Reply
Fri 27 Feb, 2004 12:56 pm
Can we, just for a minute, dispense with the hand-wringing and acknowledge that the problem Israel and the Palestinians have with one another is actually their mutual solution to the problem of being mortal?
Of course to understand what I mean it is first necessary to recognize that it's not love or sex or money that makes the world go around but the fact of death; that what drives virtually everything we believe and do is the need to reduce, to at least a manageable degree of fear, the terror and panic the anticipation of death causes us. (If you can't quite grasp this notion, if you have to be reminded that terror and panic constitute the human default condition, then whatever you're believing and doing is working for you.)
Of the myriad subtle and blatant ways we've come up with to make living with an impossible reality tolerable, one example would be the symbolic immortality we assure ourselves of by leaving behind a scientific discovery, or a work of art, that will continue to have an influence on the world. Another is the accumulation of inordinate wealth. The god-like trappings great sums of money buy enable us to feel not just superior to the common man, but less vulnerable to the common fate. Still another is getting high, which is about getting aboveand to assure themselves of the post-corporeal rewards implicit in the anointmentand remain intact, the Arabs are every bit the blessing to Israel that Israel is to the Arabs.
It follows that the violence each side visits on the other must be measured; balances and proportions need to be kept. For one side to win, after all, would be for both sides to lose; would, that is, end the game and return bothbearable species of horror than the fact of oblivion does.
The pain we are witnessing is a palliative. These are not the worst of times in the Middle East.
truth
I find the phrase, "the problem of mortality," strange. People seem to not consider the reverse, i.e., the horrors of immortality. To be immortal (in the absolute sense of being unable to die, by any means) would be a REAL problem. This is examined imaginatively in the case of the flying dutchman, the ghost ship captain. Imagine being completely immortal and witnessing, not only the loss of everyone you've ever known for countless eons, but also witnessing the end of our universe, yet sticking around yourself. I once painted a picture of a shrinking sun as seen from a melted terrace. Being unable to die is like being unable to blink.
Oh, another horror of immortality just occured to me. Imagine your species EVOLVING while you, the immortal, remain the same. You would become increasingly primitive compared to your fellow humans.
Wow, you'd be, like, a test subject at that point. A sort of living artifact. This should happen more often, archaeologists would be thrilled.
truth
Rufio, yes, wouldn't they be thrilled, assuming archaeology still existed that far in the future? They could compare the living "fossil" to the real fossils and perhaps interview him as a test of their interpretative reconstructions from archeological data. But in interviewing a live being they would be social ethnographers?
They'd be both. :-) In a sense they are both anyway, they just have less to work with than the "real" ethnographers.
truth
Good point, Rufio. It seems to me that archaeologists are the great detectives who are able, by means of sophisticated methods, to milk grand conclusions from limited data, while ethnographic anthropologists must simplify their abundance of information into interpretative pattens. They suffer, one might say, from an embarrassment of riches.
First of all, I'm an archaeologist, and we don't do fossils,we do material culture. Physical anthropologist (and palaeontologists) do fossils. Secondly archaeologist do a lot of ethnographic work, particularly among band level and tribal level societies. but also in other areas. The only way you can interpret the archaeological record is to understand the behavior that created it. The only way to do that is to observe modern examples of similar behavior, or experimentally reconstruct it (the British do a lot of that).
truth
Ackquiunk, I meant "fossil" in the broadest sense, i.e., evidence of past conditions, not fossilized organisms. I have heard archaeologists talking about the use of contemporary situations as models for interpreting prehistoric conditions. They were, I believe, aware of the difficulties with the approach; it necessarily presumes a lot..
Fossils can be material culture too.