Anyway, back to business... Leonard Cohen tells me he would no
longer bother to write a song about Isaac, because people wouldn't
know what he was on about. That doesn't only diminish the
vocabulary of songs, it has wider implications. If the reference
points for our whole belief system are forgotten, we find it that
much harder to understand a shared belief system, or even to
disagree coherently with a shared belief system. We end up in a
vicious circle of incoherent, half-baked individual utlitarianism
where nobody has any belief system at all and we lose the ability
to communicate with each other. I think that's one reason why
football is so popular again - it's a game which the citizen can
focus on, where the rules are defined. Unlike his life. The
citizen is becoming a pawn in a game where nobody knows the
rules, where everybody consequently doubts that there are rules
at all, and where the vocabulary has been diminished to such an
extent that nobody is even sure what the game is all about. Hence
the concomitant rise of fads like astrology, spiritualism, and
generic "I want to believe"-ism. I'm a humanist. I believe people
should be able to sort themselves out, as does the Judeo-Christian
tradition, obviously, but for rather different reasons. Even for
Western-European humanists, it's helpful to know about Isaac and
Abraham for any discussion of belief/hope/obligation, especially
if we wish to join a discussion which has been developed over two
thousand years. It's a bit tedious to have to start the discussion
from scratch every time by mulling over yesterday's soap-opera
with the few people who actually watched it.
Certain extraneous developments have helped in ways one might not
expect. Let's get back to hypertext for a moment. Remember that
the Web is basically "text for people who can't read" (Trenchant
Remark, © A. Eldritch), but it's merely hypertext coupled
with the physical hypertext of the Net's hardware. Now that
hypertext is widely familiar, it's easier to explain how allusion
works to people who would otherwise be completely flummoxed by
the very concept. That's why I just tried to.
It's nevertheless hard to talk to Thatcher's Children. Apart
from anything else, they have no concept of right and wrong
beyond an apathetic and half-baked utilitarianism. I was recently
asked if we are "relevant to them". Probably not. Proust is
probably not "relevant to them". He's clever and funny and useful,
but they haven't got the faintest idea what he's on about. I've
been described (by myself, of course) as "Kierkegaard meets
Elvis". They may have heard of Elvis, but he didn't wear
adidas, and they probably think that Kierkegaard is about as
much use as a dead Danish philosopher. Which he is. Is he
relevant to them? I think so. Would they agree? I doubt it.
The problem is, the things that decide their lives are not
"relevant to them". The nuances of emotional politics are not
"relevant to them". They have lost touch with the fabric of
their lives and they don't even know how to have a good time
without falling victim to the corporate fashion fascists and
the evil social engineers of Thatcherite Britain.
A.Eldritch, Virgin.Net Interview
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen