On 23 November 1936, in a hotel room in San Antonio, Robert Johnson recorded "kindhearted Woman Blues" for a seller of records of Jackson, Mississippi. Robert Johnson was black, blues and heavy drinker, characteristics that, at the time, many African Americans could boast. Unlike many African Americans, Robert Johnson would have turned the United States wearing elegant clothes and playing every night in a different location because, unlike many African-Americans, played the blues like no one before him. Robert Johnson was one of the first Negroes in American society afford not to make the black man of the fields to make the black man that sings.
incision that song, the American company was recording herself in a new way of thinking, the same as in 1985 would have allowed the national television channel broadcast in the ether 'Home Shopping Network'. "If a nigga sell, makes no sense to censor as negro, because it means losing potential income." In 1936, few people would have defended this topic, with some liberal and some merchant records. A big chunk of company would have objected that "the blacks who now make a record blues, tomorrow will demand to be Presidents of the United States of America."
If someone wants to describe the society using the vocabulary of the people of the time, may adopt different perspectives. At one extreme is the view of the Negro in the fields, toward the center that Robert Johnson, to the center but on the other side of the dealer's records, the other extreme there is the Ku Klux Klan. A Marxist philosopher would say that the American reality of the thirties is seen from the black land, a liberal would be contested by Robert Johnson and the merchant, a theorist of the Aryan race would tend toward reality explained by the Ku Klux Klan. More reality coexist. No description of the company can be defined as objective or neutral. There is no 'reality': panettone packaged to be consumed as desired. There are overlaps, simulations, and temporality continuous paths forked into a maze of mirrors. A magma in which we are immersed up to the hair and from which we can not get out alive or free.
We must accept it, but believe that this means not to have the answers (and then conclude they do not want to change anything) is contradictory. If there is no privileged position from which to watch the reality, also argued that hope is ontologically disappearance or that there are no answers, it becomes an answer, a new ontology. Which contradicts the initial idea of \u200b\u200bwanting to escape the ontology in the name of "awareness". We can not reach a detached awareness, we can only embody the perspectives that we decide to support more or less consciously. Daily life is an example: on the one hand, the postmodern man expresses disbelief towards metanarratives, second, to survive, are forced to build day after day of narratives. These narratives, either explicitly or implicitly, of hiding metanarratives. If I make the act of eating is because I want to do it. I want to do that because I have to communicate my arm to move to bring food to the mouth. If you think that eating has implications at the level of metanarratives, I'm wrong. Why would you want to eat? Why do you want to survive? Every thought is directly or indirectly affected by our will. Each theory is for some purpose or for someone.
This means that what I am writing is driven by my will. I want to reject the absolute because it gives me a sense of claustrophobia, I doubt by choice. I want to support relativism because I do not like to think that someone could claim a privileged access to truth or reality. I find the prospect of any speech, because this allows me to better understand how it relates to my will. I believe that reality is constructed intersubjectively, among people because it makes me feel more free and gives me more joy. Other than that I want to be consistent, so I want to accept the logical consequences of my statements. Willingness to subordinate the truth is to acknowledge that what I say it as a source of ultimate justification, myself instead of the world. It means recognizing that my building is a house of cards with no intrinsic value. It means accepting that I am not moving towards any end of the story in which good triumphs over evil, or that there are 'better' or 'worse' objective outside my explanations. I guess that means even admit my selfishness and egocentricity.
This is an example of small and scribbled my own will, what I believe to be me today. As I said, it is not 'right' or 'better' in a definitive way, is a speech-based vocabulary. My dictionary says that I will, but that my will can not express its full potential if left alone.
So my main question becomes: what we want today?
lioton
0 comments:
Post a Comment