Discussion on the inauthenticity of misery
In this paper, I will raise the issue of the inauthenticity of misery. This approach aims to make you conscious, of the most imprecise and at the same time unpleasant ontological situations characteristic of everyone: going to the toilet.
Consequently, “shit” directly affects us all, whether we are talking about ourselves, our friends, our family, or even our God. Further on, my essay will lead this “dirty demonstration” to the apotheotic moment when the approach of misery will be so unbearable, that I will come to doubt at the end of this essay, my very own humanity.
Strangely, philosophy as a cognitive endeavor has always had and still has a bottom-up mode of searching, thus projecting questions and probing answers at a “meta” level. My attempt will involve probing “in” and down to the “bottom” and “pro-bottom” of a deep mess. Although positioned in blatant antithesis to philosophy I consider my research to be argumentative and at the same time philosophical because in my perception knowledge of misery and its attributes is as important as knowledge of beauty or aesthetics.
For ease of expression, I will replace the word “shit” with “S” and also in order not to offend the reader and to warn him, I will announce from now on clear and explicit language regarding the origin of misery and S.
For a better understanding of the text I will structure the topic into three sections:
- God “S”
- Girlfriend “S”
- Inner “S”
The first point is dedicated to the connection between divinity and “S”, linking the image of the creator with the image or construct of misery. Here I will try to demystify the divine and at the same time deify filth as a constituent element of life.
The second part deals with the connection between eros/love and “S”, focusing on the impossibility of total closeness of the lover or the beloved in the context of their desecration.
The last section is my attempt to formulate a personal point of view on the theme, bringing the theme into a game of conjecture face-to-face with my contemplative self. Thus the moment of ontological tension is bracketed to allow reason to clear the ideas of this conceptual hurdle.
The ethical aspect of these analogies is not debatable given that they serve as an experiment precisely for probing the ethics of authenticity and more so, the limits of human acceptability concerning “S”.
1. God “S”
A discussion of the origin of “S” is naturally bound to be met with obscene and perhaps even superficial scorn from those who are believers in a theological formula for the creation of the world and at the same time profound skepticism from those who are atheists or undecided about such deeply personal beliefs.
I will continue to use the idea of “God” in the sense of the creative entity of all that exists. Any Gnostic addition to this easy symbolism would make the demonstration more difficult without increasing the effectiveness of the argument. Consequently, for what I am trying to substantiate I will only use this simplistic definition of the divine concept — “something that created all that is and/or exists around us”.
“S” can be brought closer to the divine by the intrinsic relationship that the divine has established with the man, from the beginning — man being built in His body and likeness. Thus the same question that Millan Kundera asks himself in his reference book — “The Unbearable Ease of Being” — I also raise here, namely how can we reconcile the idea of divinity with the idea of filth?
To what extent are we satisfied with a creationist idea about the Universe and all that exists when we find that we do not have to have a profound argumentative approach to perceive among created things their antithesis and therefore in antithesis to matter-antimatter, and in opposition to cleanliness and order, mess and chaos.
“S” instantiates in the divine being the possibility of the failure of creation or the necessity of defilement. If we consider valid the reasoning that God is in the wrong we cannot stop ourselves from considering that we are failures of creation but by extension that no matter what purpose we set out to coordinate our lives, that purpose is a failed one from the design (because from the start we were not created with a purpose or the possibility of purpose). On the other hand, the acceptable reasoning from the point of view of the purpose and a universal order is that in which divinity has deemed necessary the filth and therefore “S”.
This is the point at which to think of misery, we have to consider the idea that God has an “S” part as proven.
In terms of necessity, once this “S”-God relationship is established, what should be established is the ontological power relationship of “S” to God and thus what kind of necessity we are talking about. An inner or an outer necessity?
Further on I will use the sign “G” for God and “O” for ontological. Thus the problem of “S” is one of inclusion in the sphere of “G” or of necessity outside “G” and more in the sphere of “O”.
Considering that “O” includes “G” and determines “S” leads to the controversial idea that the uncreated coordinates the creator and creation. Common sense forbids us to see things this way. Consequently, the ratio is that ‘G’ includes ‘O’ and the latter determines ‘S’. From this, we deduce that the ontological contaminates the divine by ‘S’ bringing in the necessary ‘S’ into ‘G’. Under these conditions, the super-elevation of the divine is converted into the creation of ‘S’ as an expression of the ugliness of ‘O’.
In conclusion under the ratio of “G” — “S”, the linking term is “O”. Thus “G” is the generator of “S” using the intermediary “O” — “O” is considered an unfolding space in this analogy coexisting with “G” in correlation for “S”.
From this point, we infer either that “S” is a creation of “G” property of “O”, or that “S” is an intrinsic property of “G”, a derived property of “O” — so this awkward uncertainty of reasoning I cannot decipher in the absence of concrete knowledge of “G”. The lack of authenticity and commonality of ‘S’ makes us discount its importance, but in the grounding relation of ‘O’ it is particularly important to know the origin and nature of ‘S’ — although we have established that ‘S’ is the production of ‘G’, any further relational statement about ‘S’ seems to be a failed endeavor for lack of concreteness in the justification of ‘G’ as well as the qualities of ‘G’.
2. Girlfriend “S”
In this part of the paper, I will try to answer the question of how we can attach ourselves to the people around us with the intuition that they have as much “S” as we do. Here I think we are dealing with a form of self-induced ignorance that we generate to be able to move forward, to be able to attach to those around us and to have relationships with those around us even if there is a form of filth that is common to us all.
Here the analysis is based on distance from the object. The object is the loved being and to understand and appreciate it for its qualities, the loved being must be detached from ‘S’ by distancing.
For ease of discussion, I will call the loved one — “L”. Consequently, for “L” to retain its positive attributes and the quality of “L”, “L” must be severed from “S” or in any case must be seen without “S”.
“L” is “O” only in the integral aspect of being and is profound “G” in the creationist aspect but “L” can by no means be “S” on the conceptual level. Such a conceptual transformation would make the lover no longer in love and thus “L” no longer “L” — this being a logical fallacy.
I will devote the following analysis to the logical fallacy described above. I assume that “L” is not distanced from the viewer and thus is parsed — thus we get a hybrid of “S” and “L”, and further we find that the new “L” created by joining “L” and “S” is grotesque. Stepping for a moment out of the created rational space I will explain what this grotesque “L” means.
Let us imagine the visceral, organic, lustful, deeply sexual, filthy love, that takes hold of lower beings like animals. We are certainly capable of lower and primitive stages of loving and loving even filthy beings but what concerns me now is, to what extent man will consent to live “L” under the magnifying glass or close to “L”, i.e. “L” plus “S” in this atavistic combination of species perpetuation and ontological coupling.
After all, the idea of loving something that can reject you at a given moment just by its very nature is frightening, and even more so, it leaves room for moral and ethical questions in which the being you love has nothing different or different from any other being that can reject you. Moreover, feeling as an experience has no place in such a paradigm. Deepening a close analysis of your being would bring you into an impossibility of thinking of yourself as something beautiful and by extension of anything analyzed as desirable.
The analytical look at “L” denotes a sickly character that does not want “L” but what “L” has as its ontological sediment, i.e. “S”. From this point of view no one survives an analysis and the paradox of authenticity in love is that to understand and know the essence of love being authentic one must instantiate oneself as ignorant in the face of one’s misery and the misery of those around.
In the end, the authenticity of such an analysis of the person we love depends on the ability of the viewer to look at both the “S” and the “L” without associating them, because this would irreversibly contaminate the “L”, and without dissociating them, because then we would forget our nature and would not be able to appreciate things that are truly beautiful or truly ugly.
3. Inner “S”
Of course, we like to think that at least we are nice, desirable, beautiful, and in addition pleasant beings who should be loved and protected. How realistic this model is, does not interest us, but what pertains to the theme of my essay is — how authentic it is to reject all these elements and/or characteristics that you notice daily in yourself and that you would enter with utmost carelessness and sadism under “S” — but only if they are manifestations of others.
Thus the natural tendency is to reject the mess and to beautify ourselves in our poor world of ideas, preparing the ground for the “L”. Everyone wants “L” and for “L” they have to be okay with themselves even if they are not okay. Deep analysis should settle these embarrassing aspects of existence — the fact that “S” exists does not invalidate the existence of what is outside “S”, and what is outside “S” can be anything.
After all, what is missing in our lives as rational beings is precisely rationality and the power to distance or approach “S” and “L”. Furthermore, our attempt to remain permanently distanced from “S” makes us forget that “S” is an instance that we have as human beings and the only moment in which we have to bracket this knowledge of our form and content is the moment in which we come into contact with “L”. Outside of “L” the refusal of “S” is illogical.
This is why the filth is inauthentic, leaving room for interpretation and causing revulsion to those who treat it. That is why it is very difficult for us to approach a subject that we consider in itself to be inhuman. I have attempted here to remind you how human “S” is.
Before you go…
This was never intended in its original form to leave the academic environment, but was meant and is a thought experiment to pleasure the need for knowledge and analysis. Right now, because you were patient enough to read this through, I encourage you to leave your thoughts and comments and make peace with yourself. Till next time 🙂