I wonder how slaves manage. Is it
results in legitimacy, death or revolt. Of these, it is chains
that suggest the
powerful are most in awe of revolution.
Kropotkin struggled with his science of society, his final conclusion
consisted primarily of an acceptance that though the science was young, he
remained optimistic. Since then social science has fallen into a
wonderful functionalism, out of which the powerful expect useful answers.
This returns the burden of understanding society to something like
poets, and mystics, or that ragtag collective loosely defined as art.
But what is art. In the understanding of slaves there are three
kinds of art. Art that wants to be accepted. Art that doesn't
give a damn. Art that seeks change. This appears to mean,
that art is what people want it to be.
wonderful world of functionalism better to react with the idea that art is
a language of concrete forms. A sharing of ideas.
In my mind, however, I cannot get away from the 'not giving a damn' of a
perhaps freer isolated being and the forms this freer thing
produces. These freer forms are worth following, not because of
change or legitimacy, but because "creative is".