Digital Underground - uXu - Underground eXperts United #uxu-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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

← Svenska e-zines (1990-2008)