of aggression and destruction instead of the other.
think for yourself: which path is the better way?
do you come as an invader or do you come as a friend?
a question that remains, though, is wether it could be necessary to use the second way too, in order to get ahead.
and the second way being of oppression, trying to aggressively bend things one's own way, destruction, restricting, imprisoning, taking but giving nothing, cheating and stealing.
now these are general terms and might not give the complete picture.
after all there is justified aggression too, for example when fighting injustice.
also when others only take from you and do not give, it might be correct to stop giving too.
and aswell the above might sound very hippiesque, which might be wrong too (or isn't it?).
so let me explain a bit better what i mean with these two ways.
an artist might try to create an artwork. yet he has run out of ideas, doesn't feel very creative that day.
if it doesn't work the way he wants, it might be better he stops this attempt for now, and tries it again next day, and he might create a great work of art.
or he might be a painter who is in the middle of painting a picture he finds stunningly beautiful. now in the middle of this act, he runs out of red paint and has no easy way to replace it for a reason.
now in the first way, he could try to finish the picture without using red anymore - and could create something excellent again.
way number two, on the other hand, could mean that he freaks out and doesn't get any farther with his painting, or he goes out of his way to obtain the red paint, and then ends up being so frustrated that his work doesn't amount to anything good either.
now it's very obvious that most people, and most of the world, follows the second way and not the first.
for example, problems with other nations are often tried to be solved by force or war, or restrictions, instead of finding a solution based on listening to each other, and on equality and tolerance.
similiar, when there is a problem within society, the voice of those who call for forceful action are often the loudest, again not applying tolerance, resilience and patience.
now in social interaction, a lot of people act the same. they want to be better than others, have more power, have power over others, be dominating. instead of doing the opposite.
and when dealing, coping with, and trying to understand the world and life too, people try to follow the way of aggression and destruction instead of the other.
think for yourself: which path is the better way?
do you come as an invader or do you come as a friend?
a question that remains, though, is wether it could be necessary to use the second way too, in order to get ahead.
Outsider Amongst Outsiders - Some Thoughts On Aspects Of "Involution Ocean" By Bruce Sterling
one of the things that influenced my art and my "philosophy" a lot is a love story in the novel "involution ocean" by bruce sterling. it is a thing that fascinated me and i often got back to thinking about it.
it is many years since i actually read this book, so maybe i don't even got it right and maybe memorized the story in a wrong way. the way i remember it, the love is between a man who travels to a different planet to search for a certain substance and joins the crew of a ship which sails on a desert ocean to attain this substance. on this ship he meets an alien women and they fall in love with each other. still fairly normal for a science fiction novel. the interesting thing is the background story of the woman. she lived on a planet that was invaded or discovered by the main inhabitants of that part of the universe (the humans, if i remember correctly). but she was an outcast, outsider amongst the population of this planet. when the other aliens attacked the crew that landed on the planet, they died because they got into contact with human blood, which is poisonous for them. the twist here is now, that while the people who landed on the planet (more crews came after the first one, if i recall correctly) were seen as invaders that might bring their downfall and need to be attacked by the aliens, for the woman they were almost saviors, since they were a way to become free of the oppression of the other aliens.
as i said, i m not sure this is the correct story, but to me it does not matter much, because like this the story is in the way that matters to me - if it were different, it might be much less important.
i am not clear why the story fascinates me so much, but over time i developed some theories about it.
first, what should be obvious is that this is a commentary on the colonization of america. the slaughtering of the native americans was one of the biggest crimes ever commited against mankind, and this it is very clear to me. yet without justifying this, sterling points out (if this interpretation is right) that before the invaders that we now call "americans" came, and murdered and oppressed the native americans, the native americans already had murdered and suppressed others too, that were deemed outsiders by them (and likewise, in the future 100 or 200 years or whenever, a people could come and murder and oppress the americans in a similiar way). this is an interesting, but also twisted point of view that bruce sterling (possibly) raises here.
but i don't think this is the main fascination. what this story presents, is something i call "an outsider amongst outsiders". as we know, in the society we live in, the western civilization, those who are more creative, passionate, thoughtful or emotional - maybe one could say more "noble" - are pushed to the fringes of society where they usually have to live the life of underdogs. what sterling shows here is the idea, that even amongst that fringe, amongst the outcasts and alienated, there could be people, that are so far away from the masses and the standard, that even amongst the outcasts they are outcasts again, rejected by these people and groups.
it's obvious that these people could then be much more brilliant, excelling, genius then all the others. maybe reaching a point that is high above the rest, something that is not describale or at least not easily describable.
there are some more thoughts i have had on this, maybe i will write them down in the future.
it is many years since i actually read this book, so maybe i don't even got it right and maybe memorized the story in a wrong way. the way i remember it, the love is between a man who travels to a different planet to search for a certain substance and joins the crew of a ship which sails on a desert ocean to attain this substance. on this ship he meets an alien women and they fall in love with each other. still fairly normal for a science fiction novel. the interesting thing is the background story of the woman. she lived on a planet that was invaded or discovered by the main inhabitants of that part of the universe (the humans, if i remember correctly). but she was an outcast, outsider amongst the population of this planet. when the other aliens attacked the crew that landed on the planet, they died because they got into contact with human blood, which is poisonous for them. the twist here is now, that while the people who landed on the planet (more crews came after the first one, if i recall correctly) were seen as invaders that might bring their downfall and need to be attacked by the aliens, for the woman they were almost saviors, since they were a way to become free of the oppression of the other aliens.
as i said, i m not sure this is the correct story, but to me it does not matter much, because like this the story is in the way that matters to me - if it were different, it might be much less important.
i am not clear why the story fascinates me so much, but over time i developed some theories about it.
first, what should be obvious is that this is a commentary on the colonization of america. the slaughtering of the native americans was one of the biggest crimes ever commited against mankind, and this it is very clear to me. yet without justifying this, sterling points out (if this interpretation is right) that before the invaders that we now call "americans" came, and murdered and oppressed the native americans, the native americans already had murdered and suppressed others too, that were deemed outsiders by them (and likewise, in the future 100 or 200 years or whenever, a people could come and murder and oppress the americans in a similiar way). this is an interesting, but also twisted point of view that bruce sterling (possibly) raises here.
but i don't think this is the main fascination. what this story presents, is something i call "an outsider amongst outsiders". as we know, in the society we live in, the western civilization, those who are more creative, passionate, thoughtful or emotional - maybe one could say more "noble" - are pushed to the fringes of society where they usually have to live the life of underdogs. what sterling shows here is the idea, that even amongst that fringe, amongst the outcasts and alienated, there could be people, that are so far away from the masses and the standard, that even amongst the outcasts they are outcasts again, rejected by these people and groups.
it's obvious that these people could then be much more brilliant, excelling, genius then all the others. maybe reaching a point that is high above the rest, something that is not describale or at least not easily describable.
there are some more thoughts i have had on this, maybe i will write them down in the future.
Small Joys Or Higher Pleasures
the chorus of wise men (authors/philsophers/poets) that told people to ignore the pettiness of common life and the small things attached it, and to strive for something bigger, something better, something higher, has silenced, or rather, is no longer listened to. and rightfully so. the idea to reach for a higher goal, higher aim often just let people to look for something unattainable, impossible, a "dream", while forgetting about the joys and possibilites they have in the here and now, in their normal life. aiming for an ideal while forgetting about the real world, real life.
yet this is not the full answer. the pettiness of normal life IS restricting. things that are bigger, sweeter, higher than what is in the now are gainable. more joy, more pleasure - something different.
so which advice should one give, which advice is the correct one? well, the most important thing is that it is your choice. go for higher pleasures, or choose the smaller ones.
yet be aware that to be contend with small joys can be a trap, because one can get higher pleasures and joys too.
but the task of acquring higher pleasures could be a trap too because you could overlook the joys available to you and their lack might make you suffer.
so don't starve yourself of the small joys when higher ones are not within reach yet; but also do not forgot to strive and yearn for higher ones. but only if you want. because, after all, it is your choice.
but also do not forget: higher pleasures are attainable.
yet this is not the full answer. the pettiness of normal life IS restricting. things that are bigger, sweeter, higher than what is in the now are gainable. more joy, more pleasure - something different.
so which advice should one give, which advice is the correct one? well, the most important thing is that it is your choice. go for higher pleasures, or choose the smaller ones.
yet be aware that to be contend with small joys can be a trap, because one can get higher pleasures and joys too.
but the task of acquring higher pleasures could be a trap too because you could overlook the joys available to you and their lack might make you suffer.
so don't starve yourself of the small joys when higher ones are not within reach yet; but also do not forgot to strive and yearn for higher ones. but only if you want. because, after all, it is your choice.
but also do not forget: higher pleasures are attainable.
Morality And Ethics
Morality And Ethics
i reject any and every from of morality and ethics. now some might ask, we need morality, to prevent people from harming each other, to make people care for each other. but that's beside the point. morality and ethics are an abstract, artificial, imposed set of values on humans. and people should treat each other good and care for each other, not because a set of societal values, but because of them themselves, out of compassion, because they want to. would you want to live in a community where the only reason others do not harm you is because a set of moral rules forbids that? isn't it preferable if they don't harm you because they would not want to do that?
this is the problem of morality. compassion, treating others good, with respect, and helping each other, can be useful or good things, depending on the circumstances. but this is not morality, it differs from it. as i said, morality is abstract, detached. it's a set of rules which society usually doesn't allow to be questioned, which *have* to be followed. just look at the morality of the past; in ancient times, it was moral to cut thieves' hands off; in other times, it was moral to sentence the person to death who dared to speak against the king. we think in horror of such things; yet in the future decades, for the people who live then, a lot of the morals that we live under now might appear just as terrible.
so what about the persons who kill or hurt others? don't we need ethics and morality to keep them in check? well this could be subject of a agreement on societal rules that try to protect others from these things. still such a set of "rules", if they could be called so, are still not morals or ethics. morality and ethics always are deemed to be something *higher*. they are (at least to an extend) unquestionable and uncriticisable. one is forced to follow morals, it's not an "agreement" that one could simply quit.
but there is also something else, something more important. morality keeps the single indivual down.
if someone is getting treated bad, treated unfair, should he not treat others in this way too? yet morality would say that one should be nice and well to others, even in the face of injustice and unfairness. how could this be correct? yet this is the core of most moral and ethical teachings. accept everything. let society, the people, the ones above you, treat you bad. but don't get angry, don't resist, don't disagree (or if you do - do it in silence for yourself, don't voice it, don't act according to it).
you can find this "logic" in almost any moral teaching. but is it right? think for yourself.
a post scriptum note: as i said, there are more complicated issues, as when it comes to real violence and such, which might be a whole different matter and and could be beyond the scope of this text. this text is about the more "commonplace", "general" problems of morality.
i reject any and every from of morality and ethics. now some might ask, we need morality, to prevent people from harming each other, to make people care for each other. but that's beside the point. morality and ethics are an abstract, artificial, imposed set of values on humans. and people should treat each other good and care for each other, not because a set of societal values, but because of them themselves, out of compassion, because they want to. would you want to live in a community where the only reason others do not harm you is because a set of moral rules forbids that? isn't it preferable if they don't harm you because they would not want to do that?
this is the problem of morality. compassion, treating others good, with respect, and helping each other, can be useful or good things, depending on the circumstances. but this is not morality, it differs from it. as i said, morality is abstract, detached. it's a set of rules which society usually doesn't allow to be questioned, which *have* to be followed. just look at the morality of the past; in ancient times, it was moral to cut thieves' hands off; in other times, it was moral to sentence the person to death who dared to speak against the king. we think in horror of such things; yet in the future decades, for the people who live then, a lot of the morals that we live under now might appear just as terrible.
so what about the persons who kill or hurt others? don't we need ethics and morality to keep them in check? well this could be subject of a agreement on societal rules that try to protect others from these things. still such a set of "rules", if they could be called so, are still not morals or ethics. morality and ethics always are deemed to be something *higher*. they are (at least to an extend) unquestionable and uncriticisable. one is forced to follow morals, it's not an "agreement" that one could simply quit.
but there is also something else, something more important. morality keeps the single indivual down.
if someone is getting treated bad, treated unfair, should he not treat others in this way too? yet morality would say that one should be nice and well to others, even in the face of injustice and unfairness. how could this be correct? yet this is the core of most moral and ethical teachings. accept everything. let society, the people, the ones above you, treat you bad. but don't get angry, don't resist, don't disagree (or if you do - do it in silence for yourself, don't voice it, don't act according to it).
you can find this "logic" in almost any moral teaching. but is it right? think for yourself.
a post scriptum note: as i said, there are more complicated issues, as when it comes to real violence and such, which might be a whole different matter and and could be beyond the scope of this text. this text is about the more "commonplace", "general" problems of morality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)