> lbo83235 wrote:
>
>> So (self-)conscious disregard of consequences *can* be mistaken
>> for ignorance. I'll def take that into account. ;-)
>
> Funny you say that. A Soviet philosopher (I can't remember the name
> now) once wrote (I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that the execution
> of high art had the feel of something *unintentionally* produced. The
> idea implied that, behind every grand artistic execution, there was
> much hard work preceding it. But indeed, high performance in any art
> (including political action) entails a mental state that *appears* to
> negate self-consciousness. The more reflective (or self-conscious)
> one is, the worse her performance. I guess that "empty-your-mind"
> mental state is what Zen Buddhists often refer to. Or dancers or
> actors or preachers. But, again, for a performer to go to the very
> surface of their sensory powers -- "outside" of their minds (as it
> were) -- and deliver, they have to precede that with so much hard
> work, rehearsals, detailed planning. This reminds me of Marx's
> frequent remark (a reference to Hegel) that an adequate presentation
> of ideas tends to appear as an a-priori construction: as if you knew
> the truth by revelation and you were just unfolding it before a reader
> or audience. Indeed, it seems so, but that's because the presentation
> is preceded by the very hard reflective work of figuring out the
> "internal connections."
If "Zen" is "right" (which, BTW, it is), there is no "self" in any sense corresponding to Western notions of / from metaphysics, so achieving "self-consciousness" in that sense would seem to involve a consciousness "beyond" "'self'-consciousness." (And grammar begins to break down at a[n] [un]certain point.)
At 5 years old, unselfconsciousness is fairly common, and quite lovely. At 50 - in the 21st century (so-called) - it's either delusional or hard-earned. In the first case, it's either tragic or disturbing. In the second, even lovelier than at 5. But that's rare.
> If communism will ever exist, I guess it will
> seem easy to the casual observer. However, that will be, not because
> people ignore those "internal connections," but rather because they
> have appropriated them mentally and (I'll add) bodily.
I like this. I would just add: If communism will ever exist (on a mass scale; it's already being practiced to some degree and on a smaller scale in many homes and at least many dozens of relatively isolated semi-enclaves around the world), I don't anticipate there will be many "casual observers." Almost everyone will want to be part of what they can finally see we're in the process of doing. The remainder will be trying to figure out how to kill us and take "our" shit.