Ideas and human perceptions (part 2)

Ideas and human perceptions (part 2)

This is a continuations from this

https://thehumancontract.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/ideas-and-human-perceptions-part-1/

Arts gave us an strong point from wich we can discuss. As Deleuze said, at the moment you grab an percept and guide them through an artwork, whereas music, paints or literacy, it is attempted to to give him an eternal direction, pinpointing them to demonstrate what was the human genre.

Sentiments are inexplicable, when the author of a book in an narrative tries to explain the emotion of a character, he doesn’t do it in a pragmatic or direct way to do it, it is not possible to do it with our limited knowledge, that’s why he does it in a figurative form or with an image, using perceptives example to give reason to an sentiment. Here it comes our relationship with the surrounding, as we decide to give an simbology, that is our interpretation, and therefore, an idea.

Arts play’s with the percepts paradigms, humans, must not only interpretate and learn, they have to feel, and following the scheme of the French vanguardist theater, from authors like Antonin Artaud, wich brakes the scheme of the neoclassical theater, must convert arts, not in a mere learning tool, like the Shakespearan writing’s, despised by many prolific russian literats, but in a tool to “cure” men.

Emotions, they could be considered as mere biological or cultural coincidences, but the can touch the ontological point of view, being an key ramification of metaphysics, giving more meaning to our surrounding, whose existance its under the methodical doubt, giving mayor human interpretation as an instrument

Ideas and human perceptions (part 1)

Ideas and human perceptions (part 1)

so i watched this video

(Sorry that the subs are in spanish, couldn’t find an english version)

Before watching this video of the French Phisolofical worker Guilles Deleuze, my concept of idea and perception was completely platonic, wich mean, ideas are mere abstract concepts in were humans always try to found an pragmatic solution, in an Helenic theorem to found a truth that shall become law. our ideas will not be more than the interpretation of something that doesn’t exist, wich we’ve decided to give him an absolute reality, yet we limit ourselve to not cuestion its meaning.

Our ambient its really just a existencial plane without meaning, but as the founder of the existencialist currrent, Soren kierkegaard, would say, “life is a problem to be fixed, but a reality to face”. even when we try to deny meaning to something, we must understand that “thing” will affect us, even when we decide to think in him.

Humans being create symbols, create interpretations, manipulate our arounds. Ideas, could be said that they are not more than innovative interpretations of our ambient, using the scientific order, the mathematics interpretation of the things, trying to relate the numerical value to the hypothetical order of nature, even our arts, trying to give eternity to give humans situations emotions.

Guilles gave us the term “percept”, a word that i interpreted as the sentiments or emotions that the chronological or ambientals emits, either natural or human made.

From the anthropological perpective, this emotions are simply evolutive, like colours, our arounds will express to us an sentiment that warn us something dangerous, or something advantageous.

Part 2 next week

Is Anarchy isolationism?

Is Anarchy isolationism?

What is anarchy in the first place, the meaning, tough poses a relatively easy etymological meaning and root, meaning literally, “without rulers” from the Greek language.

Even tough that the popular belief is anarchy is the representation of a system in complete disorder and confusion, to be more exact, the absence of a system parse.

We must better use the ideological meaning of this word, and is the “a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy)

And it’s in fact a cute meaning that we all imagine at some point of our lives, the idea of a society in which men’s don’t respond to any authority, and all the rules of society is based in contractual morals base in the better good of the people. No men is better than the other, everyone know their place and don’t have to respond to anyone.

No corruption

No abuse of power

No greed,

Complete political and ethical freedom as long as it doesn’t hurt any peer.

Then, what is the problem?

The thing is that…

Men are not equal.

We may be equal in front of the law, but we have so many differences morally and willingly that the idea of the perfect society is impossible.

It doesn’t matter at all how much you try, when we have a group of people, all together, somebody is going to be better than the other, whether is strength, cleverness or mere luck, that guy will become an example to follow, and therefore, even without wanting to be, a leader, therefore, a government, and hence, the fall of the anarchist society.

There’s only a partial way to live the “no ruler” society, and that is isolationism, as you will not be able to lead or be leaded.

Let’s see a famous example, henry David Thoreau.

He secluded himself out of the grasp of society, and become more disappointed of the government actions in slavery and the war on Mexico, becoming an renown essay writer and activist for the civil rights movements, going far to try to help 2 African-American slaves to scape, a sin in that moment in time.

And even then, he was at grasp of the government, being more than one time arrested for not paying taxes.

To be an anarchist, it’s required a total independence, something difficult in a globalized world as today.

When two cultures mix

When two cultures mix

If you come from a non-English speaking country, for example, any country from Latin America, you are going to heard something quite peculiar.

-We are transcultural; we cannot permit that, embrace what is yours, don’t go and be manipulated by the forces of Hollywood.

 Maybe I exaggerated a bit, but it’s really common to see certain incommodity to a foreign art taking part in a nation identity. That is fine, is human, what is quite irritable, is when you try to denied entry to that new form of art.

When a new form of cultural identity enters a different domain with a set of artistic expressions previously established, neither of them will destroy the other, rather, they mix. We must see it like mixing two different ingredients in a preheated pot, they will mix, but the stronger flavor will override the other, but there will be still taste of the weak flavor.

Take this little and idea, and replace it with our cultures today now, worldwide speaking, and take in hand the globalization we experiment nowadays, and you will see that it’s inevitable that a culture will enter in another one. The best way to protect your culture of choice, it’s not to deny the existence of others artistic expressions of others countries, but to help the existential one, and even better, evolve it today standards, to attract the new generation.

The way the new generation receive a regional tradition will affect the future of that tradition, either they will love it and embrace it, or feel emptiness in what could represent.

Tough of this as there’s the plan to make recital poetry, the organizer decided to ban any non-Latin-American poetry artist in this activity, and of course, I believe that is a utter mistake.

What do you think?

We change morality

We change morality

I was reading Albert Camus “The Stranger”, a story which touches quite the absurdism of certain traits of societies.

Got to admit that I was never interested in the contemporary French literature, apart from Antonin Artaud (theater and cruelty is a must read) and Jean Paul Sartre. I need to than to my professor for introducing Camus to me.

I the book, we see a character whose perception of society is of complete antipathy or better to say, indifference to certain hypocrisy of our society.

There are 3 major points discussed trough the storyline, the first is death, then there’s religion, and ultimately, justice.

I will talk about justice, and the principal thing is that our sense of justice is manipulate, overall what we deem as morality. The own meaning of moral tells us all, morality is what a community deems as righteous and “good”. We see many examples like:

Killing is wrong and punishable. But what happens when it was self-defense?

Then killing is forgivable.

Of course, this is an easy interpretation; we will kill self-defense, or even better, in the defense of the others.

What about abortion? Or immigration? O worst, death penalty?

The ambiguity on this subject is just so complicated, that I simply refuse to take a position.

Morality is not a state of be, nor a universal rule that we can all agree, it’s something that changes, and we manipulate in our favor, at the end being the most powerful the ones that state what is right and what I wrong.

When we are in a situation of despair or conflict, we use moral to justify our actions, whether good or bad, it’s all about the position and time you were at the time of your actions, not necessarily an excuse, but a way to manage to live with ourselves.

War romance

War romance

I was reading Tolstoi’s War and peace, I read from the Pavlona party to the departure Andrew (sorry if I mistake the names, as I am reading the Spanish version), and got the preludes of Austerlitz.

And it came to my mind; we do in fact love war…

Now, It’s still in my mind the description that Tolstoi made of the war hospitals, an reflex point that demonstrate the suffering of war, an symbol and knowledge later adapted in the romanticize movements in Europe years later.

The think we know is that, previous to World war I, people had a positive thinking of war, as a way of demonstration of power, courage and a way to increase economic power and influence, also to establish the patriotically mindset of those times, but what happened?

The suffering of World War I was high, in a Freud sense, the world felt “melancholic”, just go to google and see the image of the many soldiers that went to fight in it, smiles, celebration, an sense of honor, many of them dying like dogs in a hole, we were unable to bury them or give them our respects, feeling the despair of the real lost for the first time, something we see the a the vanguards movements in the 30’s.

In another example, a bit more mundane, I was playing Civ 5, the videogame of having to develop your civilization and either win trough the cultural or technological way, or killing everyone in the map, of course, being a videogame, it has music, each for any civilization, one for war and peace, I got attached to the British empire war theme, and went to YouTube to heard it again, and something I saw, with no exceptions, every war theme has more views than the peace one.

Humans being like the idea of war, we know its results, yet we feel chills in our spine whenever we heard of an heroic act of a soldier, its cultural and evaluative, tough we are in our greatest peace era (talking relatively) the war culture is something that still affect us.

What do you think?