RUINS CAN NOT BE CHANGED

A very interesting article written by Morris Berman came out this week about a pathology in a pathology called: Is There Life After Birth?

I like His point of view, but I can see it in another perspective, a tricky way:

He points out that W.H. Auden said: "We would rather be ruined than changed." this I believe as a way to argument that we would rather live died than make a substantial change in life.

I feel the zeitgeist sometimes is another ghost that tells me: “If you don’t change, you will be ruined”. In these terms “Rather be ruined than changed” can sound like a noble and skeptic resistance rather than a shared collective pathology that can’t be able to see genius individual manifestations that try “acting it out”.

I feel that the need to make us believe that thing’s must change is also a trap, that denies the simple existence of things, and that things are just what they are meant to be. I really understand his point, but how can we distinguish a real call for change (not deluded messianic), from a mass-media one (mostly deluded messianic)?

Are we destined before birth to a death without real life? Can we live without feeling we are puppets in this continuous and unbreakable charade? If everyone plays along silent and blinded to witness, it seems things flow (move) even when they really don’t? Could that be the “magic” of rationality, synchronized good behavior without irrationality mentioned, solves the problems as long as it seems something “logical or even bizarre” is being done? Could this “change” be a constant simulation, that rather than ruin us, avoids that we “take hand” on the real emergence of things we finally ignore? Are parallel worlds (one seen and one not kept under) perpetuated in time and seem coherent as we just see one? Maybe the real emergence could actually reveal the paradox of life that is exactly what we really don’t want to see, something like the juxtaposition of poverty and sensuality he mentions that seems so incoherent but yet magic?

Life and experience need intensity and not a intensity twisted into a “tension” that needs to be in eternal process of reconciliation. Machines need adjustments when they tend to a perfect function, fortunately we don’t need perfect functions (the obsession of progress), but just honest hearts able to see our existential contradiction and share it with others without fear of becoming a lonely “looney-tune” for the show that must go-on.