I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Am Johal, who hosts a podcast called Below the Radar at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, BC (where I lived, years ago!) I wanted to share the podcast with you.
When you write: "life is the absolute and death is subjected to life, or life is the absolute and life is subjected to death," I think the second "life is the absolute" is supposed to be "death is the absolute."
I ran across yesterday, in an essay by David Lodge of all people, the following quotation about Bakhtin: "A fascinating report of a debate in which he participated in 1918 says of Bakhtin, 'At some points he did recognize, and even expressed appreciation of socialism, but he complained of, and worried about, the fact that socialism had no care for the dead.'" I guess I found this striking because it seems clear that "care for the dead" is something Communism is not equipped to provide.
On the other hand, Benjamin's theses on the philosophy of history also come to mind. ("Not even the dead will be safe...")
I have no specific knowledge about how communism was being introduced to Russians in 1917-18, but I assume that the "materialism" in "historical materialism" was very much on display, in opposition to (for example) Christianity. So yes, I think the dead being no longer materially present (which I take it is what you mean by calling them "metaphysical"), is the sense in which they are out of the scope of possible care from at least a naive Marxism. (Though not from Benjamin's theologically inflected version.)
I like your suggestion that love and death don't have to be understood as being two sides of a fight. The Crucifixion of course be read that way (as a triumph of love over death), but it seems interesting to see it as an instance of co-existence of love and death. (Which then reminds me of Dogen's "Life is its own time. Death is its own time.")
Dear Beatrice: What a lovely name! I love that you are addressing to topic of death, one that we all try not to think about at all! One conviction I now have, at 82, is that we are not here as human beings, perhaps on a mission to mature, grow, develop and evolve into a high level of knowledge and spirituality. Rather, we are here as eternal spirits, lovely, kind, gentle, extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, on assignment to be earthlings, humans, eventually with much ego, if at all. As eternal spirits, WE DO NOT DIE, although we will drop these earth suits when they have served us well. How else could we ever smell the flowers and see the lovely evenings and touch our loved ones?
When you write: "life is the absolute and death is subjected to life, or life is the absolute and life is subjected to death," I think the second "life is the absolute" is supposed to be "death is the absolute."
I ran across yesterday, in an essay by David Lodge of all people, the following quotation about Bakhtin: "A fascinating report of a debate in which he participated in 1918 says of Bakhtin, 'At some points he did recognize, and even expressed appreciation of socialism, but he complained of, and worried about, the fact that socialism had no care for the dead.'" I guess I found this striking because it seems clear that "care for the dead" is something Communism is not equipped to provide.
On the other hand, Benjamin's theses on the philosophy of history also come to mind. ("Not even the dead will be safe...")
You’re right, thanks, that’s a typo!
I wonder if this lack of care for, or attention to, the dead has anything to do with the fact that in some sense the dead are metaphysical?
I have no specific knowledge about how communism was being introduced to Russians in 1917-18, but I assume that the "materialism" in "historical materialism" was very much on display, in opposition to (for example) Christianity. So yes, I think the dead being no longer materially present (which I take it is what you mean by calling them "metaphysical"), is the sense in which they are out of the scope of possible care from at least a naive Marxism. (Though not from Benjamin's theologically inflected version.)
I like your suggestion that love and death don't have to be understood as being two sides of a fight. The Crucifixion of course be read that way (as a triumph of love over death), but it seems interesting to see it as an instance of co-existence of love and death. (Which then reminds me of Dogen's "Life is its own time. Death is its own time.")
Yes! I like that way of thinking about it (cross is life giving, but also made of decayable wood).
Dear Beatrice: What a lovely name! I love that you are addressing to topic of death, one that we all try not to think about at all! One conviction I now have, at 82, is that we are not here as human beings, perhaps on a mission to mature, grow, develop and evolve into a high level of knowledge and spirituality. Rather, we are here as eternal spirits, lovely, kind, gentle, extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, on assignment to be earthlings, humans, eventually with much ego, if at all. As eternal spirits, WE DO NOT DIE, although we will drop these earth suits when they have served us well. How else could we ever smell the flowers and see the lovely evenings and touch our loved ones?