#longthread
#ranting
#culture
#Civilization
i I was thinking about being lazy, idle, and doing little. I meant, sitting at home, and not producing much. However, the alternative stings badly. Capitalism, with its many ways of production has stolen any joy for work, and everyone, whether they like the current system or not, have to work at some point. In other words, no one dislikes it so much that they do not comply, when it comes to work, But that is due to money, and the sway it holds over our minds, socially, or collectively.
Wether we are young or old, money is a constant in the world. Regretable. Given those conditions, It is not allowed for me to delude myself by working. Working as other people do. Working in a company, having traditional jobs. Should we have not done away with such trash and triviality? But do not kid yourself Wing, humanity has not arrived to that level yet, and nothing shows that in the future it might!
When will we be able to roam the Earth like nomads, without care for jobs the way they are conceived in modern times. 2 centuries ago, a peasant, let us say, (a relatively free one) just tilled and mowed, and sowed, plowed, and weeded, and cultivated wheat, what do we cultivate, but resentment? Now physical work is somewhat obsolete, and yet intellectual work is not being embraced.
+Who is interested now in all that preceeded culture but some stray scholars. And even them with that dry smile of their profession. They cultivate condescention, but not artfully. And our debaters, though with arguments, they lack finess, and tact. They scream the loudest and think because anargument has enough bulletpoints in it, it is strong; but no, far from it.
It embitters both sides, until one of them gives out. The war of arguments is the theoretical conception of militarism and the wars we wage on battlefields. Though against militarism, and reducing it there were people who stood for such a decision, against arguments this never happned.
You got to take place in the general hubbub. You have to destroy your opponent until he falls down and never comes back up again.
Pieceful argumentation is a Contradictio in adjecto.
How? To let your enemy beat you when you have points to proove? No way. But in any case, what exactly ought one to do regarding work?
Aristocrats at the end of theNineteenth C believed that 'or some of them' thatby listening to music, reading fine books, watching and collecting fine works of art, one would cultivate the spirit, and become a better person.
While this would be great, it requires a level of civilization which no one has achieved. So, they enjoy fine art and music, while on the streets men die,women suffer, people are treated cruelly?
How dare they do that? Well, they do , and they did. Some people would argue that we need to fix our social problems and only after we could enjoy, at leisure, andwith benefit the fruits of art, the fruits of music, the fruits of everything great that civilization brings.
It is not true, not completely that these reaped fruits were, furnished only by the West, they were also given by parts of Asia: Japan, China, Korea. All of them, truth be said former Empires. Because in the end, we have to accept that you cannot have a great culture, literary or otherwise, plastic or in painting, without having been an empire at some point.
Will a collony from who knows where produce some Shakespeare or a Goethe? Definitely not. Not because they can't, but because long enough slavery, and collonial life is not a good incentive to create but works of a social nature: social literature; painting depicting poverity, and all the miseries of social life. However, that cannot in itself create a culture. Even though misery is universal, and the ethnic sufferin is important, that canot raise itself to the universal?
Shouldit be raised to the universal? Yes, because that is what it means to be a big culture. The British did not give us only Shakespear, if they had, British Culture would be null. And we would not speak of it today. Romania gave only Mihai Eminescu, Bacovia, and Arghezi, in terms of poetry, and one other.
What do I mean by gave? Well, the conditions and aspirations of the people were crystalized in a culture. And that is what I mean by “gave”.
Will there be future cultures? I, personally think that there will not be. Culture changed so much. But and perhaps antiquated ideas of culture are not needed nowadays.
Of course in the human race we may not have a future Shakespare, but I could be wrong. We ought to accept, not without sadness, that art literature, and the like are not very important for today's world. There are small communities which still care, but there is not any universal character to it. And that is disappointing. There are however, many cultures worth exploring, small as they may be, which deserve our attention.
Why didn't I mention our centyry? Because I need to read more about it. But given the strange climate, I wonder where to begin?
It is so tangled and complicated, and, in a way that makes me happy.
I do not know where to grasp it from, can we make a synthesis? No, probably not. I need to broaden my horizons, I should think.
I have the impression that I have raised too many questions: D
I should also add that perhaps only by some small cultures wwe could get some fresh air, how else do it? Europe is sterile, and the States can't offer us much in terms of a universal culture, but it can be “the mother of Exiles” as it has always been. Its role in the world has been huge, but not when it comes to culture, asides again from a few figures. Most literary traditions, whether in the 20th century, or the previous began from Europe, that is because historically America is young. Though its progress is undeniable. It managed many things that Europe with its old aristocracy could not. I know very well why it did not succeed in art and literature that much.
It is because it has tangled itself too much in the political and into trade to make any lasting impact in the literary and artistic realms. Not to say that we cannot count various American writers who were influential and important in their time.
Yes, mostly made out of emigrants, who brought their ethnicity with them, that is why the aAmerican culture is a hodgepodge, a scrambled combination between the good of these culture, and their less . . . savoury aspects.
Many people have insentives, they want to work, and they can do it; so can I. Of course, no doubt. But ought they really to want to? Should umanity labour and labour, work and work without purpose—letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
And since we all know this is the case, what should we do?
This would be the final interrogation.