Skip to content

KATSUNO’S REVENGE (AND OTHER TALES OF THE SAMURAI, 1920)

August 29, 2013

1. SAKUMA SHICHIROYEMON AND THE ANGER OF HIS REDDENING FACE

.                                                     .SAKUMA(52)

.                       KATSUNO(19)                                    O-TORA-NO KATA (52; hag)

.                                                    .[HACHIYA, green]

Sakuma lusts after Katsuno, but must conform by only conspiring with O-Tora-no-Kata to kill Hachiya, the youthful and ascendent servant-councilor to Oda Nobuyuki, lord of Iwakura; Hachiya is also the promised, future husband to Katusuno.

And it is the rage of seeing, perhaps himself-or his own limitations in the old woman that lead Sakuma to mistreat O-Tora-no-Kata as he plans the elimination of his youthful, but impossible rival, Hachiya, for it is only through O-Tora-no-Kata that the physical youth of Katsuno can even be contemplated;

And this is what so fires his murderous rage.

And a parable of a rationality of understanding one’s own limits is set up, and the disastrous consequences that result if one is not able to.

But it is also a corollary of sorts-or a reverse side-to the tactic anthropological culture seems to have of putting the non-circumspect individual into a vital, almost predatory need to base their own lives on the youth-and the promise-of the young and, particularly, of their own children.

And what is considered to be a biological need to protect and care for the young is easily distorted into a self-serving relationship of dominance and control, especially, as I say, if one is less circumspect and rational regarding one’s own true motivations with regards to others.

Good thing there are, in fact, parables, yes?

But I (at least) have also known a great many individuals, not only as parents, who have tended towards a greater distance with regards to the people who they are closest or more emotionally attached to.

And this distance, even in regards to the upbringing of one’s own children, reflects a deeper respect, in fact, for the lives of those individuals as independent human beings who are, nevertheless under the care and even tutelage of another.

But ultimately, when you are less circumspect in regards to a matter such as this, you fall back more on culture itself, and so to some extent blindly allow yourself to go forward following only your impulses which you have not learned to understand for yourself.

And because you are less circumspect, you are less rational; because you are less rational you are more dependent yourself on the cultural context you live in.

Inference: part of anthropological culture itself is something of a compensation mechanism for the lack or rationality in individuals; culture comes to supplement rational thought itself, and this is exactly what makes it so pernicious in many ways.

And the initial reason for this is simply comfort: living rationally requires the forging of habits of thought that, if one does not possess said habits, become painstaking to acquire and seem, ultimately, out of reach-which is a further source of frustration in the individual that ultimately leads to a violent rejection of rationality itself.

And we all know how it feels to just simply turn from discomfort.

Simply, it feels better in the immediate term.

And often the immediate term is all that counts.

2. CULTURE AS A LOGIC OF VITAL CONTAINMENT AS ENGAGEMENT

.                                            the BODY

……….[the PHYSIOLOGICAL]

………the SOUL                                                COGNIZANCE

.                                           [CULTURE]

.        [LOGIC]                                                   RATIONALITY

.                                         PAIN/DISCOMFORT

.                                         (As need itself)

Culture contains the psychology of the individual because it engages it, but it is not necessarily rational.

It has an anthropological tendency to eliminate-subdue or suppress-rationality precisely because rationality can undo engagement-can destroy a certain illusion in regards to the workings of reality because one is in fact thinking about and contemplating reality rationally, and not through myth.

Rationality, in this sense, is seen-or felt-by people as a threat to their well-being (sense of control and security) because rational thought, at first, drives hard and right to the heart of culture as anthropological illusion as vital engagement.

And this is very hard for the individual to face because-obviously-people, generally, are not brought up and educated to deal with exactly this.

But(t) this illusion is so strong because it is in fact based itself on a logic of understanding -whether empirical or not (it necessarily isn’t, ultimately)-that is the logic of the mechanism of engagement as the culture one lives in.

And a lot is at stake when that logic is seriously challenged by another logic.

Aggression as a reaction is simply logical in regards to human behavior, whether intellectual or, ultimately, physical (or both, typically).

Denial and deep resentment follow typically, also.

And the greatest-at least for me-civilizing questions at a personal level comes immediately to mind: what’s the point of even discussing it?

There is, however, the issue of a certain collective responsibility.

And at the center of human collective experience will take place, now, a process of rationality as imposition.

And the common denominator of civilization-in all societies on Earth-will be, finally, the circumspect individual him or herself.

We consider this simply a question of survival of the human species and it is most clearly an imposition;

But because this process is rational, the logic of cultural irrationality will be tolerated only as a way of understanding it, of understanding why irrationality represents, now, such a mortal threat to man.

But it shall only be contemplated from a standpoint of tolerance: irrationality is no longer at the heart of the human condition and man’s collective structure on Earth.

If you have followed my writing on this blog, you already understand this to a great degree.

If you haven’t you can get started now;

Or you can just forgetabout it and get on with your business-you have that right, too.

No doubt.

3. THE ENLIGHTENMENT AS PROBLEM

The historical period in question is the beginning of an imposition on the individual as object; a change form the natural, efferent movement out from individual psychology and physiology-originally of anthropological culture-to a reverse, afferent movement onto the individual;

This implies an operating rationality on the part of others over the individual, though never conceptualized, really, by operating agents, but only seen as an act of science as progress-or not even as that (except for Foucault, who did see this);

It implies, as well, the total misunderstanding of the true nature and function of religion-of even culture itself (although this understanding had in fact been arrived at -or almost- by the most elevated of schools of anthropology-anything German, originally, and particularly Spengler).

But science as technical drive to power (Nietzsche, more or less) got in everybody’s way; and it was comfort that, in the end, drove the stake, finally, through the heart of everything.

That, and a great deal of bad faith-some very bad faith-as well.

SK

Advertisements
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s