Before the night falls...
Thursday 18th of May 2006
Isn't it sad to place all your hopes is something you know will falter? Isn't it sad to wager your life on a result you cannot control? Isn't it sad to be unsure of how to act and live, and to waft through events without any understanding of them?
What's worse than finding out that what you feared losing was already lost? What's worse than loving so hard you're scared to lose, and to lose because you were scared? What's worse than making a choice, and then realising that your choice had no incidence?
When one thinks of freedom, one often forgets that before any social, political, cultural or civic freedom, there is a far greater freedom within each of us. This freedom is the one to choose how to wish to act. Perhaps we wouldn't be able to act as we wish, but at least we can choose how we wish. Of course, like all choice, the choices we make are biased. Biased by the choices of others, by our education, by our experience, and by our nature. Since none of us is the same as his neighbour, we cannot expect to decuce an absolute truth through introspection, for this truth would infact be not at all free, albeit biased in favour of our nature, our upbringing, and other elements. However, we can define for each and every one of us a code of conduct that limits this freedom to choose how we wish to act. "Every man's freedom stops where his neighbour's freedom starts". How appropriate to recognise that there is no reason more powerful to ligitimate rights than that of duties. How moral to demonstrate that there is no duty, as it is but another facet of freedom. And yet, we must wonder are we all constant? Do we not change our needs, do we not change our ways? Do we not change how we wish to act?
Were I to attempt half the things I do each day three centuries ago, then I would surely be outside my rights. Indeed, more than nature or experience, what will legitimate our rights is what our neighbours wish to recognise I have as rights. Were my neighbours robbers, then it would be legitimate to steal, for no member of our community would oppose to it, and as such, it would not be an infringement of one's rights. We should rather expose that it is through our enviroment that we determine what is moral, what is immoral, and what is neither. Today, it is perfectly moral to have sex before marriage. Only a century ago, was it such? No. And yet, the fact has not changed, the act has remained the same. Hence, it must be that there is a difference between the enviroment that existed a century ago, and the one that exists today. Then, we are in a position where we must question ourselves as to what changed the enviroment in such a manner? How come social, cultural and political norms are not prepetrated, as were upbringing the only denominator there should quickly come a point when change no longer exists? Could nature itself be our source of freedom?
Nature itself is not free, as it does not act knowlegeably on its surroundings. Of course, nature has order, nature has a reason, nature may have a spirit. But to claim that nature acts knowlegeably would presuppose that nature is conscious of its existance. The first act of knowlege is to recognise one's existance. When a young child will grasp his mother's finger with his small hand, or when an elderly person will talk with a shopkeeper, it is though this action that they both concretise their existance, they become conscious of their existance through their action upon something "other". Nature, however, cannot act upon anything but itself. Since nature is by premice all things that exist (for were they made by man, then they would still be natural, as man is nature, and as such, his makings are the actions of nature upon itself, and are as such part of nature), then we cannot conceive the existance of something that is not nature, and upon wich nature could act. Since nature can only act upon itself, it is surely not knowlegeable of its actions, for it cannot interact with anything that it does not incarnate. Were I to touch my arm, then I could not be knowlegeable of my existance, for I alone am not able to prove my existance, and to exist, I must knowlegeably act upon another person, thing or substance. Since nature is not free, what could force it to change society in such a profound way? Were it subjugated by something, then what are the intentions of its masters? Or is there something else that could be the reason for all the aforementioned changes?
Nature may not be free, but it is not because one is not free that one has a master. Nature is limited by itself, its own master and slave. As such, nature is nothing more than a perpetual cycle, or rather grouping of cycles. But these cycles, by essence are not stable : the seasons change, rabbit populations decline and then increase, storms come and go... Mankind, as part of nature, is not stable. Hence, it is through nature that the changes in our society have come, but not through a choice of nature, but rather the essence of nature. We have transformed our world in accordance to nature's wills, but with many modulatory factors. Indeed, to compare the Maya culture and customs with the Ancient Greek culture and customs would be absurd, even though they both were pure creations of nature's oscillations. Why? Because nature is to vast to be comprehended by the lowest social common denominator. Let me explain. When Men choose to live in society, as it is their nature to do, they must establish rules that are in accordance with their actions. As such, for a rule to be accepted, then all (or more than half) the members of this society must agree to it. However, all men cannot understand the same rules of nature, due to nature's fluctuations. This leads to different rules being chosen for different societies, and to different principles being the core for different cultures. Through this, different educations will develop, different paths of thought will blossom, and the only modulatory foctor should be nature's fluctuations. But, do Men not interact more between themselves than before? Can the recent fad for all things striped and starred be called a "fluctuation of nature"? Should we live in determinism because there is no way to elude nature's grasp upon us?
Since Mankind left its cradle, it has forever been constructing, de-constructing, re-constructing and renovating societies. But each time one of these is done, it is done under the influence of another society. Rome conquered Greece and Egypt, and as such, the de-construction of the Greek and Egyptian societies were equalled by the renovation of the Roman society. So, it should be taken for evident that interaction between societies plays a strong role in their existance, their evolution and their ambitions. Since societies do not exist only for themselves, but for the people that form them, it is in fact the influence of one Man on another that will create the changes in a society. When Marco Polo returned from China laden with silks and tales, he forever transformed the vision that both the West had of the East, and the East had of the West. As such, he modulated nature's influence on those societies' evolution. But the interactions can be much stronger. Even within a society, one Man may convince another that the rules are not representative of their actions, and as such should be changed. This is a delicious involution of society : it will innovate even when left alone. Perhaps this is somewhere connected to nature, however there are so many intermediaries that we can outlaw determinism when we are talking about societies. Since societies are as involutive as they are changed by other societies, we must question ourselves as to why there is no unique society. Well, this is due to the fact that all men are not the same, and do not act in the same way. In fact, society's involutions are often opposite to the influences of other societies, as people who have been brought up in an alternative manner, who have lived and learnt other things, defend the society they have built, in the hope of maintaining it. So, since we live in a society that is built through nature, albeit limited by man's understanding of it, and our upbringing, can we not suppose that we are free in it? Would we not be free to live as our upbringing and our nature indicate us to? Would we not be free even when we feel contrived, sice the constriction we feel is nothing more than the limit we agreed to so that our own freedom would not be infringed?
Indeed, freedom is far more than just what I can do. Freedom is also what I can't do, because I constricted myself though my freedom, and had I not used my freedom to create a social norm, then I would not be able to do anything, for as I am in opposition with both my upbringing and my nature, I would merely have the illusion of being free, whilst I would in fact be the servant of my desires, my pulsions and my fears. True freedom resides in going beyond fears, pulsions and desires, to find our essence. Once we have found our essence, then we should no longer fear lacking our freedom, for our essence is where resides our freedom : the freedom to be ourselves, to no longer hide behind the mask of what others reflect towards us of our nature, nor behind the veil of ignorance.
Perhaps I'm crazy, but I didn't mind finding out I had lost what I feared losing so much, because my essence knew that it was already lost. Perhaps I'm insane, but I didn't feel sad losing someone I loved though my fear of losing her, but rather I felt relieved that I no longer had to worry about losing her. Perhaps I'm a few prawns short of a seafish salad, but I no longer mind making a consequenceless choice, for at least I lived the thrill of choosing, the thrill of being myself, the thrill of being free.
Isn't it sad to place all your hopes is something you know will falter? Isn't it sad to wager your life on a result you cannot control? Isn't it sad to be unsure of how to act and live, and to waft through events without any understanding of them?
What's worse than finding out that what you feared losing was already lost? What's worse than loving so hard you're scared to lose, and to lose because you were scared? What's worse than making a choice, and then realising that your choice had no incidence?
When one thinks of freedom, one often forgets that before any social, political, cultural or civic freedom, there is a far greater freedom within each of us. This freedom is the one to choose how to wish to act. Perhaps we wouldn't be able to act as we wish, but at least we can choose how we wish. Of course, like all choice, the choices we make are biased. Biased by the choices of others, by our education, by our experience, and by our nature. Since none of us is the same as his neighbour, we cannot expect to decuce an absolute truth through introspection, for this truth would infact be not at all free, albeit biased in favour of our nature, our upbringing, and other elements. However, we can define for each and every one of us a code of conduct that limits this freedom to choose how we wish to act. "Every man's freedom stops where his neighbour's freedom starts". How appropriate to recognise that there is no reason more powerful to ligitimate rights than that of duties. How moral to demonstrate that there is no duty, as it is but another facet of freedom. And yet, we must wonder are we all constant? Do we not change our needs, do we not change our ways? Do we not change how we wish to act?
Were I to attempt half the things I do each day three centuries ago, then I would surely be outside my rights. Indeed, more than nature or experience, what will legitimate our rights is what our neighbours wish to recognise I have as rights. Were my neighbours robbers, then it would be legitimate to steal, for no member of our community would oppose to it, and as such, it would not be an infringement of one's rights. We should rather expose that it is through our enviroment that we determine what is moral, what is immoral, and what is neither. Today, it is perfectly moral to have sex before marriage. Only a century ago, was it such? No. And yet, the fact has not changed, the act has remained the same. Hence, it must be that there is a difference between the enviroment that existed a century ago, and the one that exists today. Then, we are in a position where we must question ourselves as to what changed the enviroment in such a manner? How come social, cultural and political norms are not prepetrated, as were upbringing the only denominator there should quickly come a point when change no longer exists? Could nature itself be our source of freedom?
Nature itself is not free, as it does not act knowlegeably on its surroundings. Of course, nature has order, nature has a reason, nature may have a spirit. But to claim that nature acts knowlegeably would presuppose that nature is conscious of its existance. The first act of knowlege is to recognise one's existance. When a young child will grasp his mother's finger with his small hand, or when an elderly person will talk with a shopkeeper, it is though this action that they both concretise their existance, they become conscious of their existance through their action upon something "other". Nature, however, cannot act upon anything but itself. Since nature is by premice all things that exist (for were they made by man, then they would still be natural, as man is nature, and as such, his makings are the actions of nature upon itself, and are as such part of nature), then we cannot conceive the existance of something that is not nature, and upon wich nature could act. Since nature can only act upon itself, it is surely not knowlegeable of its actions, for it cannot interact with anything that it does not incarnate. Were I to touch my arm, then I could not be knowlegeable of my existance, for I alone am not able to prove my existance, and to exist, I must knowlegeably act upon another person, thing or substance. Since nature is not free, what could force it to change society in such a profound way? Were it subjugated by something, then what are the intentions of its masters? Or is there something else that could be the reason for all the aforementioned changes?
Nature may not be free, but it is not because one is not free that one has a master. Nature is limited by itself, its own master and slave. As such, nature is nothing more than a perpetual cycle, or rather grouping of cycles. But these cycles, by essence are not stable : the seasons change, rabbit populations decline and then increase, storms come and go... Mankind, as part of nature, is not stable. Hence, it is through nature that the changes in our society have come, but not through a choice of nature, but rather the essence of nature. We have transformed our world in accordance to nature's wills, but with many modulatory factors. Indeed, to compare the Maya culture and customs with the Ancient Greek culture and customs would be absurd, even though they both were pure creations of nature's oscillations. Why? Because nature is to vast to be comprehended by the lowest social common denominator. Let me explain. When Men choose to live in society, as it is their nature to do, they must establish rules that are in accordance with their actions. As such, for a rule to be accepted, then all (or more than half) the members of this society must agree to it. However, all men cannot understand the same rules of nature, due to nature's fluctuations. This leads to different rules being chosen for different societies, and to different principles being the core for different cultures. Through this, different educations will develop, different paths of thought will blossom, and the only modulatory foctor should be nature's fluctuations. But, do Men not interact more between themselves than before? Can the recent fad for all things striped and starred be called a "fluctuation of nature"? Should we live in determinism because there is no way to elude nature's grasp upon us?
Since Mankind left its cradle, it has forever been constructing, de-constructing, re-constructing and renovating societies. But each time one of these is done, it is done under the influence of another society. Rome conquered Greece and Egypt, and as such, the de-construction of the Greek and Egyptian societies were equalled by the renovation of the Roman society. So, it should be taken for evident that interaction between societies plays a strong role in their existance, their evolution and their ambitions. Since societies do not exist only for themselves, but for the people that form them, it is in fact the influence of one Man on another that will create the changes in a society. When Marco Polo returned from China laden with silks and tales, he forever transformed the vision that both the West had of the East, and the East had of the West. As such, he modulated nature's influence on those societies' evolution. But the interactions can be much stronger. Even within a society, one Man may convince another that the rules are not representative of their actions, and as such should be changed. This is a delicious involution of society : it will innovate even when left alone. Perhaps this is somewhere connected to nature, however there are so many intermediaries that we can outlaw determinism when we are talking about societies. Since societies are as involutive as they are changed by other societies, we must question ourselves as to why there is no unique society. Well, this is due to the fact that all men are not the same, and do not act in the same way. In fact, society's involutions are often opposite to the influences of other societies, as people who have been brought up in an alternative manner, who have lived and learnt other things, defend the society they have built, in the hope of maintaining it. So, since we live in a society that is built through nature, albeit limited by man's understanding of it, and our upbringing, can we not suppose that we are free in it? Would we not be free to live as our upbringing and our nature indicate us to? Would we not be free even when we feel contrived, sice the constriction we feel is nothing more than the limit we agreed to so that our own freedom would not be infringed?
Indeed, freedom is far more than just what I can do. Freedom is also what I can't do, because I constricted myself though my freedom, and had I not used my freedom to create a social norm, then I would not be able to do anything, for as I am in opposition with both my upbringing and my nature, I would merely have the illusion of being free, whilst I would in fact be the servant of my desires, my pulsions and my fears. True freedom resides in going beyond fears, pulsions and desires, to find our essence. Once we have found our essence, then we should no longer fear lacking our freedom, for our essence is where resides our freedom : the freedom to be ourselves, to no longer hide behind the mask of what others reflect towards us of our nature, nor behind the veil of ignorance.
Perhaps I'm crazy, but I didn't mind finding out I had lost what I feared losing so much, because my essence knew that it was already lost. Perhaps I'm insane, but I didn't feel sad losing someone I loved though my fear of losing her, but rather I felt relieved that I no longer had to worry about losing her. Perhaps I'm a few prawns short of a seafish salad, but I no longer mind making a consequenceless choice, for at least I lived the thrill of choosing, the thrill of being myself, the thrill of being free.
posted by Unknown at 22:42
2 Comments:
Sorry...
En vrai, sa devrait être interdit d'écrire des articles aussi triste. :'(
Ear doom metal ! Hang yourself man ! The princess will die with your darkess power avec the dragon will be rape. So don't care !
Post a Comment
<< Home