Victorian Ideals and the "devil"

I was watching a samurai film earlier and I contrasted that with some of the films that you will see at the side of the blog. You see at the side of the tab, you will see a film called Rashomon. You see the thing about this particular film was that it was filmed in 1940s and it was considered ground breaking because that it shows samurais in a "bad" light. This means that previous samurai films were propaganda films aimed to show samurai in a positive light and their bushido code.

But in this particular film which was called the "13 Assassins", it is not a run of the mill film and it is very well made, considered the elaborateness of mise--en-scene. Samuaria was used to bring down the shogunate and even this was legitimately done. All the samurai die in this film, and only left a "mountain" kid who was a "super" love-making machine and a young samurai who was determined to go to America and make love. It was set in 1844 and just the beginning of crumbling of the shogunate system.

You see the huge difference between a film considered goundbreaking 50-60 years ago and a film that is the norm now. You see that the film was brilliant: Rashomon was groundbreaking precisely because it breaks the mould and the educate the filmic audience.

But now such films seem to glamourize all forms of rules breaking like it was rules-de-jeur. This means that rules breaking is the norm and not the exception. And if rule breaking is the norm, then of what use is rule breaking in the first place.

The two ending characters that ran away scot free and alive seems bent on satiating their inner desires than to bother about an ideal which they aspire towards. Let's just put it in this manner for you: they aspire towards freedom and an ideal bent on fulfilling their "inner self" as if it was a supposed an "higher" ideal.

They seem to take Victorian ideals and turn it on his head and turn it into an ideal in itself. Subversion of any norms must come with fulfilling towards an higher ideal and not just satiating an inner desire. It is true that freedom is something that we should aspire towards and wthout liberty, of what use is any forms of material things.

In fact, this is the most salient and pertinent argument for this form of "unbridled freedom". This means, if we cannot enjoy the experiences in life- of what use of being, pious, faithful and "good" per se. This form of argument brought about by this last two characters is simply a: rejection of the material life and substituting for one predicated on experiences. Hence there isn't a need for any form structure per se, since we can experience life anywhere right.

The mountain man is the archetypal figure of the above. His primal instincts bring him joy and he even survives the battle which killed everyone except him and one other guy.

The ex samurai is the new ideal which the modern "young" person should aspire you to: you are tired and fatigued, the system have failed you and hence you should embrace the life that has offer you and rather than uphold a code which has fail you. This form of rejection of the system is typical experience of the modern young person whom have worked hard and strived within the system and hence felt a sense of ambivalence towards everything. They have to fight against the system by which they had believed in in the first place.

Hence since, we cannot strive or believe in the system anymore, the young people should then "experience" life to the max. Since it is broken and the system does not reward the good, it is better to enjoy the fruits of the system than to have an unquestioned belief in the system.

This means that we should continue to gratify all our needs as and when we want it rather than wait for the system to actually reward us.

Hence, you can see that the race to the bottom is the new norm and not the exception. This ties in almost with the democratization of everything. This means that everyone should have a share at everything- an ideal is hence nothing more than a barrier, and sort of "anti-democracy".

If the previous kings, nobles and elites have the right to enjoy life and all it's pleasures, so must everyone else now. If we are not good enough, then we must provide a basis by which we can enjoy this without "guilt" or "repercussions".

This forms of "anti-ideological" argument- by which all forms of practiced knowledge and skills is nothing more than ideological and is nothing to control the masses has been stretched so far that it justifies all forms of debauchery, hedonistic behaviour and "unhealthy" behaviour that, if you work at something, it is because you are an "elitist" and nothing more than a nepotistic actor. This means that we all should have a common denominator: the common denominator is well the most basic: what I have just described above.

Hence the lowest common denominator covers the most people, it will covers the crooks, the people which can identify with the most: food, water, and sex. If I can justify these above and provide a basis and even glamourize it, I win.

It is not easy to trick me on all these ideological arguments, I studied all forms of philosophical theory of knowledge and at what basis does it provide. In fact, my paper is often the leveller of all things that is deemed elitist. But I have gone out to work and I have even gone out on a limb to provide an even emotional basis of these arguments by going underground for a while, I can tell you that the experience on the ground provides no basis other than ideological. This means that all these race to the bottom is nothing more an "excuse" to "control" people on the contrary than to free them.

These form of "race" to bottom, bankrupt these people by how opium did 100 years ago, no matter, how hard one works, it will go to somewhere which does NOT accumulate but targeted at gratification. All forms of gratification and consumption only serves the interest of the haves than the have-nots.

This means that this mode of operating and "controlling" the world has not changed, it is simply changing the ideology that's all. The point of it all is consume, gratify and get indebted. That is the crux of ruling the world.

Hence this form of "freedom" and "democratization" of everything is nothing more than an excuse to control and manage the expectations of these people with "democratic" expectations.

P/S: in "1984", the doublespeak or doublethink: "freedom is slavery" and "peace is war"- "freedom is slavery[ read sins or hedonistic behaviour]" "peace is war[ control of power]"