When I spoke to you on the phone the other day, I mentioned a page about nihilism I found while stumbling on the internet that I found amusing and felt warranted a second reading, so I put it in my favourites. You expressed an interest in it, so here is the link to the full text “How does a nihilist live?” : http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/nihilist/
Ok, as I said, this writer is a bit cynical for mine, but there were a few things that gave me a perverse sort of comfort, so perhaps there is a place for a measure of cynicism. At least it gave rise to a wry sort of smile. As is my wont, I began writing to see if I could work out what struck me as significant about this text, and I thought I would share. By the way, having been trained in language by people who come from an earlier time when it was ok to refer to non-gender specific characters as “he” by default, that is what I do, and to hell with PC.
Nihilism is discerning what is real from what is unreal. We do (my emphasis) exist in reality. In it, some things actually exist and others are phantoms of our mind. Strip away the latter and focus on the former. Truth doesn’t exist. Truth is our perception of what does exist; our assessment of it. You will have to find the truth that’s appropriate to your own life.
I cannot remember if this explanation of nihilism gels with the one I got from my philosophy friends at Uni all those years ago, and probably no one in the room at that time really understood the concept. I probably don’t care to understand. Philosophy as a subject mostly does my head in. Do I exist? Well, yes, hello, I am here. Pursuing the idea that I don’t only results in nonsense as far as I can see. Some philosophers maintain that we cannot know this for sure, and I agree; some very interesting anomalies arise when we try to prove our own existence, this much I have learned from my scant philosophical studies. I just can’t see the point of that line of inquiry. “For the purposes of this play, we do indeed exist”. I understand what is said about other things not existing, these “phantoms of the mind”, and yet these phantoms have their own kind of existence, and as such are as real as apple pie to those who embrace them.
It is not really my intention to dwell on the philosophy, but I will say it surprises me that I have never read anyone with a clear understanding that we must depend on words to philosophise, so we are doomed from the start. Words can never completely express reality, or even our perception of it, any more than I can take a photo of myself and say that it completely expresses who I am. You will notice that he says “truth does not exist” and in the very next sentence gives truth an existence, albeit with limitations. Such are words. Arbitrary symbols of something we have perceived. Philosophy always boils down to an argument about the meaning of words, and so, I think it best if we leave it to those who like that sort of thing.
I may not be a nihilist after all, but here comes the wry smile:
As becomes obvious, the people around you are tools; that is to say, they are grateful followers who passively lap up the rancid semen of industrial society and are grateful for the “opportunity.”
I remember once you asked me to explain why I felt so different to practically everyone I have ever met. As I recall I struggled, in part, I think, because the question took me by surprise as it was not something I thought I would have to explain to you. (and also because I was three parts pissed.) Still, it’s cool to be challenged. The quote above and all of what follows goes some way to providing the answer that I struggled to find on that occasion, which in turn goes part way to explaining why this piece wound up in my favourites. He goes on:
Most of your toolish coworkers, neighbors, people you meet on the street, etc. are capable of two modes of conversation: entertainment and personal situation. (…)They cannot talk about ideas. Therefore, reserve ideas as the grounds on which the few smart people meet.
Now, you and I have covered this ground, I believe, so it probably requires no further comment. But he goes on to talk about “groupthink”, and while I am not about to disagree, I think there is more to it.
Normals also have a tendency to express groupthink sentiments, and then test others with them. Such things as “Isn’t it terrible about that genocide in Darfur?” are probes to get you to either conform or be identified as a lone wolf.
I think he and I agree that “truth” can be described as a subjective construct, based on our perceptions, and I think people behave in this way, not simply to establish an “us and them” mindset, but to create and maintain their connection to reality, if not to create the actual group reality itself. I don’t really see this as the product of people’s ignorance and stupidity. Without it we would all exist in isolation, probably without a sense of self, and as far as I can tell, that would kind of defeat the whole “purpose” of this great game we call life. Of course, that doesn’t mean we have to like, or even accept, the reality that others co-create. On reading this comment, I confess I am still at a place where expressions of this kind of sentiment make me feel a little less alone. But what I also appreciated is the sense of defiance, which probably appeals to me as the kind of energy that might make this feeling of separateness easier to bear.
Finally, don’t accept their view of reality. They’ll blather on about “progress” and other inventions of the human mental phantasm, but if you recognize these ideas are basically junk food for the mind, you can bypass it and focus on other things.
Lately on the journey I have been discovering that I am not so different to everybody else after all. I liken it to a case of having tidied up every room in my house only to open a door and discover a hidden disaster area that I had been ignoring. I too, can be materialistic, superficial, judgemental and even a little bit conformist. I too have attachments to the transient things that cause our suffering, and I am not always able to rise above them.
Perhaps the best I can say for myself is that I number among those who have some awareness that there is more to me and life than this.
For a while now I have been trying to avoid talking about “most people”, based on intuition and not fully understanding why. It becomes clearer is that by mentally separating me and the people in my very select inner circles from “the great unwashed” I am buying into the illusion that we are not all one, and that our similarities are not far more significant than our differences. We are all in this together.
I notice too that many of the people I would otherwise class as “aware” are reluctant to embrace this idea, and prefer the illusion of “us and them”, just like our present writer. Others seem keen to preserve a kind of reverence for each person’s unique individuality, and while that is fine by me, I think there is a danger that we can overlook a deeper truth.
So, while I take everything he has to say about truth, illusion and reality as read, there remains this one sticking point. This writer rejects some of the more stupid ideas contained in our shared reality, and as I say, it is comforting to know that I am not the only one who cannot get my head around the way “most people” seem to think. In his discussion of what it means to live as a nihilist, he offers a way of dealing with “normals”, which, while it made me smile, is still not exactly the way I think I would like to tackle it myself. Yes, I have long ago recognised my own arrogance towards others, but I think I stopped short of this kind of defiance. It is tempting to emulate it, but I am still looking for another way.
And yet the cynicism has its attraction. I have tried it before actually, and failed. The word “strength” comes up for me. How do I nurture the strength of my own convictions without metaphorically shitting on everyone else? I see now that these weaknesses I have perceived, and despised, are part of the human condition, and are as much a part of me as anyone else, in spite of my best efforts to ignore them. I cannot rise above them by pretending I am somehow immune. Perhaps my most significant lesson in humility to date is learning to accept that I am as susceptible to the delusions I have decried as any human being. Maybe my delusions are different to those of others, but that is hardly to be considered a source of pride.
I am indeed a unique individual, and I am probably never going to be the sort of person this writer labels “normal” whether that is a compliment or an insult. But I kind of hope I am beginning to truly see myself as I am, the good, the bad and the ugly, and see others as they are, and find acceptance. More importantly, I see more clearly that to do this is not an example of my cleverness or superiority, but of my surrender. I would like to talk of surrender to a “higher power”, “something greater than me”, “the universe” or even “god”, but there is something pulling me back. Yes, it is about these things, but the list above is just a list of words, and they do not, can never, fully represent what I am experiencing in my consciousness.
On first reading I identified with so much that this writer said that I thought I may have become a nihilist without knowing it! On closer reading I realised that what he did was illustrate the arrogance of the partially enlightened. In the subtext, he is rejecting not just people’s perceptions, but the people themselves, and this I will not do. In the end, to reject others is to reject a part of myself, which will get me nowhere, as I am discovering. Even as others reject me as a “lone wolf”, there is ultimately no refuge in branding them as the enemy.
I would like to send a thank you to the writer of this piece, for the wonderfully serendipitous lesson it has brought me, but alas, I can find no link. Isn’t that just ironic? I shall take that as a tantalising introduction to my next lesson, and content myself with spreading the fruits of my gratitude a little closer to home. I am going to bake cookies with Rainbow.