In contrast to the insecure, uncertain existential ramblings that all to oft nestle in my mind, political philosophy is a much safer, concise abode for any and every spirit, I believe, for it is based on the very clear, material, specific observations that, in their selective totality, forge a continuum that one might be interested to write down, publish, make known, make available, share, read, think about and feel within. This continuum of thought - be it linear (genealogical), spherical (structuralistic) or even shapeless, as one might be tempted to say of postmodern historical philosophy, is little more than precisely that
: a thought, a position, a status.
I have mentioned in the past that the worst thing that could happen to me is being taken too seriously; in my opinion, this usually marks the beginning of the political construct of a religion, and any number of metaphysical or post-material truths that might be hidden in my original reason are bound to be lost through the daedalic structure of yet another moral system.
A year ago I wrote an entry with some of my thoughts on metaphysics (williamdallwitz.deviantart.com…
which I should no rename "On the Political Aspects of Metaphysics", for my opinions on the subject have come through thorough changes. I now recognize metaphysical beliefs in themselves to be at least harmless and in most cases quite beneficial - it is this obsession that we as a social species express when it comes to the establishment of a paradigm that corrupts, dissolves, bludgeons the great value that each one of us can bestow upon the metaphysical truth itself. A truth that, as I believe, is neither absolute nor exclusive, but rather a live, ever-changing part or product of the self, as divergent and multi-faceted as is the notion of a self-identity.
After this necessary but perhaps somewhat elongated introduction, I would like to address the issue at hand, a series of thoughts that I have been knitting around some core concepts for a while. It is, as is the case with every single one of my incoherent scriptures, merely a note, a memorandum, a write-it-down-so-you-can-recall-it-with-more-ease-at-the-future sort of incident. It is therefore neither bound by a strong logical development nor the argumentation that classical philosophy has accusetomed us to - it is, in all acounts, a whim, a caprice.
The last thirty years approximately are considered by some to be "years without history". After Fukuyama's strangely progressive taunt that history has ended, through the predominance of the western laissez-faire society as the ultimatum in the group group development of humanity, a whole array of intellectuals have studied the idea relentlessly and it is now considered obsolete by some. I aspire to add nothing to the work of these people, as this is not my goal; I merely mention that I currently fall within the category of individuals who treat his concept as neither trivial nor overcome, but quintessentially important in determining - or, better, studying - the contemporary essence of society.
I shall traverse this space with the aid of one of Mertens' musical works:
It is possibly essential to note that this was used as part of the musical accompaniment of Jan Fabre's play "The Power of Theatrical Madness" in 1984 and all its subsequent performances. The piece thus establishes a political dialectic, or at least I am tempted to pursue this path in its initial interpretation.
We are talking about a society. The very term itself brings to mind not a uniquity or singularity, but a temporal and special coexistence, the formation of a group. And this second term presents a very serious problem: what is a group? Or, in other words, what defines a group? What separates it from a simple gathering by chance, a random proximity of individuals?