Controlled through Inflicting Pleasure. The Entertainment Concentration Camp

Tulburat de un film revazut recent (Black Mirror s01e02), precum si de alte surse care m-au pus pe ganduri (Lebbeus Woods, Foucault, Zizek, Pink Floyd si Edmond) am decis sa scriu articolul de mai jos, care incepe cu un review, apoi continua cu reflectii personale. Filmul il recomand cu multa caldura. Scuze pentru limba engleza; initial l-am publicat pe un blog diferit.

„Through the predictable entertainment of television and movies by which the world’s growing number of consumers feel they are in touch with themselves and with one another, and by the fashions in everything from clothing to buildings […] consumers are encouraged to suppress their inherent differences and conform. This serves well enough those who thrive on consumers’ dependencies, but reduces consumers themselves to a type of passivity that is historically new. It is the passivity foreseen by Aldous Huxley in „Brave New World” (1932), when he wrote that the way to control people is not with pain but with pleasure. What was once a privilege to be won has become a right to be demanded and received. The consumer waits to be pleased and in this way is continually pacified.” (Lebbeus Woods, Radical Reconstruction)

SPOILER ALERT: Black Mirror s01e02, „Fifteen Million Merits” – See Trailer
So Dr. Strangelove’s dream comes true. The world is destroyed by nuclear war; the survivors find refuge in underground shelters, safe from the harmful radiations, but also deprived from sunlight. Electricity becomes the most valuable element, the new universal currency („merits”). Since the traditional ways of producing electric current are no longer available in the underground, dynamos become the universal solution; millions of people are riding ‘exercise bikes’ to keep the world running.
Mass media and augmented reality are the means of rewarding the working individuals. The concentration camps are full of interactive screens; the sleeping rooms’ walls are covered with screens that generate virtual environments; the exercise bikes come with interactive screens that offer TV programs during working hours; even bathrooms are packed with the very same screens. The camp’s leading class offers a limited number of TV channels which are mandatory for each individual, featuring interviews with stars, erotic shows, reality shows, retarded comedies and talent shows.

As Lebbeus Woods put it, one of the most effective ways of controlling people through pleasure is to provide them with artificial dreams and hopes. In our story, the leading class offers each individual the democratic chance of becoming a star through „Hot Shot” – a talent show similar to „Britain’s Got Talent”. All he needs to do is buy a 15 million merits’ worth ticket, the price of 6 months’ work. The ticket gives him the right to participate in the competition and impress the jury with his talent. The winners are offered slots on TV channels, thus escaping the pedaling routine.
The hope of winning the show is systematically instilled into the workers’ minds through TV shows; the ‘legends’ are constantly featured in mandatory adverts (skipping them incurs loss of merits), while becoming a part of the entertainment industry is regarded as the highest conceivable achievement in one’s life.

The absurdity of this myth is fully revealed when two individuals, Aby and Bing, buy participation tickets for the show and meet the other contestants in the waiting hall. Hundreds of alienated individuals, each practicing his act, singing and dancing, waiting to enter the talent show at any moment. The judges’ criteria for talent consist of standardised skills and fixed ways of behaving, as if selected through computer-generated processes . There is a successful way of singing, a successful way of dancing, of promoting yourself, of featuring your body, of speaking and gazing. The featured legend, Selma Telse, considered the best singer in the world, does nothing but cover Abba’s „I Have a Dream” with an ordinary pop-music voice. However, the judges consider her performance „beyond incredible”. Symptomatic for today’s pop culture; I went to Westfield the other day, to discover that their amazing Christmas singer was a guy playing predictable chords on the piano and singing with an autotune-like voice. That’s right! The bloody tool that destroyed music has become worthy of imitation!
The physical look of the candidates is also mechanically analised according to the infallible standard and carefully placed into a category or another: „hot and innocent, thus suitable to be mixed with eroticism”, „stylish and beautiful, thus suitable for fashion and reality shows”, „virile and rebel, thus suitable for a hip-hop performance”, „funny and entertaining, thus suitable for a comedy show”; the predictable computer-generated categories that would meet the expectations of consumers. A closed-circuit mechanism that tends to constantly suppress differences between performers in order to please consumers, and in the same time suppressing differences between consumers themselves in order to control them through pleasure. A displeased consumer and a maverick performer are the biggest threats to the political hierarchy; this is why these dangerous individuals need to be reduced to one of the classic categories or crushed.

When the innocent and joyful Aby Khan sings about an authentic love that thrives beyond commercial cliches, she becomes a maverick, a potential threat to the consumer society, threatening to jeopardise the established categories. The jury members diligently camouflage the crisis and try to solve it through forcefully placing her in one of the commercial categories: „the hot and innocent girl, suitable for erotic shows”. In fact, she is carefully approached from the beginning; before stepping on the stage, she is put in front of a camera and asked if she wanted to be as big as Selma one day, then she is asked to say that as a self-contained sentence. „What did you dream? It’s alright, we told you what to dream” (Pink Floyd). Inhibitions and authentic emotions are also regarded as potential threats in a performance, so they are cured through an energising mind-altering drink.

The three Judges are a troubling representation of the leading class in the world of entertainment. Everything they do, their words, their facial expressions, their voice, speech and pauses – are carefully calculated to maximise their impact on screen and impress all categories of consumers. Their reactions strike you as a deja vu from other movies; judge Hope is a mixture of Simon Cowell, James Bond and the average 90s action figure; judge Charity is the average female star, a more daring Amanda Holden who cries during performances but also joins men in their indecent jokes. Finally, judge Wraith is the afro-american movie star, a mix between Martin Lawrence, Will Smith and the classic hip-hop figure. When confronted with authentic, heartfelt productions, it is as if the judges suddenly realise the whole artificiality of the system and seem to be „born again” – in fact, a calculated process of winning a maverick’s sympathy, allowing him to feel content and proud of his impact, so that he might be bought into the system and fall into one of the standard categories of producers: „You will never have to pedal again, not one minute; we could really work with you. You would be a star on our stream. Your furniture’s the best. Forget about all that shame and all that… we medicate against that. You will have pleasure for ever.” (judge Wraith).
If the maverick is still undecided, they present him their second argument: since his „stuff” is atypical, it would go unnoticed: „good though your voice is, I don’t think anyone’s really hearing it; certainly not the guys in the audience”. Or even more direct, as in the case of other unfortunate contestants: „I’m so sorry, love. You came across as fundamentally unlikable and really quite worthless!” When Aby, still not convinced, is about to refuse the proposal, the judges reveal their true concern: „Who do you think is powering that spotlight? Millions of people, that’s who. All of them looking at you right now, putting in an honest day on the bike, while you stand in the light they’re generating and ditter. You know what? They would give anything, do anything to be where you’re at now. […] And you’re standing there as though they’re nothing. And that makes me sick.”
The status quo is invoked as the final argument against oddity; the maverick’s refusal to fall into one of the system’s categories is considered the biggest insult towards the millions of abiding individuals.
Bing Madson’s performance has the same results as Aby’s. His anarchic speech, his rage against the artificial system powered only to perpetuate illusions and to deprive people of their personality, is carefully examined by judge Hope and put into a paradoxical commercial category, „the virile and rebel anarchist”; the producer that successfully sells his own negation; James Cameron’s „Avatar” if you like. Every maverick is forced to become a producer or a consumer; it’s either the stage or the bike; as simple as that. The hierarchical system must continue feeding on consumers’ individuality and control them through pleasure.

„This culture is maintained at the expense of creativity that can emerge only from an imagination stirred by confrontation with every kind of experience and actuality. Crises arise from the confrontation of disparate realities, when things of different orders meet and contend. (Lebbeus Woods, Idem).”

You don’t have to get through Lebbeus’ analysis to realise we’re already being controlled with pleasure in a media-augmented concentration camp. Architects cannot avoid these realities either. Do you want to become a successful architect, work for a powerful corporation and earn £50000 a year? All you have to do is follow strict procedures, while maintaining the illusion that you’re progressing in a personalised, creative way. Build a strong Linkedin profile, ask for recommendations and endorsements from previous employers, learn how recruitment agencies really work, learn how to introduce dozens of search engines keywords, buzzwords and cliches into your profile, CV and cover letter in order to advance in the search hierarchies and get views from recruiters. Learn this specific software, design in that specific way, attend this meeting, constantly post on your profile, constantly call your recruiters, constantly apply for CV reviewing companies that will fill your profiles with even more buzzwords and help you sell yourself even better.

Describe yourself as an innovative, highly motivated and creative architect, but nonetheless submissive, with high academic qualifications that look good in a CV and strong communication skills consisting of buzzwords and motivational stereotypes.  Tell them about your desire to grow, to constantly project an image of success in order to be successful, to be part of an immersive environment and work on robust, contextual, innovative, bespoke, feature-rich projects and constantly increase operational efficiency, boost productivity and deliver high quality services. I recently received an email from Linkedin providing valuable advice for increasing my employability. One of the tips was as straightforward as this:

The most memorable cover letter I received was from a Purchasing Agent who started off with “Money, money, money. All I think about is how to save money”, and then went on to describe how saving money is part of her personality both at work and at home. We ended up hiring her because we believed she would not only thrive in the job, but actually enjoy it.

After you get the chance of becoming a producer, you will have to follow the same fixed routines, use the same design cliches required by the hierarchy and, if possible, maintain the illusion of creativity and helpfulness. Lebbeus’ reflections point to this troublesome reality:

„Architects are specialists in the formation of [abstract spatial] qualities. One of the cliches derived from this approach is that space is designed to be functional, which means, in the jargon of the architect, that each designed space has been shaped to follow a “program” for human use. This, of course, is nonsense. Architects usually design rectilinear volumes of space following Cartesian rules of geometry, and such spaces are no better suited to being used for office work than as a bedroom or a butcher shop. All designed space is in fact pure abstraction, truer to a mathematical system than to any human “function”. While architects speak of designing space that satisfied human needs, human needs are actually being shaped to satisfy designed space, and the abstract systems of thought and organization on which design is based. In the case of Cartesian space, these systems include not only Descartes’s mind-and-body duality, but also Newton’s cause-and-effect determinism, Aristotle’s laws of logic and other theoretical constructs that the prevailing political and social powers that be require.

Design can be a means of controlling human behavior, and of maintaining this control into the future. The architect is a functionary in a chain of command whose most important task (from the standpoint of social institutions) is to label otherwise abstract and “meaningless” spaces with “functions” that are actually instructions to people as to how they must behave at a particular place and time. The network of designed spaces, the city, is an intricate behavioral plan prescribing social interactions of every kind, prescribing therefore the thoughts and, if possible, the feeling of individuals.” (Lebbeus Woods, Idem)

Just as in Black Mirror’s dystopian society, every creation of the Architect is destined to fall into the fixed, abstract categories dictated by consumer culture. You can either contribute to the production of ‘fodder” and earn a living, or embark on a heroic quest to change the world and end up selling your own negation. There is a third option in Lebbeus’ view, but it only makes sense in a post-apocalyptic scenario. For the time being, the mere contemplation of our dystopian concentration camp might suffice. Welcome to the Machine.

Sursa articolului

17 Responses to Controlled through Inflicting Pleasure. The Entertainment Concentration Camp

  1. Good point, Marcus. Mai mult dupa ce vad filmul.

  2. dincolodenume says:

    Faptul ca suntem atatati sa traim intr-o lume plina de avataruri este un lucru cert, un fapt (asa cum ne place sa afirmam aici) si daca tot ai adus vorba de filme eu as recomanda Nightcrawler

    Mergand in absurd, erijandu-ma in avocatul diavolului, am putea considera chiar si avatarurile o lume reala atata timp cat senzatiile sunt simtite in acelasi mod in creierul nostru. Faptul ca traim intr-o lume in care nu mai traim pentru „noi insine” ci pentru „avatarurile proprii” nu schimba cu nimic situatia. Asta pentru a face paralelea intre episodul 2 din Black Mirror recomandat de tine si Nightcrawler.

    Nu ne mai intereseaza daca produsul pe care il vindem, sau pe care il vanam, are o valoare, nu vrem decat stimuli, sange, adrenalina, senzatii, emotie, psihoza, vartej, sex, bani, putere. Vrem sa vindem, vrem sa facem audienta, vrem sclipire, putere. Un iures din care nu iesim ci ne aducem idolii (diavolii) la putere, idolii psihotici pe care ajungem sa-i veneram, sa le ascultam ordinele si de care suntem mandrii ca sunt in echipa noastra.

    As parafraza cumva ceea ce unul dintre jurati spunea: Cine crezi ca da forma unei astfel de lumi in care traim? Miliardele de oameni care se uita la papusari, pregatiti oricand sa le ia locul si sa faca exact la fel. Sa se bucure de putere.

  3. Marcus Crassus says:

    Multumesc pentru recomandare. O sa vad filmul cat de curand, mai ales ca am mare respect pt Jake Gyllenhaal.

    Foarte interesant ce zici despre avataruri; e greu sa stabilesti ce anume e „autentic” si ce e „fals”; daca te apuci sa diseci lucrurile, o sa ajungi tot la conventii culturale. E autentic ceea ce-mi provoaca senzatii tari. Pentru un roman needucat, manelele sunt cel mai autentic produs artistic.

    Referitor la dorinta de senzatii tari – realitatea este ca toti am imbratisat-o intr-o anumita masura; pana si crestinii fundamentalisti care au spus „nu” lumii se hranesc de fapt cu adrenalina din scenarii apocaliptice de proasta calitate.

    Parerea mea e ca putem scapa din circuitul inchis al consumului de placere prin incurajarea creativitatii, „that can emerge only from an imagination stirred by confrontation with every kind of experience and actuality. Crises arise from the confrontation of disparate realities, when things of different orders meet and contend.”. Iar creativitatea as defini-o simplu ca un binom care integreaza dorinta de cunoastere si conexiunile neasteptate intre domenii diferite.
    Daca dorinta de cunoastere devine o preocupare, deja am depasit stadiul consumatorului pasiv; implinirea nu mai e data de consumul de entertainment, ci de intelegerea unor franturi din realitate. Apoi conexiunile neasteptate sunt partea a doua, care defineste arta; prin cunoastere iti formezi o baza de date, prin conexiuni incepi sa le legi in moduri neasteptate; aici concepte precum „eleganta” sau „estetica” devin relevante, pt. ca de multe ori procesul de formare a conexiunilor este un joc, o forma de entertainment care nu poate fi comparata cu „nutretul” mass-mediei.

  4. Marcus Crassus says:

    Si fiindca tot recomandam filme pe tema consumerismului si a avatarurilor, am uitat sa mentionez „American Beauty”.

  5. nosceipsum says:

    nu ma pot abtine sa nu pomenesc de „maretul” matrix, cu o mica scena (1min ce spune multe):

    „După un mare arhitect contemporan, Le Corbusier, casa este „o masină de locuit“. Ea face parte, asadar, din nenumăratele masini produse în serie în societătile industriale. În lumea modernă, casa ideală trebuie să fie mai întîi de toate functională, adică să le permită oamenilor să muncească si să se odihnească, pentru ca apoi să poată din nou munci. „Masina de locuit“ poate fi schimbată tot atît de des ca si bicicleta, frigiderul, automobilul.
    Tot asa cum locuinta omului modern si–a pierdut valorile cosmologice, corpul său este lipsit de orice semnificatie religioasă ori spirituală. Am putea spune, pe scurt, că pentru oamenii moderni lipsiti de religiozitate Cosmosul a devenit opac, inert si mut: nu mai transmite nici un mesaj si nu mai cuprinde nici un „cifru“. ”

  6. Marcus Crassus says:

    Well said; în aceeași direcție cu Eliade mergea și Nietzsche care vorbea despre omul modern care a rămas fără mituri și disperat începe să sape în pământ după rădăcini. Mulți sunt de părere că alienarea modernă a început odată cu secolul 19; e interesant că acesta a fost secolul muzeelor, când Vestul a devenit obsedat de conservarea și rememorarea trecutului, iar istoria în sensul de disciplină modernă atunci a apărut. Walter Benjamin spunea că obsesia rememorării apare la amnezici. Deci mai întâi omul modern își taie legăturile cu trecutul, apoi inventează mitul progresului (Corbusier privea cu fascinație la o lume a mașinilor), după care redevine nostalgic.
    Ar fi interesant de discutat despre nostalgia omului contemporan; nostalgicii naivi, restauraționiști, au iluzia că se pot întoarce în trecutul pe care-l venerează și îl pot implementa în prezent. Nostalgicii reflectivi găsesc alte metode de evocare a trecutului, dar realizează permanent că nu se mai pot întoarce acolo.

    Lebbeus Woods era un arhitect american care dincolo de a observa criza de identitate a modernității, a propus o utopie social-arhitecturală pe care a exprimat-o în scris și prin desene. În cartea ”Radical Reconstruction” el încearcă să exploreze posibile soluții la problema pe care o identifică Eliade și Nietzsche, a demitizării Cosmosului. Textul cărții e disponibil aici –
    Mare parte din carte o ocupă desenele utopice ale autorului; astea apar pe google la o căutare după ”Lebbeus woods”.

  7. Marcus Crassus says:

    Acum am terminat de văzut Nightcrawler; genial filmul! dincolo de faptul că e numai bun de recomandat lui MG și reporterașilor AZS de la Antene, e foarte asemănător cu seria ”Black Mirror” – o oglindă a problemelor contemporae duse la extrem. La fel ca judecătorii din ”Fifteen Million Merits”, Louis Bloom nu e capabil să-și perceapă interlocutorii ca ființe umane, ci ca pe niște simple unelte care-i pot servi corporația.
    Frazele motivaționale pe care le repetă obsedant ca pe niște mantre se pliază perfect pe maniile lui. Iar dacă în filmări victimele accidentelor nu înseamnă nimic pentru el, în studio-ul de știri reține orice detaliu despre angajați și directori și menține relațiile profesionale cu orice preț.
    Aparent, dacă vrei succes profesional trebuie să fii măcar pe jumătate la fel de lipsit de scrupule ca și Louis. Se umple lumea de yuppies…

  8. dincolodenume says:

    Satira e foarte bine conturata. Corporatiile din toata lumea cauta astfel de oameni, ca Louis Bloom. Vor oameni care sa gandeasca in fraze motivationale, vor ca angajatii lor sa citeasca carti de „dezvoltare personala”, sa fie transformati „intr-un mecanism” de succes, oameni care muncesc fara sa cunoasca scopul si rostul muncii lor.

    Umanitatea s-a imbolnavit pentru ca nu mai are vise, nu mai are idealuri altele decat cele legate de bani. Calea spre succes nu mai este importanta atata timp cat finalul drumului este cel dorit.

  9. Marcus Crassus says:

    Sunt interesante reactiile directoarei de la agentia de stiri. Cand realizeaza ca Bloom o santajeaza, are un fel de repulsie amestecata cu admiratie pentru modul in care baiatul si-a facut temele. In final devine de-a dreptul fascinata de el si de modul in care Bloom „ne inspira pe toti sa ne depasim limitele”.
    Soundtrack-ul e iarasi genial; cand Bloom indruga fraze motivationale meaningless in fata prezentatoarei, aceasta are o stare de extaz, iar muzica devine emotionala, semn ca ne aflam intr-un moment sensibil in care protagonistii isi deschid inima si spun lucruri semnificative. Un astfel de moment mai e la sfarsit cand directoarea sta fata in fata cu Bloom si nu stie cum sa-i multumeasca pentru contributia lui uriasa; cei doi sunt prieteni adevarati („a friend is a gift you make yourself”), even fell in love – totul de dragul audientei, al dezvoltarii afacerii personale si al banilor. Si pentru ca privitorul retardat sa inteleaga ca momentul emotional e „tongue-in-cheek”, au pus in background poza cu angajatul lui Bloom care zace impuscat pe asfalt.

    In „Clockwork Orange” e o idee similara; sistemul politic exploateaza dramele si psihozele indivizilor pentru a-si creste rating-ul; partidul propune un antidot-miracol care va elimina delincventa; cand antidotul ii e aplicat protagonistului, Alex, se dovedeste nociv si depersonalizant, astfel ca partidul din opozitie profita imediat de situatie si se foloseste de drama lui Alex pentru a ataca sistemul. Cand politicienii de la guvernare realizeaza asta, ii promit lui Alex vindecarea de efectele adverse ale antidotului, un loc de munca stabil si multi bani, pentru a-si redresa criza de imagine.
    Alex, protagonistul psihopat e suficient de destept cat sa inteleaga ce se intampla si accepta alianta cu puterea politica, profitand de pe urma privilegiilor care-i revin. One way or another, tot la totalitarism se ajunge incet, iar indivizii lipsiti de constiinta aleg beneficiile aliantei cu sistemul, inchizand ochii deliberat in fata partii intunecate. „Ignorance is bliss.”

  10. nosceipsum says:

    dincolodenume: „Umanitatea s-a imbolnavit pentru ca nu mai are vise,…” bine si poetic spus, dar a fost candva sanatoasa?:)

    Poate unul din cauzele aparitiei „omului masina” este si ca societatea de azi isi pierde sentimentul/notiunea de sacru, lasand la o parte cazul in care si-l pierde datorita mediocritatii, nu putini sunt cei care si-l pierd prin cautarea adevarului, realitatea obiectiva aduce dovezi care „demitizeaza”, in urma carora „gasitorul” nu mai poate …pupa moaste, citi Biblia (vz. YEC/OEC).

    Incet „homo religiosus” este inlocuit cu „homo technicus”.(

    „Humans have been co-evolving with their technologies since the dawn of prehistory. What is different now is that we have moved beyond external technological interventions to transform ourselves from the inside out—even as we also remake the Earth system itself.”

    For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of human life was how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution was wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. For the modern mind, the cardinal problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of man, and the solution is a technique.”
    — C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”

    Unde este diferenta intre „a demitiza” si „a desacraliza”?

  11. Ianis says:

    Dupa Black Mirror s01e02, repulsia pentru show-urile de tipul China got talents, Vocea Pakistanului, X-Y Factor… a devenit cronica.
    Daca astea culeg puncte din IQ-ul privitorului presupus inteligent cu fiecare sezon, exista si versiuni pentru cei cu IQ minuscul: Schimb de capre, Mireasa pentru barbatul meu

    Putem multumi televiziunilor pentru producerea de distopici in masa (in asteptarea distopiilor care sa-i culeaga gata copti)

  12. Marcus Crassus says:

    Daca mergem pe definitiile lui Eliade, nu cred ca e nicio diferenta intre a demitiza si a desacraliza. Omul prin definitie are nevoie de mituri, iar abandonarea superstitiilor stravechi nu l-a oprit din acest proces. Orice civilizatie are miturile ei si exista destui autori care au scris despre miturile modernitatii; insasi ideea omului-masina e un mit, ca sa nu mai zic de transumanism.

    In definitia lui Eliade mitul e o poveste despre origini, conferitoare de sens.
    In trecut se credea ca exista un sens, un meanin intrinsec al lumii si al elementelor naturale, deci Cosmosul era vazut ca fiind sacru. Omul trebuia sa descopere acest sens, sa se conformeze lui si sa-l rememoreze prin ritualuri.
    In modernitate, omul a deconstruit mecanicist vechile mituri, care si-au pierdut sensul; noile mituri nu au aceeasi putere fiindca schimbarile sunt mult mai accelerate acum; produsele tehnologice se uzeaza moral rapid, „masina” care-l fascina pe Corbusier a devenit banala, ideologiile utopice ale progresului (ex. comunism) samd.
    Deci probabil criza de identitate a omului contemporan este data de productia mult prea rapida de noi mituri, urmata de distrugerea lor.

  13. nosceipsum says:

    marcus ,
    (sper sa nu sune prea filosofic si imbarligat), asa cred si eu ca nu este nici o diferenta intre demitizare si desacralizare, dar desacralizrea unui mit ar trebui sa insemne si desacralizarea notiunii de Sacru Suprem (daca exista)?;

    pomenisem de YEC/OEC e una demitizarea creatiei (si poate a Bibliei) si alta desacralizarea notiunii de Dumnezeu sau de ex. omul, e una demitizarea creatiei omului, de fapt stramosul nostru e viermele plat si alta desacralizarea constiintei; desigur cand vom avea dovezi o vom desfiinta si „constiinta”, dar pana atunci nu se pripesc?

    si apropo: La multi ani si fie 2015 un an cu multa placere si putin control sau control al placerii ? :):)

  14. nosceipsum says:

    apropo pt cine nu a vz recomand: The Century of the Self

  15. Marcus Crassus says:

    Cred ca inteleg distinctia la care te referi. Nietzsche spunea ca prin intrebari socratice, omul modern a desacralizat miturile stravechi, ramanand fara niciun reper.
    Parerea mea e ca demitizarea, asa cum o definesti, poate fi facuta fara desacralizare. Demitizarea e gasirea unei explicatii naturale a unui fenomen considerat in trecut ca fiind supranatural/inexplicabil. Explicand un fenomen nu l-ai desacralizat; impresia asta e valabila doar in mindset-ul YEC, care Il izoleaza pe Dumnezeu in supranatural (si care implicit duce la desacralizarea naturii, care e o simpla colectie de obiecte amorfe pe care ‘le-a facut Dumnezeu’, niste ceasornice lipsite de viata, pe pilot automat). De-asta zice si Eliade ca paradigma crestina a desacralizat natura; ea nu mai e Cosmos, nu ne mai vorbeste. E o simpla resursa pe care Domnul a facut-o pentru noi – doar originea fenomenelor naturale e considerata sacra, nu si ele in sine. Ori daca fundamentalistul descopera ca pana si originea e prin procese naturale, a ramas fara sacru.

    Daca nu Il alienezi pe Dumnezeu intr-un supranatural intangibil (care intra tot mai mult la apa pe masura ce demitizezi fortele din natura), atunci poti vedea lumea ca un Cosmos viu in care lucrurile nu sunt cu nimic mai putin fascinante odata ce ai inteles relatiile de cauzalitate dintre fenomene. My opinion.

    Multumesc pt recomandare si pt. urari. Daca e vorba de autocontrol al placerii, e perfect 😛 All the best!

  16. nosceipsum says:

    „Daca nu Il alienezi pe Dumnezeu intr-un supranatural intangibil (care intra tot mai mult la apa pe masura ce demitizezi fortele din natura), atunci poti vedea lumea ca un Cosmos viu in care lucrurile nu sunt cu nimic mai putin fascinante odata ce ai inteles relatiile de cauzalitate dintre fenomene”

    rar mai cad oamenii pe aici la un consens, dar bine ca se intampla…:)

Lasă un răspuns:

Te rog autentifică-te folosind una dintre aceste metode pentru a publica un comentariu:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.

%d blogeri au apreciat: