Plea against arguments

0

[typography font=”Droid Serif” size=”24″ size_format=”px” color=”#ff830f”]A poet’s view on the stoned society[/typography]

In all societies that have ever been established, nothing was ever built right upon argument structures, but so much the more on rhetorical ones. Arguments, as history has always proven, are political strategies that at some point failed to sustain and urged the preceding statement to adapt in order to maintain its usefulness. In other words, arguments cannot do otherwise than undermine their own statement or vision.

For example, if one politician should plea against legalisation of drugs, he should never degrade his idea by pointing at statistical evidence, for he must know that this evidence, even the most of all evidence available, is so kneadable that it has no point of proving anything at all. However, if one should plea against such a thing, he should in a way naturally lie about drug-related conditions at present, for his vision should be as relentless as severe in order to prove his point on the deepest possible level.

And as we know from art, depth is best made visible by juxtaposition and not by subordination. Arguments as a tool for deepening an idea is of course a hypocritical way of doing so. It hollows out itself. Statements should exist next to statements, as men next to men. Where it may lead us, we don’t know, but does anyone ever?

In a purely spiritual sense, all people are coherent beings, but statistics, mathematics, even exact sciences, they are born from mere doubt rather than a belief. ‘What’s your story?’ one may hear such a question from time to time these days, because one feels a story, much rather than scientific logic, is needed to live and change the world in accordance with our ideas about it.

But politics and spirituality are only means, in a sense of media. They are institutions that lack a sense of pragmatics. Although it must be said that pragmatics is science’s weirdest, youngest and dumbest child, everyday life is a chain of pragmatical events that form a helpful imitation of art, which is the only unexplainable thing of beauty in this world. Art as we know of course, is not a tool for society, but the very source. Art doesn’t need arguments, for its set of statements explains itself, mostly in the form of aestheticism.

Once we come to this realization, maybe after the recent events of crises on one part and increasing transparency on the other, although the latter is veiled by much too objective media, I envision that we will revalue nature with a more metaphysical understanding and several works of art that have been forgotten since. Time will tell.