In article <1136924875.279857.256200@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
ilya_shambat2004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I want to take what is usually tragic and turn it into the triumphant.
> The stories of sorrow I seek to convert into stories of triumph. And
> based on that to redefine the mythos and logos of civilization in order
>
> that beauty can live.
>
> The story of Troy is a story primarily of people not having done the
> requisite work before pursuing what ultimately could have been a course
>
> of action resulting not in war but in world peace. The lovers were seen
>
> as villains, because they did not take the action necessary to bridge
> their civilizations before they did what could be possible - and in
> fact should be possible - not only for people in ancient world, but for
>
> people now. Pursuant this fallacious conclusion, was demonized love and
>
> especially were mistreated women. It is said that one must learn from
> experience; but true learning consists of knowing the context and why
> certain actions in that particular context result in bad conditions,
> and seeing the context through to the core altering it if it is wrongly
>
> contrived, so that what one learns is a full picture rather than false
> conclusions meant to be drawn as a result of bad ideas internalized in
> the context.
>
> It is by going to that level that it becomes possible for man and woman
>
> to see the entire picture and thus take lessons that are fully
> informed. And indeed it is by doing just that that it becomes possible
> to actually understand rather than being manipulated into making wrong
> conclusions. The Paris and Helen story could have easily resulted in
> peace rather than war, if it was accompanied by meaningful diplomacy.
> And it is this - a combination of love and benevolent politics - that I
>
> propose as solution to much of misery in the world. I am of the belief
> that love can be an ongoing reality in lives of the existing and
> yet-to-exist, and that coldness and cruelty and hideousness that takes
> place as a result of it not existing - and especially to prevent it
> from existing - is something that anyone of any kind of intellect and
> benevolence is to combat. However there are certain things that are
> called for in the process.
>
> In Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare presented what I regard as a
> semi-solution to the problem of the Western civilization having drawn a
>
> wrong lesson from the experiences, real or mythological, of the
> previous. The lovers from two feuding clans get sacrificed, before the
> clans recognize the pointlessness and stupidity of their feud. As such,
>
> the lovers are pioneers; they break the shackles of feudal oppression,
> and while they do not succeed in remaining alive the contribution they
> impart to their civilization is spectacular. The truth of the *****c
> shows how degrading, brutal and hideous feudalism was; and as a result
> the families come together and work on creating a civilization. A
> civilization that in Shakespeare's lifetime took England out of
> tribalism and turned it into a great civilization.
>
> The story here is how the manifestation of the essence - of what Greeks
>
> called aletheia - breaks through the contextual shackles and paves the
> way for a flux, between two familial and cultural monoliths, and shows
> the sheer pointlessness of living in chains. The lovers are sacrificed;
>
> but England blossoms. The play is a metaphor for this transformation.
>
> The English therefore got it half-right. The feudalist order ends and
> civilization is crafted; but the love is deemed impossible. To believe
> the English solution is to practice a worldview of sacrifice for the
> civilization; a sacrifice that nevertheless remains unfulfilling to
> lives of many of its members because they find it impossible to have
> love.
>
> Mark Twain made the opposite statement in Huckleberry Finn. The lovers
> from two feuding clans swim the river while the clans kill each other
> off. The hideousness of the contextual breaks, and the soulful
> manifests in its entirety. And then they presumably start for
> themselves a new life.
>
> Now I can certainly see how that could be appropriate in some cases.
> However, I do not see a solution in which families kill each other to
> be optimal. What I want is to see to it that there be a complete
> solution. And by that I mean this: The lovers come together, and they
> bring their families together toward reconciliation.
The Montagues needed to develop more sophisticated arms, obviously.
Had they had sub machine guns, for instance, and the Capulets had only
swords, well, the story would have ended not with bloodshed, but with
the Capulets farming the Montague lands as servants.
Romeo would not have had to hide his love for Juliet. Nor would he have
had to marry her. If you see what I mean.
This is the complete solution, Ilya.
The other solutions are all pretty messy, but then man, himself is
rather messy.
I love him that way.
>
> And then it becomes possible for Paris and Helen story to go to a
> better place. Not because the existing are better; but because their
> understanding is more complete.
Paris's greed is what brought on the war.
>
> Now in my experience, the essential and the contextual can either
> fight; be neutral; or work with each other. To have a solution as I
> described it, is to have the essential animate the contextual and give
> it lasting existence. THis of course requires diplomatic skills; it
> also requires goodwill.
And a gun.
Life isn't what you want it to be. It is what it is.
>
> And the result is the world in which love and reality can coexist.
>
> Now that, is something to strive for.
>
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all
mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to
do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with
others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with
other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only
different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty.
And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties,
called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
---Abraham Lincoln "Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland"
(April 18, 1864)
This is why there is a forever war.
--
NeoLibertarian
Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity.
|
