thought of the day 3

Hence 'the arguments'.........and all of this is unedited, obviously.

for me, accountability is one of the earmarks of democracy. our public institutions are unresponsive, some would say less than the private sector. there is a fundamental distance from the average person with his surroundings, an alienation. Difference, and ineffectiviy , castration, and impotence. 

we can characterize populace as schizophrenic, but is absurd the correct term? more often it refers to totalities or totalizing experiences, like life or existence in general. Populace are without meaning but in the way a body is. how could it be said exactly, that it is absurd if the species creates the very ground for meaning? if the body is charged with the contents of meaning, then we have entered into a strange bio-paradigm.

Society is the animation, the link which lends itself to scrutiny. They require elaboration about their circumstance, they are unique (we speak of temporality, and contingency). The subjective repercussions of that scrutiny is an experience which belongs to an individual. given contingency society can be improved, given the (political) will it can be challenged and scrutinized. And if we can be said to be an absurd society, it seems that this is a sentiment that we would have to share in common. 

of society, Power relationships are central to the discussion, as are hegemonic forces. The practical discussion revolves around the institutions of power and the populations which are their subject. SO can we characterize this relationship as ABSURD? The answer for me is Yes. 

For Camus, the absurd person has given up hope for a simple cure for society, but for that reason he has learned to live with his absurdity and can improve upon it. He is pitched at every turn against a bunch of institutionalists who confuse the term 'peoples or demos' to argue for a political rationality, over and over again, which is either ironic or a sleight of hand on the term politics. They are opposed to the term which refers to something contested or debated i.e. a 'speaking' situation, and have re-framed it according to their oligarchic ideologies to mean governance and rule. Alternatively, when the discussion turns to class interests it can mean the distant halls of congress impeding the progress of private industry though its 'regulation'. I am inclined to think they are more concerned with the limits of control and an upper class hegemony. Of course by politics i mean, of democracy, or revolt. I think for an effective movement to happen the possibility has to be argued that co-operation is a suitable form of revolt. Between us Solidarity, but not peace (with the other).