File spoon-archives/surrealist.archive/surrealist_1996/96-09-03.184, message 45


From: Celinec-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 21:49:26 -0400
Subject: Revolting


Hi Frank:

>Any judgement is essentially saying something is better or worse
>than something 
>else, hence you must have some way of making such a comparison.
>I am merely 
>saying that what allows you to make such a comparison and to
>assign a value is, 
>in effect, a rule. This rule may be based on your desires, and
>therefore you may 
>not be conscious of it, but it is still a rule. A rule doesn't
>have to be 
>something imposed from without, above, something in contrast to
>your desires. 
>Admittedly, historically, this is how most rules seem to have
>appeared (as laws, 
>tabbos etc), but it doesn't have to be like that.
>So when you're saying:

>>So we start at the point where there are no moral or ethical
>>codes, period. Complete freedom. An entirely new ballpark, new
>>world. You have a population of people who are thinking purely
>>of
>>their true desires, unfettered, unperverted, undeformed. Each
>>one
>>judges their own actions and does this splendidly,

Here you have caught me in a splendid hypocrisy, probably part of
the life-long brain washing that Wm. Dubin speaks of and which we
all must be very careful of. No, we cannot even judge our own
actions, we must simply act. As Wm. demonstrates so well every
individual, if forced to judge for himself will have a thoroughly
different idea of what is correct and not correct. The only way
out of this mess is to stop judging completely, ourselves and
others.   
 
>And then the attraction of murder.... What make you think murder
>is forbidden??? 

Murder is not forbidden by all, you are right, but it is thought
of as a forbidden act that is inflicted on someone to punish or
cause pain or to gain power from. Well what if we all changed our
metaphysical outlook on this (and lost a little of our fear of death and
pain) and decided as Wm. had called for to celebrate murder as a glorious and
positive act on the same level as creation? I am just asking that we consider
some of
these ideas as a way of breaking through the purely ficticious
laws of morality and ethics.     

>We are moving into the individual-vs-society part now, you claim
>you can create 
>a society that has no effect on the individual. That is not
>possible, since such 
>a society would not exist. A society only exist through its
>effects on people, 
>otherwise it remains a metaphysical, idealistic
>thought-construction. 

Ok, then fuck the society. Perhaps we should demolish the whole
construct.

Celine


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005