I recently came upon The Red Hand Files, a column of sorts where people submit questions to Nick Cave and he answers them. He's as thoughtful and kind-hearted as they come.
In the most recent post, he was asked about why he writes, his political leanings, and how "woke" he is. Combining answers, he described himself in a way that I can very much relate to, and says better than I could hope to how I feel about a lot of current issues, both in terms of religion and politics.
- But organised religion itself poses a huge problem for me. Even though it would be so much easier to doze off in the arms of a mutually decided truth, I find that, in most cases, structured systems of faith are specifically designed to switch off the apparatus of inquiry by presenting themselves as the ‘one true religion’. As a consequence, I am left feeling bored and cornered by the hubris of their own sureness.
I have always found great motivating energy in the idea that the thing I live my life yearning for, let’s call it God, in all probability does not exist. I feel my songs are conversations with the divine that might, in the end, be simply the babblings of a madman talking to himself. It is this thrilling uncertainty, this absurdity, from which all of my songs flow, and more than that, it is the way I live my life.
So, for me, Stella, living in a state of enquiry, neutrality and uncertainty, beyond dogma and grand conviction, is good for the business of songwriting, and for my life in general. This is the reason I tend to become uncomfortable around all ideologies that brand themselves as ‘the truth’ or ‘the way’. This not only includes most religions, but also atheism, radical bi-partisan politics or any system of thought, including ‘woke’ culture, that finds its energy in self-righteous belief and the suppression of contrary systems of thought. Regardless of the virtuous intentions of many woke issues, it is its lack of humility and the paternalistic and doctrinal sureness of its claims that repel me.
So, for me, Stella, living in a state of enquiry, neutrality and uncertainty, beyond dogma and grand conviction, is good for the business of songwriting, and for my life in general. This is the reason I tend to become uncomfortable around all ideologies that brand themselves as ‘the truth’ or ‘the way’. This not only includes most religions, but also atheism, radical bi-partisan politics or any system of thought, including ‘woke’ culture, that finds its energy in self-righteous belief and the suppression of contrary systems of thought. Regardless of the virtuous intentions of many woke issues, it is its lack of humility and the paternalistic and doctrinal sureness of its claims that repel me.
Antifa and the Far Right, for example, with their routine street fights, role-playing and dress-ups are participants in a weirdly erotic, violent and mutually self-sustaining marriage, propped up entirely by the blind, inflexible convictions of each other’s belief systems. It is good for nothing, except inflaming their own self-righteousness. The New Atheists and their devout opponents are engaged in the same dynamic. Wokeness, for all its virtues, is an ideology immune to the slightest suggestion that in a generation’s time their implacable beliefs will appear as outmoded and fallacious as those of their own former generation. This may well be the engine of progress, but history has a habit of embarrassing our treasured beliefs. Some of us, for example, are of the generation that believed that free speech was a clear-cut and uncontested virtue, yet within a generation this concept is seen by many as a dog-whistle to the Far Right, and is rapidly being consigned to the Left’s ever-expanding ideological junk pile.
This is not to suggest we should not have our convictions or, indeed, that we should not be angry with the state of the world, or that we should not fight in order to correct the injustices committed against it. Conviction and anger can be the most powerful expressions of universal love. However, my duty as a songwriter is not to try to save the world, but rather to save the soul of the world. This requires me to live my life on the other side of truth, beyond conviction and within uncertainty, where things make less sense, absurdity is a virtue and art rages and burns; where dogma is anathema, discourse is essential, doubt is an energy, magical thinking is not a crime and where possibility and potentiality rule. The answers to the secrets of the heart may just be there, in the inscrutable dark of the forest, in the unfathomable depths of the sea, at the uncertain tips of our fingers.
Alright. I'll bite. It's 2:29am in a Denny's here and I've been awake for nearly 24 hours after waking up and eating amphetamines to plow through assignments and finals on 2 hours of sleep. Followed by work. This place is special. It's special like the green light in Gatsby. The ever present desire to return to the past. The sense of the limitless possibilities of youth. And they're playing songs only you and your friends used to hear. Nick Cave is not presenting a deconstruction of ideology anymore than he's presenting the ideology of centrism. He wants to avoid ideology not to cleanse himself of mental distractions but rather to avoid taking responsibility for life. I can sense the resignment that happens when things become difficult. This is most evidenced by this statement: Of course, we need to ignore the hubris of deciding there is no answer. The choice that is the failure to choose. The fear of being wrong that leads one to do nothing at all. The ideology of nothingness. That's a direct quote from Terence McKenna who also lived on the other side of truth. Who much like Goebbles embraced lying as a professional strategy of advancement. Who just didn't fucking get it. Where the responsibility for creating a better world rests on nobody, and we should all collectively take our ball and go home. Because nothing is ever to be achieved by getting one's feet wet. Mutually self-sustaining marriage. We're talking about the Nazis versus the anti-Nazis. We're talking about the people versus the brownshirts. The arrogance of these people. Let's ignore the fact fascism is back big time, and there exist forces that would love to get rid of the other. Genocide is brewing again, and the least sexy thing you can do is care. By choosing to arrogantly dissociate from ideology and claim himself superior, Nick has chosen the ultimate ideology of them all. The idea that life just isn't worth living. "Never, ever give up." - Winston ChurchillEven though it would be so much easier to doze off in the arms of a mutually decided truth, I find that, in most cases, structured systems of faith are specifically designed to switch off the apparatus of inquiry by presenting themselves as the ‘one true religion’. As a consequence, I am left feeling bored and cornered by the hubris of their own sureness.
However, my duty as a songwriter is not to try to save the world, but rather to save the soul of the world. This requires me to live my life on the other side of truth.
Antifa and the Far Right, for example, with their routine street fights, role-playing and dress-ups are participants in a weirdly erotic, violent and mutually self-sustaining marriage, propped up entirely by the blind, inflexible convictions of each other’s belief systems.
The idea that life is only "worth living" via some arbitrary political ideology is a horrifying thought. God forbid we should engage with people as people, and not as members of some arbitrary grouping or another.
"Arbitrary" is precisely the problem. Nick thinks it's all arbitrary. It's not. He even goes as far as to equate atheists and religious fundamentalists. I'm not trying to go all Second World War on your ass and start sending you quotes from Hannah Arendt and the banality of evil but it's true. Ideology is impossible to escape. What I'm ordering at Subway is an ideology. Rather it's more apt to make deliberate choices we can justify than opt out of thinking altogether. This essay would just be wrong but when you start equating Nazis with the opposition that crosses the line. Yes I'm dogmatic. I think racism is bad. Where you see enlightenment I see cowardice.
Again, though, you're assuming he's saying a lot more than (it seems to me) that he is. He's not saying "don't believe in anything," he's saying "be open to the possibility that what you believe in may prove to be wrong." On the subject of WW2 quotes, here's Edward Teller:I believe in evil. It is the property of all those who are certain of truth. Despair and fanaticism are only differing manifestations of evil.
Edward Teller was the bad guy! Hannah Arendt: Her analysis is closer to reality. I remain suspicious of objective truth but the reason I want to nail him to the cross is because of his characterization of Nazis/Antifa and New Atheists/Fundamentalists as being the same. If he had just said "be suspicious of ideology" I'd be okay with that. But as soon as you make statements about the overall political climate and act like you're somehow distant from it in a way that is cliche and been beaten to death by 100 other media personalities it's blatantly obvious your analysis hasn't come from any type of broader epistemological inquiry. It's come from media. It's come from the most simplistic and base refusal of the system. Followed by stroking your chin for the next 79 minutes while the rest of the civilized community sighs in the background.The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.
This is the problem. Saying that they're equivalent in one way doesn't mean he's saying they're equivalent in all ways. What you're saying is that once you're a member of a certain group (that you happen to agree with), you become immune from self-reflection. You also seem to be saying that the ends justify the means; that it's okay to be shitty to someone provided that it's for the right cause.but the reason I want to nail him to the cross is because of his characterization of Nazis/Antifa and New Atheists/Fundamentalists as being the same.
This is some wishy-washy garbage that reminds me of a conversation I had in the kitchen a couple days ago about North Kora with a guy who just came back from South Korea. He was saying how people in SK claim people in NK are all brainwashed - while they are obviously also brainwashed. When I called NK terrible, he responded that he finds it "interesting" instead, and how maybe they live a simpler and happier life out there. And that we can't really judge from afar. Maybe their non-consumerist way of living had some merits. How everything is already decided for them so they are not burdened with the freedom of choice that we have. And are not corrupted by our terrible western values of consumption. It felt just like this centrist defence of the Far Right, where by trying to take a "balanced" view on the issue, people are afraid to condemn truly terrible things like genocide or totalitarian rule. Like we can never have enough perspective, and if we quality some political ideology as "bad" it just means we're not seing the issue complexly enough. I don't think i'm physically able to roll my eyes as far as I would like to.
I'm not really sure how to respond to this, since you seem to be criticizing something else. I will say that I'm surprised at your willingness to go to such lengths to avoid having to entertain any doubt.
To be fair, I can see where you're coming from. I had the same reaction as you reading the article at first. In some profound sense yes, ideologies are simplifications of reality and people who have treated those simplifications as absolute truth have gone on to do horrible things in the past. Nick's trying to explain he doesn't have that certainty that other wild activists can profess. Neither do I, but I'm also aware of the pitfalls of complacency. I realized it myself when I was so depressed about politics I came up with the statement "Political ideology is useless - the world can only be saved through art." It sounded so simple, so beautiful, so intriguing, so right, but eventually I was forced to accept it was a quasi-delusional belief I had invented to ease the psychological burden of responsibility. Nobody has to save the world, but we can all do our part. Fighting a little bit for what's right is better than having a drum circle. edit: while I was thinking about this, I saw a post in a meme group on FB about Mercuse, one of the Frankfurt School intellectuals. He wrote the book One Dimensional Man where he argues that society can wear people down people's political impulses through comfort. That brought me back to this because it's easy to just be the artist and have fun.
I agree, but that's not the same as "adhering blindly to a set of beliefs without ever considering that they may be incorrect."Fighting a little bit for what's right is better than having a drum circle.