René Char (from Leaves of Hypnos: A War Journal): “If man did not, from time to time, sovereignly close his eyes, he would finally be unable to see anything worth looking at.” Your post seems like such a sovereign act.
In my imagination, your invocation of limits and extremes reminds me of the end behavior of calculus graphs where “x approaches infinity.” It reminds me also of Frederick Douglass’s brilliant analysis of the Dred Scott decision, the last of what he describes as accelerating occurrences of national settlements of the slavery issue. The acceleration of such resolutions, he implies, demonstrates that no resolution is possible. The limits cannot hold.
Where I live, politics doesn’t feel lived. It becomes like most Americans’ perceptions of a faith: vaguely, insistently important but decidedly propositional and distant. Because of their perceived similarities, doomscrolling replaces devotions.
Great observation on tyranny as the masses’ chance—this is our man and our moment; use it or lose it!—to express themselves. There is no perceived procedure or process to act, so all true action is interruption of corrupt processes. Interruption brings hope.
René Char again: “How can you hide from what must be part of you? (Modernity gone astray.)”
Thank you for this generous and searching response. The Char quotations feel exactly right, especially the idea that one must sometimes “sovereignly close his eyes” in order to see. That gets at what I was trying to do: not reject technology, politics, or material life, but refuse their claim to exhaust reality.
Your calculus image is wonderfully apt. The essay is really about limits under pressure: human nature altered but not escaped, politics reduced to distant propositions, doomscrolling turned into counterfeit devotion, and tyranny offering expression in place of rights. Your Douglass comparison sharpens that point beautifully: some “settlements” only reveal that nothing has been settled.
I especially appreciate your phrase that doomscrolling replaces devotion. That names the counterfeit liturgy of the moment. We keep rehearsing dread as if repetition were action. And yes, the tyrant’s genius is to offer interruption as hope while keeping the structure of power intact. People are invited to rave, worship, post, denounce, and perform, so long as they do not actually rule.
“Modernity gone astray” is exactly the question. What must be part of us cannot finally be engineered away.
René Char (from Leaves of Hypnos: A War Journal): “If man did not, from time to time, sovereignly close his eyes, he would finally be unable to see anything worth looking at.” Your post seems like such a sovereign act.
In my imagination, your invocation of limits and extremes reminds me of the end behavior of calculus graphs where “x approaches infinity.” It reminds me also of Frederick Douglass’s brilliant analysis of the Dred Scott decision, the last of what he describes as accelerating occurrences of national settlements of the slavery issue. The acceleration of such resolutions, he implies, demonstrates that no resolution is possible. The limits cannot hold.
Where I live, politics doesn’t feel lived. It becomes like most Americans’ perceptions of a faith: vaguely, insistently important but decidedly propositional and distant. Because of their perceived similarities, doomscrolling replaces devotions.
Great observation on tyranny as the masses’ chance—this is our man and our moment; use it or lose it!—to express themselves. There is no perceived procedure or process to act, so all true action is interruption of corrupt processes. Interruption brings hope.
René Char again: “How can you hide from what must be part of you? (Modernity gone astray.)”
So rich. Thank you.
Thank you for this generous and searching response. The Char quotations feel exactly right, especially the idea that one must sometimes “sovereignly close his eyes” in order to see. That gets at what I was trying to do: not reject technology, politics, or material life, but refuse their claim to exhaust reality.
Your calculus image is wonderfully apt. The essay is really about limits under pressure: human nature altered but not escaped, politics reduced to distant propositions, doomscrolling turned into counterfeit devotion, and tyranny offering expression in place of rights. Your Douglass comparison sharpens that point beautifully: some “settlements” only reveal that nothing has been settled.
I especially appreciate your phrase that doomscrolling replaces devotion. That names the counterfeit liturgy of the moment. We keep rehearsing dread as if repetition were action. And yes, the tyrant’s genius is to offer interruption as hope while keeping the structure of power intact. People are invited to rave, worship, post, denounce, and perform, so long as they do not actually rule.
“Modernity gone astray” is exactly the question. What must be part of us cannot finally be engineered away.
Thanks, Bryce.