May 16, 2003

We live in a hollow age.

Reluctant –- o so afraid to trust, for trust has so many times been shattered. Societally, scientifically, personally. (Politics. No wonder so many of us wince, resent, place it among those words never to be said in polite company ... when it is only another expression of how human beings choose to act in each other's company.) So we seek security in the never-to-be-questioned (lest the questioning reveal feet of clay) ... or in never trusting in anything at all. Dichotic polarity of fundamentalism and postmodernism: polar opposites arising simultaneously in the popular consciousness in direct dualistic reaction to each other –- but the pair together a joint reaction to the knowledge of perceived loss of societal control, loss of Newtonian power, loss of the supremacy of that power which has been labelled reason. (It bears noting that the growing roots of both post-Enlightenment fundamentalism and post-modern postmodernism paralleled the slow slide away from colonial power.) How else to regain that perception of power except by (re)creating a controlled construct through which the greater system is to be viewed? Who controls the telescope controls the seen universe. God has always been created in the image of the human. Where the human denies self-trust of anything except the will to power, God must die.

In a world geared toward facts and absolute certainty curiosity dies. In a world which denies all absolute statements curiosity equally dies – because nothing matters. How can speculation and wonder survive rainbows shattered into measurable wavelengths? How can love survive endless regressions of symbolism without a core meaning? We live in a world where western 'modernism' still seeks to evangelise the age of reason: the more so because its foundations have been so cruelly eroded. Generals eternally fight the previous war. Easiest simply to label the chthonic unknowns 'evil' and cling to the daylight certainties. Easier still to shrug and accept that all reduces to power and that nothing else matters.

At what point does explanation and/or goal become its own de facto cause? even a priori demand? Perhaps at that point the goal of 'efficiency' became its own raison d'être?

Each attempt at exclusive representation is equally blind to what the other seeks to represent. Any possibility of a non-power absolute becomes so much gibberish to the postmodernist. Any possibility of a non-monotheory absolute becomes so much gibberish to the fundamentalist. Gibberish is anathema to both: each seeks to explain it and so control it. Lucifer, brightest of all the angels before the fall. Unquestioned certainty of the clockwork universe, most beautiful of constructs before Heisenburg kicked out the foundations. One Tao, un-unitable over a greater architect. One blindness. One truth.


Answers canonical, alternate answers rejected without any real motivation to pursue the questions, answers and questions re-created as irrelevant. In a culture of appearances, to admit ignorance is to admit fear.

Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home