Eso’s Chronicles 273 / 13
33—What Does ‘Deaded’ Mean?
© Eso
A.B.
All
comments appearing within brackets [ ] are editorial in origin.
The
dictionary tells that the word “deaded” means to be singled out. Someone on the
internet originates the word in the year 2003 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=deaded
. The reader may imagine it as deriving from the word ‘dead’. The dead ‘deaded’
means the dead have been made dead—they have for some reason been singled out—by
an activating agency. There is a killing agency loose somewhere that ‘deads’
those it encounters.
While the
word ‘dead’ stands for a state of being. that is to say, someone whose state of
being was to be alive once, has been
turned into a non-being, deaded; at the same time ‘deaded’ suggests a
state of dead but not quite, but deaded only. I see deaded subjects all about
me. The visibility of the ‘deaded’ depends on one’s perspective on life and
society. It appears to be the normal of our time.
Surely, the
most deaded thing is a politician and a bureaucrat. Yet I would also include
among them scientists and interviewers.
The first
two of the mentioned (politicians and bureaucrats) are the living dead that sit
in a chairs and draw pay for making look like manikins. We have seen them http://www.pinterest.com/pin/314829830170627051/
. The same manikins (are they?), when imagined as homo sacer (“the man who cannot be
murdered, sacrificed, but only killed”), enter into our dreams as deads http://www.pinterest.com/pin/314829830170517322/
. Most of us hardly notice how little the world changes if these deads, aka
homo sacers. are in fact killed. Is this because being ‘deaded’ is the nature
of post-modern humans? In that context, the following clip is worth watching,
at least from the 34th minute forward https://www.youtube.com/user/VPROinternational?feature=watch
.
Let us
assume that it is in the nature of post-moderns to turn old cemetaries into new
towns. Then what is this ‘nature’ of the post-modern? Is the ‘nature’ of
post-moderns to arrive into the world already deaded? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/City-of-the-Dead.jpg
Well, yes, maybe, but probably not.
But it is
likely that as soon as we arrive in this world, we are as soon abandoned http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/photography-blog/2013/may/29/china-baby-59-rescue-ultimate-abandonment
. This is not the fault of the mother, but circumstances the mother is exposed
to. While poverty plays a large role, the way I see it, it is more often the
result of a broken community, which is a fact written all over the face of
Latvia, my country, and if we look closer, also the rest of the post-modern
world. The ‘broken’ state of the community is the result of living in an
alleged age of ‘reason’, where culture is made by money. And while much of the
responsibility goes to politics, politicians, and capitalist sponsors, no less
responsible for it are the priests of the age: scientists.
In fact, it
is the scientists who are the least morally responsible humans of our age. It
is the scientists, who—like the Western Christian priests who lived befogged by
the myth of Jesus of the Middle Ages—live most befogged by the myth of an all
powerful science. It is these well paid ‘motherfxs’ who along with their
laboratory staff (the altar boys and girls of the church) perpetuate the myth
that all is right with science and if something is missing, it will be better
by tomorrow.
Because
generalities alone spread only prejudice, let me tell of the mindset of a myth befogged
scientist (remains unnamed) of considerable standing, the myths he perpetuates,
and his interviewer. While I take little issue with the scientist’s
observations in his field (I find them interesting), nevertheless, his seeming
unconsciousness of the ramifications of his subjective speculations (which go ever
unchallenged by the interviewer) tell of human beings abysmally limited in their
concerns and raise questions about their nature as a being with ‘brains’. The
information is from a recent interview in a Latvian journal, which not
surprisingly specializes in issues irrelevant to Latvians as a community.
Since the
issues are many, here is a sample of what a ‘scientist’ thinks about tomorrow
even as millions of people on our planet live in poverty and physical misery.
Scientist X
(my translation): “We already have the technology to feed nine billion people
and to secure for them a comfortable life-style. But the international
political scene does not respond to even elementary ethics—for example, how to
improve the life-style for the poorest billion of the population. I am an
optimist when it comes to believing that we can create a world where no one
suffers from hunger, where everyone may gain benefits from modern technology
and globalization. Nevertheless, I am no optimist when it comes to seeing this
actually happen; which is why I believe that it is important to speak about the
(optimistic) scenarios, so that people at least know that it is in our power to
overcome our problems.”
Interviewer
X: “A linguist from Los Angeles
Scientist
X: “…I think it is wonderful that 600 million people in Africa
have mobile telephones… I agree with you that we should insure our data in more
secure data libraries in the event of a cathestrophe….”
The
interview thusly staggers from one topic to another, never stopping at one
issue long enough to analyze its implications or truthiness. For example, does
not ‘globalization’ demand the suppression of human subjectivity in favour of
the all seeing triangular eye now being implemented by the NSA (National
Security Agency)? Are not the billion poor, therefore, the only insurance that
we have against the greed of government protected bankers?
No comments:
Post a Comment