Showing posts with label rebellion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rebellion. Show all posts
Monday, April 28, 2014
Rebel without an effect (II)
What is the meaning of "rebellion"? How
do we look after the meaning of a concept? How do we conceive of it, how
do we relate to it, how do I construct it?
This is confusing. Am I constructing the meaning or rather reproducing it bluntly? If I were to write a literary piece of work, I would construct the meaning of something (even realistic literature pleas for constructivism, as some literary critics argued). If I were to observe and share the meaning of a system of concepts as they show up in experience, I would reproduce the meaning. Of course some authors are inclined to draw the conclusion that constructing the meaning is way more difficult than barely reproducing it. But is the difficulty at stake? Why would we despise works that are "less difficult" than others?
Why do rebels need to change the world that they live in? Why do they need to see "change"? It's not a psychoanalytical issue, or not only a psychoanalytical one. Some characterize them as "Marxists". Why is that? Some characterized them as "Anarchists". Why is that? Do they really deserve these labels? Are they beyond any label?
Rebellion is an exercise of creativity. Any act of creativity implies rebellion. Even though there are many nay-Sayers who don't give a crap about creativity and prefer to rely on conversation for the sake of it (the so-called trolls), creativity is not defined in terms of "trolling", because creativity is also related and relatable to a scope and always implies finality. You can't be "creative per-se", you need to value your creativity potential in relation to something. "Trolling" is the art of mastering creativity in a domain that doesn't have to do with creativity at all. In fact, it's no domain at all. Freedom of expression superficially understood may raise some big question marks. Trolling is a manifestation of nothingness. You need to feel that you're something so you troll. Unfortunately trolling is not restricted to one area or another. It can be anywhere, like a conversation cancer. Socrates would have been labeled a troll by bourgeoisie, Nietzsche regarded as a troll by peasantry. Relativism, where are thou? On the other hand, politics is the way of the trolls. There's nothing more to politics than trolling. Decisions fade away just like that, people get rich on the spot.
Rebellion is a process. One becomes a rebel. Rebellion is tied to authenticity. Rebels tend to focus on what makes them unique or special. They hate going with the flow, they want to feel the energy that develops on becoming, they desire what can't be grasped. Rebellion is, in a sense, a refusal to acknowledge that you're just like the others. This way, you can rest assured that you'll never be the same again...
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Rebel Without An Effect (I)
Rebellion is something encouraged in democratic societies where Secret Services do not commit abuses against innocent population. Democracy is based primarily on freedom of expression. There is an entire debate over what freedom of expression is (not).
What is rebellion? What does it stand for? Is rebellion a state of mind, is it an attitude, is it a trend, or all of these? Rebellion is considered by psychologists an abnormal state, which expresses unsolved psychological conflicts generated by subconscious or rather unconscious tensions impossible to rule out because the underlying energies cause a powerful, discouraging rebellious behaviour, characterised by an aggressive tendency to impose one's own point of view over others' by way of cancelling the validity of the opinion system supported by the opponents more or less reasonably.
Paradoxically, rebellion, although disconsidered by psychologists and labelled as insanity in most of the cases, was a necessary step towards modernity. It is rebellion that helped people bring democracy back, it is rebellion that helped people fight all sorts of abuses, it is rebellion that made Jesus seem like a mad representation of God, anti-system, acting like a violent defender of human values. It was rebellion that changed the political reality of Eastern-European countries, turning it into a realm of capitalistic values tied to the idea of freedom and development.
We don't know whether rebellion is good or bad, and it's pointless to argue that it's either way. It's legit to develop on the phenomenology of rebellion, but arguing on the morality of rebellion is old fashioned and dangerous. Rebellion denotes a latent need for change. What is change, if not a proof that the world is composed of infinite particles moving and conflicting each other in(de)finitely? There is no control, whatever our (humans) struggle to achieve it. The illusion that we can "control" stands as a continuous limitation of our egotistical inclinations towards the extension of those conservative self-preserving instinctual structures that keep on cutting off the efforts of liberation that the "other" side of our personality-coin shadows. There is no way for our conservative half to give up, that's why it's always difficult to be rebellious and, at the same time, happy to benefit from "what you already have". It's so difficult to imagine a lake continuously changing itself, and so easy to picture a river bringing change every moment.
Rebellion without education is not possible. People that have no education are not rebels. They're just beings governed by pure instinct; no matter what they are told to do, they are against; no matter the help they ought to receive from others, they're just against it; no matter their possible happiness, they're not capable of appreciating the efforts put together to open their eyes, to make them see beyond their own ideas of change, most of them borrowed from people that look or think like them. Rebels with no effect are rebels without a cause. Rebels without a cause are lost in a transparent democracy: they don't want to change, because they don't understand what change is. They intuit that there is something to be changed, but they have no means to do it. Only a pseudo-heroic need to justify themselves is supporting their impulse to revolt, to demolish, to destroy what they think should be marked for destruction.
What is the meaning of rebellion? We shall see.
What is rebellion? What does it stand for? Is rebellion a state of mind, is it an attitude, is it a trend, or all of these? Rebellion is considered by psychologists an abnormal state, which expresses unsolved psychological conflicts generated by subconscious or rather unconscious tensions impossible to rule out because the underlying energies cause a powerful, discouraging rebellious behaviour, characterised by an aggressive tendency to impose one's own point of view over others' by way of cancelling the validity of the opinion system supported by the opponents more or less reasonably.
Paradoxically, rebellion, although disconsidered by psychologists and labelled as insanity in most of the cases, was a necessary step towards modernity. It is rebellion that helped people bring democracy back, it is rebellion that helped people fight all sorts of abuses, it is rebellion that made Jesus seem like a mad representation of God, anti-system, acting like a violent defender of human values. It was rebellion that changed the political reality of Eastern-European countries, turning it into a realm of capitalistic values tied to the idea of freedom and development.
We don't know whether rebellion is good or bad, and it's pointless to argue that it's either way. It's legit to develop on the phenomenology of rebellion, but arguing on the morality of rebellion is old fashioned and dangerous. Rebellion denotes a latent need for change. What is change, if not a proof that the world is composed of infinite particles moving and conflicting each other in(de)finitely? There is no control, whatever our (humans) struggle to achieve it. The illusion that we can "control" stands as a continuous limitation of our egotistical inclinations towards the extension of those conservative self-preserving instinctual structures that keep on cutting off the efforts of liberation that the "other" side of our personality-coin shadows. There is no way for our conservative half to give up, that's why it's always difficult to be rebellious and, at the same time, happy to benefit from "what you already have". It's so difficult to imagine a lake continuously changing itself, and so easy to picture a river bringing change every moment.
Rebellion without education is not possible. People that have no education are not rebels. They're just beings governed by pure instinct; no matter what they are told to do, they are against; no matter the help they ought to receive from others, they're just against it; no matter their possible happiness, they're not capable of appreciating the efforts put together to open their eyes, to make them see beyond their own ideas of change, most of them borrowed from people that look or think like them. Rebels with no effect are rebels without a cause. Rebels without a cause are lost in a transparent democracy: they don't want to change, because they don't understand what change is. They intuit that there is something to be changed, but they have no means to do it. Only a pseudo-heroic need to justify themselves is supporting their impulse to revolt, to demolish, to destroy what they think should be marked for destruction.
What is the meaning of rebellion? We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)