"No-nonsense" they say, with the disdain that stuns the interlocutor, as a talisman, as an answer to every critic, to every differing voice. With the stone cold tone of medical specialists, they reveal the hard truth and that it is unavoidable.
No-nonsense appears so much going without saying that it seems as vital to enter its presuppositions and reveal what is meant by it.
As many words if not all, it is only defined and appears in opposition to another notion that is of nonsense, and saying this, we can try and elucidate the term. Nonsense is meant as the non essential, the non objective, the non productive. Already we encounter more than one problem with that. If we had answers pertaining to what is essential, objective, productive, we would certainly be by now, a species without a single problem, a world without a gap, filled by means and goals, a perfect circle in other circles. We see how ridiculous a statement of certainty concerning these notions is, if not a religious creed that appears, because of its certainty, uncertain.
If you want to learn about how this miracle of certainty and lack of reaction can happen, I invite you to read the pessimistic lucidity raised by Theodor Adorno's Minima Moralia, in the excerpts 43 and 45. What one can read there is how a biased "objective" is opposed to the "subjective", and therefore how the inversion of the two notions takes place, objectivity becoming the word of the fools, subjectivity the last shelter for sanity. It goes on to say that the "common sense" as opposed to a chimerical opposite of it, is in fact the complete opposite of what we call common sense, in that it is an absolute enterprise of deconstruction of this "common sense". This can be explained by an original lye in the word: common sense has become what is accepted as concensus, based on "rationality" and science, while it should be the letting go of any prejudice to decipher a reality through unbiased eyes.
Let us take the example of a market, that we borrow from Adorno, as we have to acknowledge his intelligence in the choices of illustration, never diminishing the idea, always making it clearer yet more complex. Let us wander around the market in the company of two buyers: who has common sense between the one who chooses the goods according to the merchant's speech and the signs, and the one who always starts by distrusting the surrounding to look at the goods themselves?
Let us not laugh, for we are the first tradesman in many an occasion, if not all.
It is therefore extremely interesting to hear what one says when using "no-nonsense" (the modern prononciation of common sense). This statement lies on a castle we think, the problem being that it is nothing like a real one, as in a personnal one. Lacking time, interest, and opportunities, we rest on a castle that was presented to us as finished and allegedly grounded against every wind. First of all, promises have only the worth we put in them, and an unpersonnal uncertainty built into an immediate certainty should make suspicion arise. But let us say that indeed it is impossible in the twenty-first century to encompass all human knowledge, even dealing with one simple thing. The problem remains, for it is the biggest mistake one can make to believe in an objective eye: science is only the infinitesimal perception of a gigantic reality, if not a veil on reality, hiding it definitely. Who wants to live on a tower built by half blind crazy stubborn architects? Well, us, apparently. Even though they never meant it as a complete world to be lived in, we have taken what scientists told us and made it our bed.
The only escape would be to buil our own shelter, from floor to ceiling, but how much can it take? How long do we have to spend our lives building a modest hut, letting wind go through, with a door that locks so badly we are in perpetual fear of being rippef of all our possessions? Well, all our life is an answer. Isn't it why we are here? Isn't the improvement of our knowledge over ourselves and the world, hence of our power and the world's, hence the push against the territory of suffering (there is no reduction in suffering, it is a univers which we are at the centre of, the borders being our territory of power, we can only dream of inspecting them, and eventually pushing them a little further if possible). But let us ask a question: would you prefer to live in a tower you do not know of any plan, any risk prevention mechanism, anything that is going on in the basement, and also without knowledge of any escape, or in a humble hut you know like you own hands, that you are sure at least the little roof will never fall onto your head, even in the wildest storms, and then even if it falls, that you can escape in one second and build a new one, more resistant?
If you choose the skyscraper, and it is your first right, then do not change and apply the no-nonsense motto wherever you are, whatever you do. But do not scream and shout when a new wind will come and make you fall. Of course you will be welcomed in littler shelters, but who knows if you won't want to congregate and follow a few more mad estate builders?
If you want a hut, prepare yourself and never accept anything, for there is non free meal, even daling with ideas. The tools and materials for this hut are called dialectic and experience, you have to use them always together, one screwing (or throwing away) the plank the other found. Negativitty and criticism is the only way to build a conscience that is personnal and deprived of prejudices as much as can be. It would be ridiculous to add work, for everybody works all the time, some against their borders, some other to lose themselves, it is always work.
Therefore, when one says no-nonsense, it sits on a lie pertaining to the mirage of knowledge, and it is nonsense that is to be seeked, providing if not truth, at least no certainty, otherwise called untruth. In other words, one can fail only by trying not to fail.
I cannot recomand enough the reading of Nietzche's Also sprach Zarathoustra that inspired this text and the person typing now.
No-nonsense appears so much going without saying that it seems as vital to enter its presuppositions and reveal what is meant by it.
As many words if not all, it is only defined and appears in opposition to another notion that is of nonsense, and saying this, we can try and elucidate the term. Nonsense is meant as the non essential, the non objective, the non productive. Already we encounter more than one problem with that. If we had answers pertaining to what is essential, objective, productive, we would certainly be by now, a species without a single problem, a world without a gap, filled by means and goals, a perfect circle in other circles. We see how ridiculous a statement of certainty concerning these notions is, if not a religious creed that appears, because of its certainty, uncertain.
If you want to learn about how this miracle of certainty and lack of reaction can happen, I invite you to read the pessimistic lucidity raised by Theodor Adorno's Minima Moralia, in the excerpts 43 and 45. What one can read there is how a biased "objective" is opposed to the "subjective", and therefore how the inversion of the two notions takes place, objectivity becoming the word of the fools, subjectivity the last shelter for sanity. It goes on to say that the "common sense" as opposed to a chimerical opposite of it, is in fact the complete opposite of what we call common sense, in that it is an absolute enterprise of deconstruction of this "common sense". This can be explained by an original lye in the word: common sense has become what is accepted as concensus, based on "rationality" and science, while it should be the letting go of any prejudice to decipher a reality through unbiased eyes.
Let us take the example of a market, that we borrow from Adorno, as we have to acknowledge his intelligence in the choices of illustration, never diminishing the idea, always making it clearer yet more complex. Let us wander around the market in the company of two buyers: who has common sense between the one who chooses the goods according to the merchant's speech and the signs, and the one who always starts by distrusting the surrounding to look at the goods themselves?
Let us not laugh, for we are the first tradesman in many an occasion, if not all.
It is therefore extremely interesting to hear what one says when using "no-nonsense" (the modern prononciation of common sense). This statement lies on a castle we think, the problem being that it is nothing like a real one, as in a personnal one. Lacking time, interest, and opportunities, we rest on a castle that was presented to us as finished and allegedly grounded against every wind. First of all, promises have only the worth we put in them, and an unpersonnal uncertainty built into an immediate certainty should make suspicion arise. But let us say that indeed it is impossible in the twenty-first century to encompass all human knowledge, even dealing with one simple thing. The problem remains, for it is the biggest mistake one can make to believe in an objective eye: science is only the infinitesimal perception of a gigantic reality, if not a veil on reality, hiding it definitely. Who wants to live on a tower built by half blind crazy stubborn architects? Well, us, apparently. Even though they never meant it as a complete world to be lived in, we have taken what scientists told us and made it our bed.
The only escape would be to buil our own shelter, from floor to ceiling, but how much can it take? How long do we have to spend our lives building a modest hut, letting wind go through, with a door that locks so badly we are in perpetual fear of being rippef of all our possessions? Well, all our life is an answer. Isn't it why we are here? Isn't the improvement of our knowledge over ourselves and the world, hence of our power and the world's, hence the push against the territory of suffering (there is no reduction in suffering, it is a univers which we are at the centre of, the borders being our territory of power, we can only dream of inspecting them, and eventually pushing them a little further if possible). But let us ask a question: would you prefer to live in a tower you do not know of any plan, any risk prevention mechanism, anything that is going on in the basement, and also without knowledge of any escape, or in a humble hut you know like you own hands, that you are sure at least the little roof will never fall onto your head, even in the wildest storms, and then even if it falls, that you can escape in one second and build a new one, more resistant?
If you choose the skyscraper, and it is your first right, then do not change and apply the no-nonsense motto wherever you are, whatever you do. But do not scream and shout when a new wind will come and make you fall. Of course you will be welcomed in littler shelters, but who knows if you won't want to congregate and follow a few more mad estate builders?
If you want a hut, prepare yourself and never accept anything, for there is non free meal, even daling with ideas. The tools and materials for this hut are called dialectic and experience, you have to use them always together, one screwing (or throwing away) the plank the other found. Negativitty and criticism is the only way to build a conscience that is personnal and deprived of prejudices as much as can be. It would be ridiculous to add work, for everybody works all the time, some against their borders, some other to lose themselves, it is always work.
Therefore, when one says no-nonsense, it sits on a lie pertaining to the mirage of knowledge, and it is nonsense that is to be seeked, providing if not truth, at least no certainty, otherwise called untruth. In other words, one can fail only by trying not to fail.
I cannot recomand enough the reading of Nietzche's Also sprach Zarathoustra that inspired this text and the person typing now.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire