In class today I felt that the discussion really helped me better understand the main points of Bifo's arguments and critizisms in Precarious Rhapsody. At the begining of class I was unsure at first what I wanted to write down about the book, mostly because I didn't feel like I understood what I was reading. What I did write down however, was something that struck me as, how should I say, different. Bifo states that, "depression is the best condition to access the void that is the ultimate truth." Now I don't fully understand exactly what Bifo is trying to say here. The ultimate truth is the three words that I am having trouble understanding. There have been many different meanings and interpretations of those words, for example Buddhism follows the Four Noble Truths which then manifests to the Eight Fold Path which in turn must be understood to gain understanding of the Ultimate Truth. However, I'm not sure Bifo was talking about Buddhism.
I believe that Bifo is saying that through depression, someone hitting complete rock bottom, they in turn open their minds to the world around them, thus filling the void of uncertainty. Through depression one can attain enlightenment, to borrow a Buddhist concept. Now I can be completely wrong, and probably am, but I feel that it connects to his other point of the frail psyco-sphere. Bifo writes, "the things that an individual remembers (images, etc.) work toward the construction of an impersonal memory, homogenized, uniformly assimilated and thinly elaborated becasue the time of exposure is so fast it doesn't allow for a deep personalization." This is where I start confusing myself, maybe Im reading into something that isn't there but I just feel like he's contridicting himself. Through a lack of personalization and with the emergence of being impersonal, one has the potential to become depressed, leading, to "the ultimate truth".
Now PLEASE help me with this as I have been mulling it over in my head all day with not much luck. So, what are your thoughts on the quote, and/or, my interpretation of it?
really good and interesting post
ReplyDeleteI have two ideas (also, I will see Bifo in May and will ask him what he thinks).
1. The ultimate truth is the Void.
2. The ultimate truth is creativity.
The first answer reads the statement literally--it doesn't try to fill the Void but says that, ultimately, the Void is what is true (death, the extinction of our sun and end of our planet, the end of the universe, the ultimate meaninglessness of existence).
The second answer is get from some of Bifo's theoretical influences (in particular, the French philosopher Felix Guattari). Here the emphasis is on perpetual becoming and creation, creativity as an end in itself.
The benefit of either of these answers is that they don't get Bifo into a position where he is contradicting himself.
What do you think?
I find the first point to be almost to ominous and dark. Just as you were taken aback by your daughters statements regarding 2012, I just refuse to believe that the ultimate truth is death for there would be no reason for living.
ReplyDeleteThe second is much easier to beleive and accept and makes more sense because no good author would knowningly contradict himself.
Could maybe perhaps the ultimate truth be a combination of sorts? A calculated balance between creativity and the void?
I feel like to fill the void one must need to be creative while possessing a delicate relationship with the fact that at anytime it could all end.
Possibly?
For philosophers who emphasize the Void, different things follow. Some say, then, that the task of being human is to find ways to make meaning, make life worth living. Some emphasize authenticity and honesty, finding ways to be as true to oneself as possible. Others emphasize love and compassion, a kind of solidarity with others in knowledge of our shared mortality. Some would say that knowledge is valuable (say knowledge of the universe) even if it is temporary (the world ends).
ReplyDeleteFor those who emphasize creativity as the vital force not just of existence but of becoming (coming to existence and having the potential for existence), all of existence is creative. There isn't a distinction, then, between the creativity of a swamp, a molecule, a galaxy, or a person.
Generally (but not always or necessarily), these two strands of philosophy are anti-humanist. That is, they don't take the human predicament to be the central issue. It's a fact that humans die.
Your point, it seems to me, is about the best way for humans to live--how does one go about making a good life, a life worth living. Your last sentence suggests a very good response--a creative engagement with the world, an engagement that acknowledges finitude.
found this helpful - thanks for sharing
ReplyDelete