No Future
Sunday, 1. November 2009, 13:12:35
I'm not sure what year it's from, but presumably some time before 1995 (when Richey vanished from the face of the Earth).
The first question the interviewer asks is as follows:
Your role in the band has included the writing of lyrics. All of these have had what might be called a negative or pessimistic tone. Do you think that will change in the future?
I actually can't quite make out all of Richey's words distinctly, but he says something like the following:
I think the whole first world, its suffering is very self-indulgent. There's no reason to be unhappy, but I think everybody feels melancholia quite regularly.
As far as I can make out, the interviewer's next question is:
And that falling into melancholia (before you know it), is that the way your own path in life has taken you?
From Richey's reply:
My father is really, really happy, and his standard of living when he was my age was nothing compared to mine. And yet, I sit in my house and I moan and complain, and he just doesn't understand. And, I don't know why, it's just the way our generation is, I suppose.
I've been thinking about this. Of course, my own feelings are similar (though I don't agree with everything he says in this interview). I don't really want to go into details, but, despite my standard of living being well below the British average, I am also aware that, materially speaking, I am living in relative luxury. Relative, that is, to other countries in the world, and to the foreign country that is the past. I do appreciate the luxuries I have.
What I don't have, however, is any sense that there's a reason to get out of bed other than the fact that things will ultimately end up being harder for me if I stay in bed. I really don't see any future for myself or anyone else now alive unless benevolent aliens swoop down on golden beams of light in 2012 and tell us we've graduated to the 'cosmic party' stage of consciousness.
Of course, Richey references The Smiths later on in his interview, and this is telling. I wonder what it is that many people 'don't get' about The Smiths. Some have the sense that it was all moaning about nothing. And yet, millions of people have felt extraordinarily in tune with that particular moaning about nothing. Some kind of fall had taken place in people's outlook and emotions over the space of a generation or two.
That's how it seems, at least, and if I question what that seeming depends upon, then the immediate answer is popular culture. Popular culture now is vastly more nihilistic than it was in, say... the fifties. For instance, I watched the video of Animal Collective's Peacebone the other day:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the feeling if this song, and this video, had come out in the fifties, they would have been extremely shocking. Watching this video just the other day, though, my reaction was a giggle or two, and a yawn. It is 'cute nihilism'. (Probaby more 'cute' than 'nihilism', actually.)
Of course, between the fifties and now there was... the sixties. I can't help wondering whether something in the sixties threw open the doors of the human id to let all the monsters out.
But that's really a wild stab in the dark, and perhaps the kind of theorising that I've heard described as 'coffee-table psychology'. Basically, I don't know.
Since the sixties, of course, we've had all kinds of backlashes (or lashings back). For instance, the writer Michel Houellebecq is well-known for excoriating the hippie ideals of his parents, and for baiting the kinds of liberals who are the cultural descendents of those ideals.
Here's one of my favourite Houellebecq rants:
I had decided at that particular time to remain in Madrid all week, and two days later I had a little argument with Esther on the subject of Ken Park, the latest film by Larry Clark, which she had been keen to go and see. I had hated Kids, and I hated Ken Park even more, the scene where this dirty little shit beats up his grandparents was particularly unbearable. That film-maker completely disgusted me, and it was no doubt this sincere disgust that made me incapable of stopping myself from talking about it, whilst I strongly suspected that Esther liked him out of habit and conformism, because it was generally cool to approve of the representation of violence in the arts, and that she liked him without any real discernment, in the same way she liked, for example, Michael Haneke, without even realising that the meaning of those sorrowful and moral films by Michael Haneke was completely different from that of those by Larry Clark. I knew that it would have been better for me to keep quiet, that abandoning my usual comic character could only bring me trouble, but I couldn't, the imp of the perverse was the stronger. We were in a bizarre, very kitsch bar, with mirrors and gold fixtures, full of paroxysmal homosexuals who buggered themselves silly in adjacent backrooms, yet which was open to everyone, with groups of young boys and girls calmly drinking Coca-Colas at neighbouring tables. I explained to her whilst rapidly downing my iced tequila that I had built the whole of my career and fortune on the commercial exploitation of bad instincts, of the West's absurd attraction to cynicism and evil, and that I therefore felt myself ideally placed to assert that among all the merchants of evil, Larry Clark was one of the most common, most vulgar, simply because he unreservedly took the side of the young against the old, because all his films were an incitement to children to treat their parents without the least humanity, the least pity, and that there was nothing new or original about this, it had been the same in all the cultural sectors for the last fifty-odd years, and this supposedly cultural tendency in fact only hid the desire for a return to a primitive state where the young got rid of the old without ceremony, with no questions asked, simply because they were too weak to defend themselves. It was, therefore, just a brutal regression, typical of modernity, to a stage preceding all civilisation, for any civilisation could judge itself on the fate it reserved for the weakest, for those who were no longer either productive or desirable, in short Larry Clark and his abject accomplice Harmony Korine were just two of the most tedious - and artistically the most miserable - examples of the Nietzschean scum who had been proliferating in the cultural field for far too long, and who could in no way be put on the same level as people like Michael Haneke, or like me, for example - who had always made sure to introduce a certain element of doubt, uncertainty and unease into my shows, even if they were (I was the first to admit it) otherwise repugnant. She listened to me with a sad expression, but with great attention, she hadn't yet touched her Fanta.
The advantage of giving a moral lecture, is that this type of argument had been under such strong censorship, and for so many years, that it provokes an incongruous effect and immediately attracts the attention of the interlocuter; the disadvantage is that the interlocuter never manages to take you completely seriously. The serious and attentive expression on Esther's face threw me for an instant, but I ordered another glass of tequila and ploughed on, whilst becoming conscious that I was getting excited artificially, that there was something false about my sincerity: apart from the patently obvious fact that Larry Clark was just a small, undistinguished merchant and that to cite him in the same sentence as Nietzsche was already in itself something derisory, I felt in my heart of hearts scarcely more concerned about these subjects than by world hunger, human rights or any rubbish of that kind. Nevertheless, I went on, with increasing acrimony, carried away by that strange mixture of nastiness and masochism, which I perhaps hoped would lead me to my destruction, after it had brought me fame and fortune. Not only did the old not have the right to fuck, I continued ferociously, but they no longer had the right to rebel against a world that nevertheless crushed them unsparingly, made them defenceless prey to the violence of juvenile delinquents before dumping them in ignoble twilight homes where they were humiliated and mistreated by decerebrated auxiliary nurses, and despite all this, rebellion was forbidden to them, rebellion too - like sexuality, like pleasure, like love - seemed reserved for the young and to have no point for other people, any cause incapable of mobilising the interest of the young was disqualified in advance, basically, old people were in all matters treated simply as waste, to be granted only a survival that was miserable, conditional and more and more narrowly limited. In my script The Social Security Deficit, which hadn't seen the light of day, and this appeared highly significant to me, I continued, almost besisde myself - I incited instead the old to rebel against the young, to use them and to show them who's boss. Why for example should male and female adolescents, voracious and sheep-like consumers, always greedy for pocket money, not be forced into prostitution, the only means by which they could modestly reimburse the immense efforts and struggles that were made for their well-being? And why, at a time when contraception had been perfected, and the risk of genetic degeneration perfectly localised, should we maintain the absurd and humiliating taboo that is incest? Those are the real questions, the authentic moral issues! I exclaimed angrily; now that was no Larry Clark.
I think one telling detail here is that the narrator admits that he's basically peddling the same kind of nihilism as Larry Clark, but is passionate about certain nuances in the nihilism that make a difference, as if nuances of nihilism is all that we have left.
I wonder if every cultural backlash we will have now will simply be a backlash from one nuance of nihilism to another.
Not that there can be many cultural backlashes left to us now, with time and resources running out as they are.
I suppose one could seek the causes of our general nihilism in the past, and could speculate about the effect that the mere existence of nuclear warheads and so on, have on the human psyche. One could berate a collective figure embodying Richey Edwards's uncomprehending father with the words from Bowie's Changes: "Don't tell them to grow up and out of it/Where's your shame? You've left us up to our necks in it." One could talk about affluenza, about deteriorating education, loss of faith, the breakdown of the family, but I wonder if, after all, our nihilism does not come from the future, and the fact that we are fast approaching its end, and that there is nothing now worth doing, and that the fact that we are, as humans, essentially and irredeemably alone, and moving towards death alone, is increasingly inescapable.
Looking back into the past again, here's another one of those backlashes within the nuances of nihilism:















vacillateallday # 1. November 2009, 19:53
quentinscrisp # 1. November 2009, 20:31
Thank you.
Please feel free to write whenever you have time and inclination.
vacillateallday # 2. November 2009, 14:10
In hindsight I would have done nothing differently in my period of nihilism. Obviously I'm still on planet earth but there were times when that was less certain. That aside during my period of nihilism I now realise that I read, saw, met, tasted, visited, argued with, had relationships with, investigated, perceived, developed survival characteristics, learnt and experienced so much ...well ... stuff which augments my life now.
This period of nihilism - drug induced to a degree - but who knows as a drinking problem is such a complex and messy subject - has been replaced by my own inherent qualities which comprise a type of fatalism. I no longer add the same weight to questions of - the meaning, purpose and intrinsic value of life. I'm here for a while but I no longer worry nor care why I'm here.
Instead I care and worry about my family, friends and the people I meet during my trip on this planet. I care about nature to but think that overall in the mega-scheme of things that I am an ant. A minute component in a vast and inexhaustible period of time. For example I'm cynical about climate change. Cynical of our useless politicians being able or truthful about solutions. I accept an awful lot of stuff as the issue or problem is far, far greater than me.
So I can say that I am proud to have been a part of a period of nihilism as happened in 1977 when I was a punk. The next stage of increased drinking brought on another period and I learnt from and enjoyed some of that. Was I depressed - if I was I did nothing about it apart from put the brakes on my drinking. Through all of this and the past 49 years what I do say to myself with complete conviction knowing that I'm right - Does it really matter? - well actually no it doesn't.
Nothing really matters. Do you really think that we are fast approaching the end? You could be right but I shall not worry about it. Perhaps there will be a shift in economic strength first - various cultures have had there turn in economic nirvana - UK then the US ... now China and India ... then who? ... or will it be all over by then. I think I will be long dead by then.
I too listen with some morbid curiosity and fascination to people like Richie. I don't linger or think to much - for example I think tragically he was sick in some way but I'm not qualified to speculate. I also like reading obituaries but only to read about a fascinating life - what they did or didn't do.
Your love of the Smiths is interesting. In that period I fell into the Stone Roses and New Order bracket and like you for the lyrics. To this day I remember the lyrics of many of the two bands songs.
In the end I can agree that there are nuances in nihilism. Does it ever go away or do I mask mine by calling it fatalism? I think I should call my outlook fatalistic on certain key matters and enjoy nihilism for what it can bring - a type of creativity yet contradictory, antagonistic and paradoxical.
Rob
quentinscrisp # 2. November 2009, 20:01
For example I'm cynical about climate change. Cynical of our useless politicians being able or truthful about solutions. I accept an awful lot of stuff as the issue or problem is far, far greater than me.
I don't really think that politicians are ever going to do anything other than passing a few cosmetic bills. I just think that the human race is incapable of preparing for any event, no matter how foreseen, on a collective scale, and, for the most part, on an individual scale, too. I've never known any organisation that wasn't basically a shambles, since humans always pull in different directions.
So, well, yes, I suppose that the problems are beyond us. I'm not sure that that's necessarily the case, but whatever the individual will, it just seems impossible to get large groups of people acting in concord. Then again, who knows.
Do you really think that we are fast approaching the end?
The simple answer is that I don't know. Emotionally speaking, however, I do tend to feel oppressed by a sense of doom. It's not entirely without basis, either. In fact, my impression is that the most urgent news is generally elbowed out from the media centre stage in favour of celebrity gossip, party politics and so on.
I basically have conflicting emotions surrounding this issue - let's say ecological armageddon - from almost every conceivable point of view. To describe my feelings succinctly would be difficult. In somes ways I have what might be called a millenarian tendency (I have a feeling that's a word that's largely used in a derogatory sense), in that it seems to me that the human race is pretty much insane and that we can either destroy ourselves or change radically.
Then again, I'm not sure I can think of anyone who can truthfully say, "From that day forward, my life changed", as if they were Scrooge. People are always looking for that change, but it never seems to happen. Life essentially carries on being the same until individuals or civilisations topple into decay and oblivion.
There are people who do talk about radical change, of course, and some who claim to have undergone it. I am naturally interested in what they have to say, but I remain with reservations, even suspicion. Perhaps some of my suspicions are petty - I'm not sure. As an example, those who speak of an enlightened state of mind always talk about the idea or fact that nothing exists except the present moment. There are a number of such ideas that are always repeated. Taking that one idea in particular, I don't disagree, exactly, but I feel like this underplays the significance of memory, planning and anticipation. There are people who actually have no short-term memory and are forced to live very literally in the present moment, and, from the very little I know about this, I understand that it's not an ideal situation at all.
There is also the fact that, as attractive as I find many of the ideas I'm talking about, I begin to find them unattractive when they are repeated again and again by different people. It's almost as if, once you realise that there is only the present moment and you become enlightened, all that's left for you to do is repeat these formulas over and over. It all seems a bit pointless, mind-numbing and aesthetically wrong to me.
As I said, these might be petty objections, especially if this represents a genuine development in consciousness and if such a development will help lead us from our current difficulties.
This brings us again to the question of whether change is possible. IE, is there such a thing as an evolution in consciousness? Well, considering that there is the evolution of consciousness, that we can deduce (if we believe animals are not self-aware, or that plants or minerals are not self-aware) that once there was no self-awareness, but that, with evolution this developed, I don't see why there should not be a further evolution in consciousness. Of course, evolution takes a long time, and we're impatient. I think that the general experience of being human is that of 'going nowhere', since any real progress (if there is such a thing) seems to be so gradual in its curve that it is imperceptible within a single lifetime.
I should probably add here that I don't think of myself as nihilistic really. Then again, I don't think of myself as anything in particular. In terms of life having meaning or not, it is certainly possible to experience meaning (even if communicating meaning has always been exceptionally difficult). What the problem always seems to be is that the meaning we experience always seems so frail. We have dreams, hopes, etc., but impassive fate (or necessity, or some other such word) always seems to disregard such things. And so people have come to see those dreams and hopes as illusions, as actually non-existent in some peculiar way, though it should be clear they have as much existence as any event in the universe.
But the relation between these 'meaningful' experiences and fate is still one that is deeply problematical for me.
In the end I can agree that there are nuances in nihilism. Does it ever go away or do I mask mine by calling it fatalism? I think I should call my outlook fatalistic on certain key matters and enjoy nihilism for what it can bring - a type of creativity yet contradictory, antagonistic and paradoxical.
Denying the so-called 'negative' can, in itself, be a form of 'negativity', I feel. I read this article just today:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091102/tts-uk-mood-memory-ca02f96.html
Nothing really matters.
Whenever I'm feeling overwhelmed, if I remember to, I contemplate the stars, the size of the galaxy, and so on. This does help to calm me down a little.
vacillateallday # 3. November 2009, 14:44
Hope you are OK. Rob.
quentinscrisp # 3. November 2009, 23:01
Thanks.
I'm wondering what iconic site that is now. But you don't have to tell me. I wouldn't really like to talk about my day-job on the Internet, although some people are fine with that.
vacillateallday # 4. November 2009, 14:28
quentinscrisp # 5. November 2009, 19:10
vacillateallday # 6. November 2009, 10:34
I spent 20 years plus selling and marketing medical products. I enjoyed learning how to become a more effective communicator. I also enjoyed the combination with marketing. Although there are hundreds of theories and principles above all if you are unable to be comfortable with yourself then all the knowledge in the world will not help you.
You say - "In terms of life having meaning or not, it is certainly possible to experience meaning (even if communicating meaning has always been exceptionally difficult). What the problem always seems to be is that the meaning we experience always seems so frail." How true for both of us. Our lives can change in an instant. However I don't dwell on that "frailty" as you put it.
I'm ever the optimist these days. Sometimes I think how I might have done things differently. But who can tell? There are so many times when nihilism creeps into our lives. However these days I know I vacillate emotionally and recognise that everybody else does as well. Which is a comfort that I'm not alone. Now that would be depressing.
Meaningful experiences are key. To be fulfilled and enjoy as much as one can is essential to our well being but illusive so often. What is fate? Is it the same as good luck or bad luck? Or something else?
On geopolitical matters I'm looking forward to a general election. All parties require a change. It's been an appalling time for our democracy. Our politicians have steadily allowed our country to degenerate in economic, diplomatic and military terms. I am not a war monger and it's upsetting to see troops dying unnecessarily in a conflict which has little meaning. Leadership is fundamental and we don't have it. Afghanistan is a tragic example.
I hope your day goes as well as it can.
Rob
MarmaladeINFP # 9. November 2009, 23:06
From my perspective, the older and wiser Rob seems like he may be more nihilistic than the younger drug-addled Rob. As I understand it, nihilism isn't about dark thoughts and extreme emotions. If you want to see the best examples of nihilism, you should look at the mainstream culture rather than alternative cultures such as punk. In his book Shows About Nothing, Thomas S. Hibbs uses Seinfeld as an example of the extreme end result of nihilism:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=129729955632
"The humor often hinged upon the sort of pointlessness of, of the lives of these characters, the way in which they saw no ultimate purpose to their life - no way in which relationships, for example, especially marriage, could ever be possible for these characters because they had no larger vision of themselves apart from momentary preferences."
Rob said, "Meaningful experiences are key. To be fulfilled and enjoy as much as one can is essential to our well being but illusive so often." That sounds like the message we get from mainstream culture. This kind of "meaningfulness" is equated with enjoyment. This is a very modern attitude. In the past, enjoyment and joy were used as a ways of understanding the human desire for meaning, but I don't think they were the primary ways of understanding. Modern people would prefer to deny or try to forget about suffering, and between drugs and entertainment we're much more capable of dwelling in fulfillment and enjoyment.
To me, ignoring the big issues in order to seek out this kind of mundane "meaningfulness" feels nihilistic. But maybe I'm projecting. I don't know. Anyhow, I think it relates to what Quentin said about "Denying the so-called 'negative' can, in itself, be a form of 'negativity'".
I did find it interesting that Rob seeks meaning, particularly, in relationships. I was wondering if this is used to counteract nihilism or if it's possibly another symptom of nihilism. In the past, people focused on the importance of non-human relationships (nature, universe, divine beings, etc.) which gave the context of meaning to human relationships. But now human relationships have become isolated in their own meaning. In Seinfeld, all of the characters were obsessed with eachother's lives. They were so focused on the mundane details of human life that they were oblivious to all else.
In many ways, my analysis of Rob applies to my own life and people I personally know. This mundane nihilism has become so pervasive in our society that almost everyone is influenced by it.
MarmaladeINFP # 9. November 2009, 23:23
Thomas S. Hibbs, in his book Arts of Darkness, discusses film noir and it's relationship to nihilism. He contrasts Nietzsche's ideas with those of Pascal. It's a good book that touches upon the issue of whether there is a better response than nihilism to the predicament of modern society.
Secondly, I was thinking it might be helpful to understand present social changes in terms of generations and generational cycles. You and I are both of GenX which is often identified as being nihilistic. I don't know if that is true. Assuming it is true, what I wonder is whether the culture has become nihilistic because of GenX influence or that GenXers became nihilistic in response to growing up in a society that was already becoming very nihilistic.
Are you familiar with Neil Howe and William Strauss? Based on patterns they noticed in history, they proposed a theory that includes 4 basic types of generations that repeat cyclically. According to their theory, we're at the low point of the cycle and will be entering a phase of massive social restructuring. The result of the last restructuring period was the 50s and 60s that the Boomers grew up in.
MarmaladeINFP # 10. November 2009, 08:10
But, from another perspective, all of Western culture has taken on, embraced even, certain nihilistic attitudes. Even if one considers Seinfeld (or any other number of examples of pop culture) as some penultimate form of nihilism, it wouldn't change the fact that it's a popular show. Compared to a lot of the crap one finds on tv, Seinfeld is quality entertainment. So, what is so bad about nihilism?
I don't have an answer. I was just wondering.
vacillateallday # 10. November 2009, 16:43
What I have found are ways of coping with change but also (to demonstrate my inherent mood of optimism) ways to promote change. I do generally view nihilism as unproductive. That maybe an obvious statement however I attempted to say that one learns from that experience hence you cope in one's unique way.
Your comment about film noir and it's relationship to nihilism is very interesting. A subject which also could run and run.
Fear, mistrust, bleakness, loss of innocence, despair and paranoia are readily evident in noir, reflecting the 'chilly' Cold War period when the threat of nuclear annihilation was ever-present. The criminal, violent, misogynistic, hard-boiled, or greedy perspectives of anti-heroes in film noir were a metaphoric symptom of society's evils, with a strong undercurrent of moral conflict, purposelessness and sense of injustice. There were rarely happy or optimistic endings in noirs. Nihilism? Could well be.
My favourite is the combination of film noir and dystopian science fiction - Alphaville. In the end Natacha realizes that it is her understanding of herself as an individual with desires that saves her, and destroys Alpha 60. The film ends with her line, "Je vous aime" ("I love you").
There you are - understanding oneself - I know it's only a film - but it's wonderful and has meaning.
Rob
MarmaladeINFP # 10. November 2009, 22:27
"What I have found are ways of coping with change but also (to demonstrate my inherent mood of optimism) ways to promote change. I do generally view nihilism as unproductive."
It seems we're different kinds of people. I'm not an optimist, but not for any philosophical reason. You had depression and got over it. Just a phase. For me, I've been consistently depressed for decades. I don't have have a drug habit and never had one, and the closest I come to self-destructive behavior is general laziness. I never had a moody revolt against society in the way you describe. I'm extremely introverted and so my moody revolts have tended to be very calm and passive. I cope with life, but I don't aspire to anything so grandiose as being "productive"... or at least not productive in terms of the goals most people aspire towards.
As such, my sense of meaning and purpose is grounded in my pensive dour moods and critical mindset. I'm a spiritual person and I've gained my profound sense of spirituality through suffering. To me, nihilism is the society I see all around me which values superficial happiness and temporary distractions, the mindless conformity combined with a refusal to confront the big issues.
So, I'm very biased in my understanding of nihilism. I know that I'm too critical towards others and maybe I'm probably over-generalizing about society. But what I feel is what I feel.
On the other hand, I accept that I'm a part of the same world as everyone else. My criticisms of others often do apply to me as well. If there is one thing I dislike the most, it is a superior attitude and I try my best to avoid that. I realize nihilism isn't just a way of a labelling certain people and certain views as unworthy. Nihilism is something all people today are confronted with, and whether consciously or by default we all are forced to respond.
Overall, I tend towards an attitude of fatalism. This fatalism at times may be nihilistic (I'm sure many optmistc people would deem it as such), but what I think saves it from absolute nihilism is that there is a sense of faith and wonder that goes hand in hand with this fatalism. In my fatalism, I'm very accepting of the unknown and it encourages in me a desire to be sympathetic to that which is outside my experience and understanding.
"There were rarely happy or optimistic endings in noirs. Nihilism? Could well be."
Thomas S. Hibbs argues that the best examples of film noir have a redemptive quality. He discusses in great length about "the combination of film noir and dystopian science fiction". I can't remember what he might've said about Alphaville, but it's the type of example he used in Arts of Darkness. He comes at it from a Christian perspective using Pascal's theology of a "hidden God", and he thinks that Pascal was giving an early response to what later would develop into postmodernism.
Here are some commentaries on Thomas S. Hibbs ideas about noir and nihilism:
http://filmsnoir.net/film_noir/light-in-the-shadows-noir-and-redemption.html
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0608/0608artsofdarkness.htm
Understanding oneself is a fine goal to have, but I think it's an even better if seen as a doorway rather than it's own conclusion. This is where I feel that nihilism has to do more with certainty than uncertainty. Saying there is no meaning is a position of certainty. I prefer agnosticism. There is great power in simply admitting that one doesn't know, that one often doesn't even know what one doesn't know. At best, this can lead to a sense of wonder and curiosity.
Does that resonate with your own view?
lesoldatperdu # 10. November 2009, 23:28
I was rattled by the realisation that I was watching a film created by a man who revels in proletariat vulgarity of the worst sort; a man whose daydreams are populated by gibbering tramps, pig-faced single-mothers and psychotic yobs, all saturated with the stench of tower block stairwells and secluded phone boxes -- this is the disgusting inner-world that these men inhabit. To watch their films is to experience the filmic equivalent of a trip to Southend.
I recalled an incident a few years ago where Bryan Ferry made a comment regarding Nazi aesthetics and was harangued by the press. Nazism was as much an art movement as a political ideology. The Schutzstaffel uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss; the parades and architecture were designed for maximum artistic impact. Even the corpses of the concentration camp victims were artfully arranged and photographed -- the images of the Buchenwald burial pits are macabre, iconic masterworks.
The Nazis were evil, and Harmony Korine is evil, but Harmony Korine has no aesthetic sensibility. His evil is the antithesis of the ultra-refined evil of, say, the Marquis de Sade. It manifests itself in a boorish and petty sort of cruelty.
vacillateallday # 11. November 2009, 15:00
Firstly I'm struck by how intelligently you articulate your thoughts. I find it heart-wrenching to hear of your depression when other aspects of your attributes and capabilities are so evidently healthy.
I too can be over critical, however a success of mine over the years has been to rein back these past reactions and strive towards greater tolerance and appreciate the other point of view.
Originally posted by MarmaladeINFP:
I too share your air of fatalism.
Thanks for the links - from the first I thought this was an interesting quote -
"Hibbs writes that, although noir seems bleak and cynical on the surface, the meaning behind the phenomenon is a good deal more complex and significantly more positive: What is significant about these films is not just that they present a dark and dismal world but that they display their main characters as on a quest for love, truth, justice, and even redemption. What interests Hibbs is the convergence of noir with the religious quest : Noir arises from the same impulses that prompted Pascal to write of the hiddenness of God, and of the faithful believer who seeks with groans."
I hadn't considered this view and it's an interesting perspective. The following quote from your second link provides further weight to this view I'll look into myself now that you have given me a nudge in this direction.
"Pascal proved to be ahead of his time, writes Hibbs, when he argued that the human condition itself – faced with the problem of the "hidden God" – when combined with scientific rationalism, would lead to alienation, a facet of modern society that social scientists have been unable to deal with effectively. The characters in many examples of film noir are the personification of alienation, often confident in their strength and abilities but also unable to connect meaningfully with their surroundings and the people who enter their lives."
Finally back to your last paragraph ...
Originally posted by lesoldatperdu:
Indeed - I agree ... Rob
quentinscrisp # 11. November 2009, 17:25
Meaningful experiences are key. To be fulfilled and enjoy as much as one can is essential to our well being but illusive so often. What is fate? Is it the same as good luck or bad luck? Or something else?
Whatever those forces are, apparently governing the universe, that seem greater than us, I suppose. There seem to be many different words for the same thing, usually with slightly different nuances.
There are so many times when nihilism creeps into our lives. However these days I know I vacillate emotionally and recognise that everybody else does as well. Which is a comfort that I'm not alone. Now that would be depressing.
Yes, this is one thing I often think about. I think that humans are aware of their own ignorance to such a degree that when someone confidently stands up and claims to know something, that confidence can, in itself, be inflential and/or disturbing. In this way, sociopaths become very influential. But perhaps certainty has its good points, too.
Thomas S. Hibbs, in his book Arts of Darkness, discusses film noir and it's relationship to nihilism. He contrasts Nietzsche's ideas with those of Pascal. It's a good book that touches upon the issue of whether there is a better response than nihilism to the predicament of modern society.
This does sound interesting. I'll have to have a look.
Secondly, I was thinking it might be helpful to understand present social changes in terms of generations and generational cycles. You and I are both of GenX which is often identified as being nihilistic. I don't know if that is true. Assuming it is true, what I wonder is whether the culture has become nihilistic because of GenX influence or that GenXers became nihilistic in response to growing up in a society that was already becoming very nihilistic.
I suppose there must be something about the 60s. I'm not sure my parents' generation understand the attraction of, for instance, the work of Ligotti to someone like myself. I know that history is cyclical (for instance, debates about spirituality versus materialism played out thousands of years ago in Greece in a way similar to that in which they are being played out today), but I can't help wondering if Ligotti's work is a symptom of the fact that humans have tried everything and everything has (more or less) failed. Then again, 'success' doesn't have to be universal and permanent. It could be localised and go unnoticed, etc. Then again, the fact that I see his work in that light might be a symptom of my own ignorance. There does seem to be something very 'modern' about the sensibility, though, the idea that however the universe was organised, it would be hell, because existence is inherently spooky. This is a question of perception, and perception always seems somehow uncaused, or unexplainable, but I wonder if there are certain events in human history that have conditioned this perception.
I was wondering why nihilism implies unworthiness. When someone is called nihilist, it's as if they're morally corrupt or somehow inferior and abnormal, as if they've failed to successfully adapt to life. A viewpoint if deemed nihilist should be dismissed or at least considered suspicious.
Well, I'm not sure anyone really knows what nihilism is. You can - I'm sure - believe in nothing and be happy, depending on what it means to 'believe in nothing', but the word nihilism is also associated with unhappiness. If you believe in nothing but are happy (again, whatever that means), I think people are more likely simply to call it skepticism or agnosticism. The original meaning of skepticism, as far as I understand it, was not what is meant by people who call themselves 'skeptics' today. It seems it originally meant an attitude of suspending judgement. Nihilism seems to be more an attitude of judging everything negatively. Even so, there's room enough here for ambiguity. No one is completely one thing. When we start to talk about nebulous abstracts like nihilism, therefore, the conversation becomes inaccurate, vague, even slightly silly. We have to talk as if there are absolutes, as if there are people who are totally nihilistic, and so on. It becomes, in short, a kind of hypothetical conversation. I think the main question with regard to nihilism is, what does it acheive? Why spend all that energy on negation, when you could just as well spend it on something else? Nihilism seems to cancel itself out in some way, since to believe that there is a reason to be nihilistic when there is no obvious advantage to it is to cease to be nihilistic - you now believe in the value of nihilism. But I don't know that 'nihilistic' views are ever held because they are rational or advantageous anyway (I mean, again, if they are then they cease to be truly nihilistic). If they exist at all as anything other than an aspect or appearance of things, then they probably 'just are', and, for that reason, it seems ridiculous to be didactic about them, as some people are.
These sequences are clearly meant to be darkly humourous, but something about them made me uneasy; I was reminded of a scene in "Gummo" where a pair of feral children break into a house and shoot a comatose woman with an air rifle.
I remember that scene, and, yes, it's unpleasant. I think that with this kind of subject-matter everything depends on the treatment. I did find some of Gummo funny. There's a line that sticks in my head: "That cat's a lesbian - you can tell." I used to hang out with, well, people not too dissimilar to the cat-hunting kids featured, and I recognised the accuracy of that line of dialogue. However, there are certain kinds of artistic cruelty that seem to be based upon a kind of conceitedness, the idea that the creator is in some way especially clever for being amoral or immoral and that, if you laugh along with the creator, you, too, can share that sense of superiority.
I was rattled by the realisation that I was watching a film created by a man who revels in proletariat vulgarity of the worst sort; a man whose daydreams are populated by gibbering tramps, pig-faced single-mothers and psychotic yobs, all saturated with the stench of tower block stairwells and secluded phone boxes -- this is the disgusting inner-world that these men inhabit. To watch their films is to experience the filmic equivalent of a trip to Southend.
I think this might be similar to the feeling I sometimes have of some artists who actually resent the idea of beauty. Certainly beauty is a notion that should be questioned, but there is an attitude discernible in some that seems to foster a desire to make all that is beautiful ugly, rather than to make what was ugly beautiful.
MarmaladeINFP # 11. November 2009, 21:36
Originally posted by quentinscrisp:
That seems a fair way of defining these terms. I must admit I've never studied nihilism to any great extent and so my understanding is limited. Your take on nihilism here is in line with how the term is commonly used. Most centrally, people usually refer to nihilism as some kind of grand negation. But Hibbs' view is a bit different. Rob quoted this:
"Hibbs writes that, although noir seems bleak and cynical on the surface, the meaning behind the phenomenon is a good deal more complex and significantly more positive: What is significant about these films is not just that they present a dark and dismal world but that they display their main characters as on a quest for love, truth, justice, and even redemption."
Hibbs' view doesn't dismiss the most obvious forms of negation and affirmation, but it adds a new dimension. What appears as negative may hide a positive, and vice versa. Hibbs argues that the most extreme form of nihilism is also the most subtle. After the initial negation there follows a state of implicit negation.
If one is born into a society that has come to this point, then one operates with a default nihilism that is mostly unconscious. In this situation, to negate the cultural concensus may be motivated by a desire to negate the negation in hopes of regaining what was lost.
Take the example of Seinfeld again. According to mainstream culture, this show (and the many shows like it) represents some kind of normality. The characters are mildly happy, but it feels somewhat superficial as if something is lacking. The embracing of the everyday details and concerns implies a negation of anything beyond this.
This may be an extreme form of nihilism or else it could be considered the end result of nihilism. Is this what happens when a society becomes so nihilistic that it even negates all overt nihilism. This way, the very evidence of anything having once been different is destroyed and forgetfulness has become complete.
In Noir, there is a facade of happiness. But beneath lurks a darkness. It's the character searching in the darkness who is also searching for redemption. According to this view, nihilism (or whatever term one uses) represents mindlessness, unawarness, numbness, superficiality and conventional thinking. The noir vision portrays the happy normality of modern life as a direct reaction to some internalized negation that has become a sickness.
Does this make sense? Do you think this fits into the category of nihilism or do you think a different term should be used?
MarmaladeINFP # 11. November 2009, 21:50
Martin Heidegger was Hans Jonas' teacher. In speaking about Heidegger's book Being and Time, Wilson writes:
Wilson concludes with the following.
quentinscrisp # 12. November 2009, 16:26
This may be an extreme form of nihilism or else it could be considered the end result of nihilism. Is this what happens when a society becomes so nihilistic that it even negates all overt nihilism. This way, the very evidence of anything having once been different is destroyed and forgetfulness has become complete.
This is an interesting perspective. I'll try and say more about this later.
vacillateallday # 13. November 2009, 17:25
quentinscrisp # 15. November 2009, 13:00
I mainly know the French version of existentialism. From that, the concept of 'acting in good faith' has some resonance for me. As a literary movement, though, although it's interesting, it's not really the area of my greatest interest.
Of course, existentialism was something before that, or, at least, I think there was a philosophical phenomenon before that which was retrospectively called existentialism, including the work of Kierkergaard and probably Heidegger (I'm going to have to check this now).
Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard is a work I remember discussing with a friend at university. It's a discussion that has stayed with me. I still haven't got round to reading the whole thing, but what stays with me (I don't know if this resembles any orthodox reading of the text) is the idea that to live at all everyone must make their own personal leap of faith (Kierkegaard was a Christian, but I don't believe a leap of faith has to be Christian). Even to live purely by logic is to make a leap of faith into logic. Without a leap of faith in some direction or another, we end up paralysed, not living at all.
If this is existentialism, then I suppose I agree with it. I understand, however, that existentialism is a nebulous thing, and there are probably other interpretations. Also, I'm not sure I've really managed to make my own leap of faith. Perhaps I can link this to what Ben said:
This may be an extreme form of nihilism or else it could be considered the end result of nihilism. Is this what happens when a society becomes so nihilistic that it even negates all overt nihilism. This way, the very evidence of anything having once been different is destroyed and forgetfulness has become complete.
In other words, the nihilism is second hand. It is inherited from people who made the 'leap of faith' into nihilism and for whom nihilism was actually, therefore, a means to life. For the majority, for whom nihilism is second hand, it is a means of not living. Unless they can make their own personal leaps from this nihilism into something else.
As I said, I'm not sure I've made such a leap myself. The extent to which I am not living, therefore, is the extent to which I am 'nihilistic' in the second-hand sense of the word, which may be the true nihilism in the sense that it disables the life urge.
vacillateallday # 15. November 2009, 19:21
Originally posted by quentinscrisp:
Now that is interesting. I thought this thread would run far ... I'll return when I can.
quentinscrisp # 19. November 2009, 16:17
Thank you.
This will make the 24th comment, which is pretty good by my standards, but I don't have anything to add today, really.
vacillateallday # 20. November 2009, 13:22
Perhaps this thread has come to it's natural end - neXT