выпады Горького против скандалиста Павла Васильева). Особый орган. Литературный институт, где признанные мастера обучали младшее поколение, обеспечивал континуальность художественного микросоциума. В этой среде в ходу были совместные действия неодинаковых творческих индивидуальностей (таковы хотя бы поездки писательских «бригад» в Среднюю Азию и на Беломоро- Балтийский канал) и взаимопомощь (доработка незрелых рукописей коллегами, переводы с языков народов СССР, глубокая редакторская правка начальных версий литературного произведения и пр.). Парадокс заключался здесь в том, что политическое тело, заданием которого было возместить идиосинкратичность окружавшей его социореальности, и само было явлением, до этого никогда в истории культуры не встречавшимся.
Итак, тоталитаризм и аннулировал социальную стереотипичность, и был поглощен поисками различных средств, ко-10 — 4005 торые давали ему возможность все же быть неким обществом. Сюда следует отнести и конструирование элитных групп (в том числе Союза советских писателей), членам которых предписывалось консолидироваться на уровне как литературного быта, так и творчества, и выстраивание фасада общества, сложенного из мнимодемократических элементов, и взятие назад слишком далеко заходящих экспериментов (вроде «военного коммунизма» или спешной коллективизации деревни), и временные приостановки неразборчивого гостеррора.
Тоталитаризм абсурден как революция, навязывающая себя в норму повседневной жизни. Как негативный синтез социальной воспроизводимости, вечного возвращения (человека общественного) и историчности, находящей в революциях свое высшее воплощение.
Гройс 1995 —
Кларк 2000 —
Рыклин 2002 —
Смирнов 1999 —
Arendt 1955 —
Boym 1994 —
Burger 1974 —
Danto 1936 —A.
Giddens 1979 — A.
Giesz 1979 —
Groys 1987 —
Hansen-Love 1978—/4. A.
Hansen-Love 1995
Jones 1998 —
Popoff 1925 — G.
Vladimir Davchev (Skopje)
Technological civilization — civilization of existential absurdity
We can say, that even in the middle of an apparently meaningful, at least ordered universe, human life seems absurd, meaningless, out of joint, useless. The bird-nest may not seem absurd for the bird, but from the human point of view, from the perspective of the only rational creature, who is not satisfied merely to live out the life of their species, the creature who asks more questions than there answers, life is absurd and ridiculous. Of course, the ultimate absurdity of human existence is not obvious, but sometimes when we just walk down the street, we suddenly notice the deep absurdity of the events around us. Such a flash of awareness may move us to laughter, even though the feeling is more tragic than comic. Being laughed at for what we and other human creatures are so busy doing — and talking so seriously — indicates that we have transcended the situation. Evidently it takes a special perspective or sensitivity to see the absurdity underlying the «obvious» organization and purposefulness of human life.
Describing the conditions of existential absurdity depends on metaphors drawn from our experience of ordinary absurdity: any clash, out-of-placeness, or incongruity. For example, finding sleepers in the refrigerator or an umbrella in a bath makes us laugh because these things are out of their «proper» places. When familiar thing are juxtaposed in unexpected ways, the absurd is created, which often strikes us as funny. Actually, a particular situation in real life can be considered as an absurd situation when it possesses discrepancy between our desires and reality. Hence, when we find ourselves in an absurd situation, we usually try to change it by changing our own desires. This, in fact, is an attempt to match reality with our own desires, or to distance ourselves from that particular situation. Naturally, since it is not always possible to distance ourselves from the absurd situation, nor to distance the absurd situation from us, we usually try to imagine a certain change that could prevent absurdity. For example, in the realms of logic, aesthetics, or ethics harmony, it is easy to point out elements that upset proper balance and «fit». Asking for the love life of the moon and earth is logically absurd. Interrupting Beethoven's 9th Symphony for a commercial is esthetical absurd. When a notorious murderer or a criminal becomes the president of a big philanthropic foundation, we consider this act to be ethically absurd. In each of these examples of obvious incompatibility, we immediately know how to correct the clash or disharmony. Ordinary contradictions have obvious causes and solutions.
But the deeper sense of total absurdity does not arise from a specific clash we can analyse. It is more than this. It is free-floating, all-engulfing sense of disharmony, a non-intelligible problem of something out of its place, indeed it is a feeling that human existence itself seems to be «out of place». When we ask for the ultimate meaning of the accidental universe, the only answer is — silence. We cannot imagine what modification would create fundamental harmony. This absurdity is not the intellectual perception of clash or disharmony but the existential collapse of our whole sense of order. Seen from within the absurd, nothing has a proper place.
One of the 20th century's most popular non-realistic genre is absurd. The root «absurd» connotes something that does not follow the roots of logic. Existence is fragmented, pointless. There is no truth, so the search for truth is abandoned in Absurdist works. Language is reduced to a bantering game where words obfuscate rather elucidate the truth. Action moves outside of the realm of causality to chaos. Absurdists minimize the sense of place. Characters are forced to move in an incomprehensible, void-like realm. Danish philosopher Srnren Kierkegaard was the first to use the term «absurd» in its modern context. His application of the term related it to what he considered the incomprehensibility and unjustifiably of Christianity. Existentialist philosophers such as the Frenchman, Jean-Paul Sartre and the German, Martin Heidegger propagated the use of the terms in their work. In the philosophical world of the novel, Albert Camus employed absurdism to portray the difference between man's intent and the resultant chaos he encounters.
In modern civilization man is posited as the subject of knowledge in science and technology, animating the utopian projects of industrial civilization, and culminating in great urban conglomerates, as in the sealed universe of
