Spirit
enough to be bored — Whoever doesn’t have enough spirit to be able to find
himself and his work boring is certainly not a spirit of the first rank, be it
in the arts or sciences. A satirist who was, unusually, also a thinker, could
add to this, taking a look at the world and history: God must not have had this
spirit: he wanted to make and did make things, collectively, too interesting.”
– Nietzsche, Human all too H.
I am unsure about the jab at God at the end of Nietzsche’s
bit here, but every writer knows the
moment that comes upon him like negative inspiration, when he detaches and to
find himself and his work boring. That’s the moment that Bely cuts his
masterpiece, Petersburg, by a third; that may be the moment when Rimbaud said
fuck it, although I am too little devil or angel to venture there into that
affair. However, I’ve been pondering the economist’s version of happiness and
their refusal to understand the intricate dance between repletion and boredom. Economists
are so fucking weird because they combine the most sophisticated mathematical
models with psychological insights that would shame a ten year old. It is all
about not only licking a lollypop, but doing it forever and ever, and getting
everybody’s lollypop to lick. It is a gross and unrealistic view of happiness
that leaves out of the picture the mysteries of happiness which supposedly found not only the normative
aspect of the system, but the incentive structure inside it. I suspect
economists are so enthusiastic about growth not so much because growth is a
good in itself, but because it perpetually puts off the question: what is the
system for? And, of course, even Marxist economists will edge out of the room
once you start pondering the many dimensions of alienation. Economics is really
not the dismal science, but the clubbish science – and in clubs, it doesn’t do
to pose such questions. They are so easily answered by dinner, especially if
dinner includes port.
Now, in my flaming youth, amongst me and my pals, boredom
was our mark of Cain – it was the boredom generated by capitalism that we were
against. We tended to be big supporters of the situationists, without really
having a vast or even a tiny little knowledge of them more than they pissed
people off, and the autonomen, because we loved the autonomen boldness, the
kicking ass, the taking over of buildings people weren't using, the contempt
for the Polizei. This sounded like the shit to us, even though we heard
overtones of peasant hut nostalgia in some of the way these micro-utopias
turned out, with the holding hands and weaving or something and nothing that
actually, after a while, wasn’t… boring. We liked, instead, the via negativa,
through pure abjection, following the downward path of Bataille. It was all “we’re so pretty, oh so pretty” with a sneer.
However, although it was quite the enemy, boredom
was never really an issue, an affair, an object of thought. It wasn’t until we
began to take writing seriously, and tried to write fiction, that boredom
became interesting as a test. Boredom, after all, is always there guarding the path
of inquiry into meaning and purpose – it has sphinx like properties. I often
feel that at the heart of bourgeois vacuity is all the ways that are
constructed to avoid boredom’s riddle.
No comments:
Post a Comment