Tuesday, May 31, 2011

As Uncaring as the Universe Itself

  
It is not my creed to see suffering "where there is suffering". Are the poor in need? Are most of us poor? Do we discriminate? Are we racist? Do we cause suffering in people of different nationality, people of opposite sex? Do we cause suffering unto ourselves? Does the rich man suffer from his wealth, or the modern man from his times? Is this a bad time to be alive? Has every time been as such, is history a failure? Has it always been a burden to be a man, a woman, a burden to be human? Does it cause anxiety to be alive? Is it hideous? Is it hideous to be alive as an animal, as a plant? A mineral even. Is the Earth a failure? Is the Cosmos a failure? Would a pulsar share the sentiment?

Indeed. It is in fact essential for my system of belief to see suffering even where there is none. And furthermore – to see suffering everywhere. When it comes to suffering, to be moral is to be fanatic. My kind strives to map out the entire extent of suffering, down to the subatomic. Were I to take the opposite approach – were I an optimist, were I on the right – I would risk the possibility of misinterpreting suffering as well-being. Yet as I am – on the left – all I risk is seeing suffering where there is none. A mistake akin to seeing beauty in the utterly plain. One can not be held accountable for such a mistake, instead, he or she should be congratulated for it. It has become in his or her capacity to draw virtue from where there was previously none to be had.

What then, is the virtue in suffering? There is no virtue in suffering, other than the compassion it necessitates – without suffering, there would be no compassion, without compassion, suffering would be meaningless. And along with it, a world that is mostly or even entirely comprised of it.

Only the broadest definition of suffering – even onto the absurd – can increase compassion to its greatest possible degree. This is the very heart of leftist strategy: the harnessing of entropy to its boiling point, an uncaring world that is turned against itself by human beings. And it holds true, until even the smallest amount of suffering can be said to exist. Until then, it will be the only positive by-product of atoms a truly fervent leftist should admit – an active compassion that seeks to right everything. To stuart in a world that would seem entirely alien to us. A world where an existence that negates suffering has negated compassion, giving way to a need, and thus the possibility of new and untold virtues.

There is no science of suffering. It is futile to argue for or against its simple majority. Whether one is left or right is not decided by sociology or statistics, it is a matter of belief: the right sees the world as a place of well-being, wherein the moral obligation of man is to carouse; the left as a place of suffering wherein man's imperative is to end that suffering.

Herein lies the metaphysical aspect of leftism that so often goes misconstrued by its critics and doubtful proponents alike. Left political thought is a direct continuation of Christianity and Buddhism – previous great religions of suffering. It is, at base metaphysical level, a religion, and as such it can and indeed should display varying degrees of intolerance towards its opponents. Such opponents would propose a multitude of arguments – scientific, economic, historic; and indeed also spiritual, humanitarian, and even democratic – against the single monolithic conviction that the material universe is a place of suffering, and it is not only possible, or even feasible, but indeed practicable to end that suffering. From this perspective, any and all opposition must be prosecuted on account of either crime: of being willfully blind to the fact of suffering, or willfully inert at ending it. Either way, such a person would be found guilty of being incompassionate. A crime, which in the leftist's eyes, is capital. Its perpetrator – as uncaring as the universe itself.

11 comments:

  1. Nojah, eks tuleb piinlikkusega tunnistada, et Hasso Krull hassokrullis mind üäris kõvasti seal eshatoloogia konverentsil.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ma olen nukker, et seda robi kommi ei saa laikida. Hasso Krull hassokrullis on väga kõva komm :D

    ReplyDelete
  3. Geronimo tahab robi kommi laikida aga Geronimo ei tea, et ta juba laikis seda robi kommi.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Väga kõva sõnavõtt, see mõnus suurejooneline ja dinky wanna-be inglise keel mis meile meeldib. Make it the face of za/um for the immigrants and the falsetongues.

    On selline asi mida ma olen mõnikord leidnud end koostamas oma peas, selline ZA/UM manifesto aga vähem piinlik. Poliitilise peajoone sõnastus ehk. Artiklinomenklatuur ja sisukord sõnavõttudest mis koondaks kokku selle aimatava mille eest me väljas oleme, ideed mille nimel tapame ja tõed mille nimel vallutame. Selliseid tekste on veel paar tükki olnud, nad on kuskil arhiivis peidus ja aegajalt pajatab neist Elder Edda. Kui neid kunagi piisavalt saab võiks nad kokku koguda ja vaadata seda tervikpilti. Igatahes see on üks neist peatükkidest.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Olen minagi kohati mõtelnud sellistel radadel. Esimene oht on muidugi ettevõtmist vasakpoolsena defineerida, mis oleks nüri ja idiootne. Ma olen enam kui huvitunud endale vastukarva seisukohtadest ja tahaksin neid juurde lausa niiväga, et olen mõtelnud artiklist: "ZA/UM OTSIB HÜVA PAREMPOOLSET! (AGA MITTE RAHVUSLAST, SEST SEE OLEKS PIIDER)" Seejärel jõuan ma kiiresti tulemuseni, et manifest on üleüldse veits muna asi. Bändid ei tee manifeste kui nad alustavad. Nemadki on kultuurirühmitus. Palju lahedam on, kui selles on ka salapära, mida Blixa Bargeld ja Neubauten oma asjaga teevad.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oleme vist RK-ga mõlemad jõudnud järeldusele, et vasak-parem telg on - tsiteerides klassikuid - pseudodiip. Selle teljega on häda see, et see ei ole huvitav*. Näiteks antud postitusega üritas RK seda ajada nii huvitavaks kui võimalik ja see saigi väga huvitav aga polnud (minu meelest) enam vasak-parem.

    *Noh sa võid minna magama teadmisega, et oled parempoolne ja siis ärgata hommikul üles parempoolsena. Eile oli nagu täna ja homme tuleb ka samasugune. Vahepeal haukad munaleiba ja näitad kuskil foorumis, kus täpselt vasakpoolsed eksivad. Vice versa ka muidugi. Aga ei ole ausalt öeldes väga kaua huvitav.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eelmisest kommentaarist jäi nüüd muidugi mulje nagu oleks parempoolsus ikkagi kuidagi ülem. Ei ole minu arvates. Mõlemad on alamad.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ma ei kahtle, et seegi siia jäetu on vasakpoolsus. Messiaanlik-utopistlik, sugugi mitte majanduslik vasakpoolsus. Täägid "sobornost" ja "jumalaehitajad" pole seal naljaviluks. (Marksism, mulle on hakanud tunduma, on vaskpoolsuse kui religiooni materjalistlik-ökonomistlik sekt, sotsiaaldemokraatia jälle väikekodanlik sekt, aga jumala eest, ärge neid mu edevaid tabelikesi millegi tõsisena võtke, igaüks nikerdab mingit jama peas, et asju lahtrites hoida)

    Milles ma sinuga aga ühel nõul olen, on see, et vasak-parem majandusest niimoodi rääkida, et üks on vasakul ja teine paremal ja davai! ring the bell! hakkavad panema! on oma elu ja närvide raiskamine. Mitte kunagi ei ole ma kedagi sellises olukorras kellegi argumente aktsepteerimas kuulnud ja nagu ma siin ülalseisvas artiklis ka mõista andsin, on see sama võimalik, kui väitlemise Mustamäe ringkonna finaalis jumalik nägemus saada ja selle ajendil koheselt usku vahetada. See ei ole ratsionaalsuse küsimus. There is a wealth of arguments at the disposal of either side, sadade ja tuhandete tarkade meeste ja naiste hästimakstud ülesandeks on olnud nende argumentide ja numbrite tekitamine, neid võib igavesti teineteise vastu puruks loopida ja alati on uus võtta.

    Mis mulle sellistes olukordades nö vastaspoole juures häiriv tundub, on tema valmisolek nende argumentide najal kaastundest loobuda. Sellises olukorras, kus ma passin kedagi debiilikulõust peas midagi majandusest targutamas... jälle... tegemas seda isegi mitte selleks, et saamatult oma kaastundele majanduslik haare anda, vaid justnimelt kaastundest ja vastutusest kõrvale hiilimiseks...

    "I FIND YOUR LACK OF FAITH DISTURBING," tahaks läbi hingamisaparaadi kähiseda.

    ReplyDelete