Hamlet and Abraham... a connection?

I am placing this post here because of its conclusions,
not because of its content…

we have two historical figures, one clearly fictional and
the other?

I see Hamlet as being a continuation of the Abraham story…

what the fuck, Kropotkin? what are you smoking?
nothing hear me out…

let us set the stage…

Abraham hears the voice of god… who demands he kills his son,
Isaac, as a sign of devotion to god… Abraham being a “believer”
takes Isaac on a three day journey to obey God’s command…

at the appointed place, Abraham lifts the knife and…
an angel appears and stops this event… replacing
Isaac with a random Ram who was wondering by…

and in Hamlet, Hamlet see’s a ghost of his dead father who commands
that Hamlet avenges the father’s death by killing the new king,
King Claudius… who killed Hamlet father and took his throne and wife…
Hamlet mother…

so we have two voices, one claiming to be god and one a ghost claiming to be
Hamlet father, asking their respective protagonist, Abraham and Hamlet
to kill the objective of the voices…

we can see that Hamlet is the more modern story because of the
hesitation of Hamlet to kill that isn’t in the biblical story…

Abraham doesn’t seem to have the hesitation of Hamlet…

and I believe that comes from the introduction of the state that so
dominates our lives and Hamlet’s life…

there is really no mention of the state/nation in the biblical story
of Abraham…it is simply the actions of people being people…

whereas the entire background of Hamlet is about the state…
recall that Hamlet is the son of the King who was slain,
by rights, Hamlet should be King, not Claudius…

so this voice of Abraham and Hamlet, tells them they must kill
certain people because of… one because of devotion to god,
the other to revenge the death of the father…

both are strong and powerful actions that are being demanded…

revenge and devotion… powerful stuff…

and opposing these powerful emotions, are also powerful idea’s…

thou shall not kill thy son… infanticide brings up powerful feelings
and emotions within us… as does killing the uncle, which is
regicide … another action which brings out powerful emotions
and feelings…both acts requires the killing of a family member…
emotions doesn’t really get any stronger then that…

and oppose to these emotions lie equally strong feelings as I mentioned…
we love our children… I am a father myself… and I have uncles, no longer alive,
but I did and some of them did do me wrong… nothing worth killing over for sure,
but nevertheless…

so how am I to resolve this situation?

I have been told/asked to kill another human being to fix some human situations…
to seek revenge and to hold a god in proper respect…

we see in the old testament that the highest example of being human is to
hold to our devotion to god… and because of that, Abraham doesn’t seem to
object…whereas Hamlet seems to have a great deal of trouble with his command…

to put this into other terms… we have an inner, personal voice telling us
to act in a certain way, in defiance to the rules of society… we have this
“TRUTH” which we can only hear advocating actions in defiance to the rules
of society…who do we listen to? do we hold to our inner truth
or do we bow down to the “TRUTHS” of the society and do not act
as our own inner voices have commanded us to?

this dilemma is one which faces practically every human being…

I have faced this dilemma my entire life as has most of you…

we are faced with two impossible actions… and both actions require
us to defy a “TRUTH” be it a personal truth or be it a community/social
"TRUTH’…the society/state demands that we do not kill our children
and, and we do not kill our leaders/monarchs…

which "TRUTH’ will you hold for? your inner voice that demands that you
do/speak as it requires you to or do you answer the call of your society/state
and do not act as your inner truth requires?

the respective stories of Abraham and Hamlet bring out some very real
human possibilities and “TRUTHS” that we face every single day…

which “TRUTH” shall we follow? our own personal, inner truths or do we
follow the community/state “TRUTH” that demands we don’t kill our son
or our uncle/monarch?

this is a lifelong struggle we face… which truth shall we abide by?

the voice inside of our head or the voice from outside… the society/state voice…

the voice you follow will decide/determine who you are and what it means
to you to be human… we are social creatures that must, must make
allowances for our need for us to be social creatures… we as human beings
must, must engage with our fellow human beings and our culture/state/society…

we die if we cannot engage with on a constant basis with our culture/state/society…
and we cannot go against that which we must be, social creatures that need to
be connected to the culture/state/society… we connect or we die… pretty simple
actually…

but those pesky voices in our head… telling us our own personal and quite often oppose
to…against the needs/wants/desires of the culture/state/society we live in…

and how do we solve this dilemma? which voice shall we listen to,
the state/society/culture or do we listen to the voice in our head?

Kropotkin

Peter said:

“and how do we solve this dilemma? which voice shall we listen to,
the state/society/culture or do we listen to the voice in our head?”

It depends. Which is more ‘real’ ; or reality aside. Which version is more believable, or finally which will cause less harm.

I think that these choices have to be analyzed, before a preferential route can be found to tackle this question.

We can defer to the conflative fusing of these three modes of inquiery, in relativistic ways, but then the question will arise wether we intentionally mixed them, causing a rapture between rhetoric devices and what we willingly or unwillingly meant to signify for meaning.

Thus defeating the confusing idea that there need be more then three levels of metaphor constructed.

I hold this truth to be self evident: that all monarchs must die…

that “self evident” truth is an inner truth that the society/state,
denies to be either “self evident” or the “truth”… to kill the monarch,
to do as Hamlet inner voice required him to do, means to violate
societies norm and values…to be punished for following one’s inner
“TRUTH”…

I hold this truth to be self evident: that all men are create equal…

suddenly I hold a truth that some, certainly not all, but some do believe
to be “TRUTH” and to be “self evident”…

so, to follow this second “TRUTH”, some would cheer
and some would put me into jail…society is conflicted upon
this particular “TRUTH”…

Most of our “TRUTHS” fall into this category of some “TRUTH” are accepted
and believed and some “TRUTHS” are not accepted or believed…

rarely do we ever get a total acceptance from our inner voice and the
society/state/culture TRUTHS that are also “self evident” …

for most people, there are conflicts between what is the “TRUTH”
and what is “self evident”… and this conflict flow from both
individual and collective/state “TRUTHS” that we hold 'TRUTHS"
apart and separate from each other and from what is collectively
held, is not new or a mystery…Hamlet held a personal 'TRUTH"
but it was in conflict with the State 'TRUTH"… though shall not kill
the monarch, thy uncle…

but on what grounds can we base our or any decision to kill the “King”

as this is the age of IQ45… we can suddenly see the appropriateness of this
thought or for those on the right…that Biden is now king
and the appropriateness of killing the new king…

suddenly Hamlet becomes the news of the day…

we have our inner 'TRUTHS" and how far do we carry this inner 'TRUTH"
in defiance of the laws of human beings and society?

Hamlet and Abraham don’t seem so far away now, do they?

those who attempted to overthrow the government this last week,
built a hanging post outside the capital and had zip ties in which
to tie up congressmen or even the VP and take them outside and hang
them… this was a common theme in the crowd on the capital grounds…
to take out those who in that inner voice “tried to deny justice” by not
putting IQ45 into his second term…

but lacking intelligence those who tried to overthrow the government
lack the understanding of the implications of their actions whereas
Hamlet understood the implications of his thoughts and his “Inner voice”

Thus his hesitation to perform what the voice of his father, the ghost
told him to act upon, which is the revenge killing of his uncle…
the king…

placed into context the hesitation of Hamlet makes far more sense
now…which voice, which commandment was he going to follow…
his inner voice or the voice of the state/society/the culture?

this conflict drives the entire play of Hamlet and to this day, drives
much of our current conflict…

which voice are we going to listen to?

Kropotkin

K:
“and how do we solve this dilemma? which voice shall we listen to,
the state/society/culture or do we listen to the voice in our head?”

M: It depends. Which is more ‘real’ ; or reality aside. Which version is more believable, or finally which will cause less harm.

I think that these choices have to be analyzed, before a preferential route can be found to tackle this question.

K: analyzed great, but the question still remains, which tool shall we use to analyze this?
logic, rationality, emotion, laws, inner truths… how do we create the means/tools
by which we can analyze this?

M: We can defer to the conflative fusing of these three modes of inquiery, in relativistic ways, but then the question will arise wether we intentionally mixed them, causing a rapture between rhetoric devices and what we willingly or unwillingly meant to signify for meaning.
Thus defeating the confusing idea that there need be more then three levels of metaphor constructed.

K: to be honest, I have no idea what you are saying… spell it out in simple, plain english…

Kropotkin

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZpIrlcZmXQ[/youtube]

K: any Star Wars connection is welcomed… now, the real point is to align
your “feelings” with what is in the force… be one with the force, means
your “feelings” and the force are the same thing…alienation
and discontentment are due to the disconnection from one’s “feelings”
and the force… as is alienation and the disconnection
between our “feelings” and the state…that drives much of modern society…

Kropotkin

You got that real right

Nothing to do with Star Wars or the force or the state.

It’s a question of authenticity.

K: and this means what?

Kropotkin

It means trusting your feelings and going with your feelings rather than aligning with a force, leader, community or state.

Ja wohl, Herr Fuhrer !

Yeah. When some people are being authentic then they do things that we might not want them to do.

I don’t see any way around that, except by control and manipulation.

The concept of authenticity is similar to ‘free speech’.

If you believe in free speech then Hitler ought to be able to have free speech.

But that’s too much for some people. They believe in free speech only for people that they agree with and everyone else has to be silenced.

Hamlet had feelings. Abraham had feelings. You have feelings. I have feelings. Karpel Tunnel has feelings rooted in his “visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me” Self. Fictional feelings. Factual feelings.

But what are we trusting? Aren’t they feelings no less fabricated existentially through years of indoctrination as children, through a unique sequence of personal experiences and relationships out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially?

Authenticity here can be construed in two ways. One revolves around hypocrisy and the other around deontology.

One can live a particular life and come to sincerely believe in fascism or communism or religion or atheism or the things that Hamlet and Abraham felt were authentic. But then they don’t live up to their convictions.

And then there are those who insist that a life lived authentically is a life that embodies principles.

But we will always need a context in which to examine how human interactions play out given the assumptions made here about thoughts and feelings said to be either authentic or inauthentic.

And that’s where the points I raise here come in. And, yes, I raise them over and over again. But that is because the manner in which I understand them leaves “me” both “fractured and fragmented”.

How then do those who are not manage this?

Indoctrination is experience. You are your indoctrinations as much as any other experience.

Feelings are more primal, indoctrination can not reach them as readily. Most feelings of the kind that are covered, or repressed, are evidently not as prevy to freely expressed. control techniques, since they have to be accessed indirectly, not to the point.

The whole make up of repressive techniques plays on the structural makeup of indirect derivation, of playing on the gaps of mamory, created to hide the ‘facts’ to be repressed.

Hence any direct affront to the repressive negatives control techniques, will automatically red flag the missing associatjon, and disconnect the repressive technique from effect.

Messing with feelings is not as effective as a direct factual confrontation of already associated consequences that have not yet been repressed.

Hamlet is less prone to manipulation , becausd, the murder has been committed , whereas for Abraham, it was only a test. The levels of guilt is what drives repressjon, and the connection between an intrinsic repression, and an extrinsic societal coersjon, becomes a balancing act of trying to identify the onus of the pivot that projective and introspective inquiry tries to find it’s balance on a variable fulcrum

The test of faith, in one case over the actual deed of murder need no comparison at this point, hence there occurs a rejection of exemplar regarding any conscious and unconscious rise to a platform, where the level of guilt can spill over into the religious content of Abraham.

Yet, guilt is often becomes an architectural project so that absolvence can serve as the gluten to adherence of the flock.

The flock will faithfully abide, so that their own personal freedoms can be kept in mind and expurged. This is what Freud believes as keeping the balance within the economy of the id.

That’s part of it … a few years of “brainwashing” don’t erase millions of years of evolution.

You should always do what you wholeheartedly believe you should do. The emphasis is on the word “wholeheartedly” because every part of you must agree with your chosen course of action. If there’s just one part of you disagreeing with your decision, you should postpone it until internal consensus is reached.

The case that you present is a case in which a person is split between two different voices, one coming from within (what you currently think) and one coming from without (what others think.) To resolve the problem, you have to postpone action until internal disagreement is reached. Once internal consensus is reached, you might end up 1) completely ignoring what others think, 2) taking into consideration what others think but concluding that they are wrong, or 3) taking into consideration what others think and concluding that they are right. Exactly which one you should pick should be decided entirely by internal consensus. Since the best course of action for one situation is not necessarily the best for another, I am not going to present a general solution of the form “Always take into consideration what others are saying” or “Never completely disregard other people’s thoughts”. The only general rule of the form “Always do X” that I can provide, and guarantee to be true, is “Always make sure you wholeheartedly agree with what you do”. The rest is largely situation-dependent.

One might ask “How do you resolve internal disagreements?” The answer is “Through trial and error”. Basically, you come up with a proposal (an idea about what to do) and then you observe how you feel about it. If it doesn’t feel completely right, you throw it away and you look for another one. You keep repeating the process until you find one that completely agrees with you.

In general, it makes no sense – indeed, it’s not preferrable at all – to not do what you believe you should do. Consider the alternative: doing what you don’t believe you should do. How is that preferrable? Note that “doing what you believe you should do” is not the same as “disregarding what other people think”. In fact, you might believe that in certain situations you should seriously consider what others are saying. Indeed, you might even believe that in certain situations you should take their word for it. But also, you might believe that in certain situations you shouldn’t. And it is you who has to decide when and to what extent you want to listen to others and when and to what extent you should simply ignore them.

It’s much more difficult to deceive someone who is “connected to himself” than someone who isn’t. It’s not impossible but it’s significantly more difficult to do so.

No magnes you don’t get to

And since that is rooted in countless combinations of historical and cultural and circumstantial variables/contexts, we can expect this indoctrination to produce individuals who are all over the map morally and politically.

Similarly with the experiences we have as adults. There are those here who have lived lives that are very different from others. Their experiences predispose them to to embody value judgments they may or may not be able even to communicate intelligibly to others who have little or no understanding of the lives that they’re led.

Isn’t that basically what philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Descartes and Kant to Wittgenstein and Nietzsche must contend with when making distinctions between authentic and inauthentic behaviors.

I’ve noted my own assessment of this. I merely suggest that we need to agree on a particular “situation” in which to compare and contrast conflicting assessments.