Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Underground eXperts United File 493
### ###
### ###
### #### ### ### ### ####
### ### ##### ### ###
### ### ### ### ###
### ### ##### ### ###
########## ### ### ##########
### ###
### ###
Underground eXperts United
Presents...
####### ## ## ####### # # ## ## ####### #######
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ## # ##
#### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### ####
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## # ##
## ## ####### ####### # # ## ####### #######
[ States Of Confusion: Reply To Critics ] [ By The GNN ]
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
STATES OF CONFUSION: REPLY TO CRITICS
by THE GNN/DCS/uXu
A number of people have criticised me for the text "States of
Confusion" (UXU-406). All of them have virtually said the same
thing: "How dare you insinuate that doing drugs is better than
having a family? Are you insane?" I understand the critics; the
text is pretty unclear. Let me explain my intentions. (You need
not have read the original text for understanding this reply.)
"States of Confusion" is not about drug rehabilitation in general. It is
about ways of conceiving "the good life"; yet it does of course not - which
some people have thought - aim to put forward the assumption that my
distinct way of life is the only acceptable one. I do not blame the critics
for careless reading on this matter; it is very easy to misunderstand me,
which is embarrassing as I actually aim to say the direct opposite: Just
what content, pattern, and subjective form the good life has will, no doubt,
vary considerably from person to person. To find the answer one must, to a
large extent, depend on one's own experience and reflection, perhaps aided
by that of others with experience and wisdom. No fixed order or pattern can
be laid down for everyone. Human nature may be much the same everywhere, and
I believe it is, otherwise psychology would be a chimera. However, human
nature seems to vary too much for any fixed conception of it to be drawn up
in detail.
So far, so good. Most people agree on this. But then a peculiar thing
happens: the same people who agreed that conceptions of the good life varies
from person to person suddenly turn the tables and claim that there is in
fact one way of living that is superior to all other ways. And that is the
classical: education, work, family - until death, "the common life". The
claims are explicit in their statements, and also implicit in the
statistical fact that 99% of all people live their lives that way. Need this
tell us that the good life by necessity is that one, for all? I doubt that.
I think that what is often missing is not one's own or other's experiences,
but, most importantly - conscious reflection of what one (and other people)
actually have experienced.
To abuse drugs is certainly not a fast lane to the good life. Because, as
said, it requires that one consciously reflects on what one wants to do. One
cannot deny that the vast majority of drug abusers have not considered any
such reflection; their life has become the way it is out of very different
reasons. Nevertheless, my point is that many of those who live their lives
in accordance with the standard pattern have not properly reflected either.
They work, get a family, and so on - but not necessarily after any kind of
deep reflection of what they are really doing. (The mere fact that that kind
of life is not built around illegal substances is no automatic criterion of
a good life.)
Do not get me wrong here. I do not claim that it is impossible to have a
good life with the help of family or drugs. It would be ridiculous to say
that 99% of all people are alienated from their true desires. But I will
never accept that any of those two roads in life automatically makes one
happy. To repeat, the good life is partially reflections on what one really
wants to do. Too many never actually reflect, and their lives turns out
neither happy nor painful - merely satisfying, at its best.
Now, how do I know that this is the case? Well, for one thing, it shows
when one asks a certain, uncontroversial question: "Do you really do what
you want to do?" If the answer is "yes" and backed up with arguments, fine.
If it is "no", with arguments, fine. "Don't know" will do fine too. But it
is very seldom those answers are given.
Instead, the answer is "of course!" without arguments. And when I humbly
wish to know why that is so, the person become mad and - instead of trying
to answer me - wonders what kind of imbecile I am. This kind of manoeuvre is
familiar; when the arguments are non-existent or have dried out, some people
immediately direct the discussion in argumentum ad hominem. The question
"Do you really do what you want to do?" is not regarded as uncontroversial,
but as a provocation, an insult.
Why? I guess it is because the person in some way actually knows that he
or she have not reflected properly. Their life is not fully coherent (not
even close), and they dislike this. But at the same time, they do not want
to reflect, as that could perhaps lead to a personal crisis, if the
deliberation reveals uncomfortable truths about their actual situation. To
go with the flow is easy, to have to change things is hard, tiresome and
messy business.
And this is what "States of Confusion" is really about: that drug abuse
indicates a lack of reflection, a willingness to not reflect, to protect
oneself against uncomfortable conclusions; but at the same time that "the
common life" might very well just be another side of an alike predicament.
Whether I am right or not, must be left to the consideration of the
thoughtful reader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uXu #493 Underground eXperts United 1999 uXu #493
Call KASTLEROCK -> +1-724-527-3749
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
