Toward the end of the rebel,the metaphysical logical deriver of
revolutionary principals from practise suddenly becomes a carver of
commandments.Absolute free speech and no indefinite imprisonment are worthy
and laudable but they seem to spring out of Alberts,(Athena's ?)head.
They contradict the rest of the book that argues in the most minute detail
against deriving any absolute values from revolt.There might just be some
sense of desperation here as he has painted himself,(and us)into a very
dark corner.
Getting back to 9-11 for a minute,when we apply the logic on offer in the
rebel to the hijackers whose real generosity gives all to the present,what
do we get? Quite logically we get a picture of one person somewhere with
the power to destroy the planet.And why shouldn't they if they pay with
their own life as well.The nihilists Camus approves of are now arming
themselves with the means to take us all with them and according to the
formula of the rebel,this will give rise to a value?
Camus does mention atomic suicide in the rebel and most of it is taken up
with his battle with nihilism,with murder and suicide.He does argue for
limits and against absolutes but is this argument effective?
It is a contradiction kept in tension,created and mastered by intelligence
according to Camus.It is 21st century schizoid man with a splitting
headache according to matt the revisionist who is finally letting go of the
one who promised so much and finally delivered so little.Adieu old
friend,for fifty years you have been my guide yet we have to strike on for
the summit unroped in gathering storm.I will try and bring something back
for you.Sleep well for you did well,our clear eyed friend,we won't forget you.
