What are facts? And “realities”? Are we not born to a “reality” that has been “objectified” no matter how subjective it in fact might be? But is it not from that objectified subjectivity that our psychological make up is structured on our essence?
The fact that we are born in pseudo democracies is an objective fact that makes our psychological make up completely different to what it would have been had we been born in the times of Kings. In those times the individual didn’t matter but the King had enough relevance for many to be willing to give their lives up for him. In the pseudo-democracies of our times the individual doesn’t matter as much as individualism but “institutions” are nevertheless able to supply a greater number of individuals with “things” that previously were the privilege only of the nobility. I personally don’t believe our lives are necessarily more “just” or “noble” than they were in those days, (the values have been shifted) what I think is that what democracy is offering is the possibility of acquiring the status of human beings with equal rights to that of kings, as if we were introverting in our social and psychological make up what we extroverted in the hierarchic structure of royalty. As if we “lived” monarchy externally to now become the “monarchs” of our lives. The shift of consciousness from the “clan” to the individual.
Every individual has a “right” to the qualities of royalty that are no other than the qualities of being human. Not power to “submit” others but power to submit one’s self to the whole. The objectified subjectivity that we seem to have “inherited” in our times seems to be the authoritarism of the dictator without the nobility of the King. In the struggle from the King to the individual what has given guarantees to the individuals is the “institutions” but within them the structures still function with more authoritarism than consciousness. Was the failure of monarchy the “failure” of the king? Or the gradual transference of authority from the King to the individual?
If we look at dialogue and speech within that framework we find that the King could Speak. Speech was one of his attributes.Then only those in power could speak and now, with the internet, we can all speak! We can all speak but we don’t all have a right to speak nor are we necessarily heard if we speak, nor can many avoid still being killed if they speak more than is desired by those who are questioned by their speech. “Speech” is still the right of whoever is the authority and we still move within frameworks of subjective hierarchic structures. What is subjective about them? Mostly the differences. All our illusory differences from each other are aspects of our subjectivity. The fact that we think we have more rights than others because we are blue, yellow and pink while others are magenta, beige and green, is one of the aspects that makes us subjective, the other is the objective position in which we happen to be to think that we have more rights than others. The “position” we happen to be in makes us as subjective as it “codifies”, if we become identified with it, i.e. if we are “white” in the South of the States in Pre-Lincoln’s time, there’s a strong tendency to identify with racist ideology. Identification with genre, family, society and nationality is what conditions our own subjectivity and when we are “fundamentalistically” identified with them we cannot see the human beyond the identification. The inhumanity and depersonalization of war today is an aspect of such identifications. People justify inhumanity because of their so called “superior” identifications. If the human beings of today carried their “identity” in their humaneness, the scale of destruction and self-destruction current today, and its justification to satisfy the greed of the few in every nation, could not take place. What “the few” are holding on to is the illusory objective qualities of the King: The economic and political power without the authority or the consciousness. What becomes “subject” to their control is the power of objective realities such as Speech that are in fact “qualities” inherent to every human being. How “Speech” is allocated reveals how the economy is distributed. As long as Speech is muzzelled to power, human beings will continue to live in the subjectivity of our pseudo-democracies. We do not let each other speak because we don’t acknowledge each other as human beings. By not acknowledging our humaneness, we justify every atrocity.
Speech is not only the possibility of greeting each other and saying hello. We can all almost “do” that. What we are still far from is understanding Speech as an objective reality with power of its own, with structural power to mould our psychological life and hence, our social life. Today only “educated” people can speak, only “authorities” in the “subject” can speak, only a few are given the microphone. The rest are “muzzled” in the identification with their status while we are all living the same “LIFE” or lifelessness, we are all suffering the same consequences of our unconsciousness but only a few are authorized to decide what to do about it: The so-called “political” or “economic” or “academic” authorities. The majority of us are identified with our “powerlessness”, conditioned by our “position” in the “play”. Nothing conditions individuals more than the fact that they have or don’t have a voice.
The “voice” or “Speech” is there but people cannot “access” it because they are themselves not conscious of Speech as the rightful quality of their humanity. They let others speak and think for them afraid of doing so for themselves. The situation today is such that it is easier for most to take an arm and shoot others indiscriminately than to scream or speak. That is how far we are from our humaneness or becoming objective about our selves.
No comments:
Post a Comment