There was once a man who ought to find meaning of himself. He was confronted with so many existential problems that he was moved to stroll down the boulevard of theaters. He saw two major theaters; the theater of the absurd and the theater of reality.
He wanted to see what the theater of reality was, and so he went in. Then the curtains rolled up and he saw himself playing the lead actor's role. He was so engrossed with his performance but he only saw what he ought to see, in that context, in that phenomenon. He was part of that theater, dancing to the music and acting with his heart. Then he left
He went into the next theater, the theater of the absurd. Again he saw himself, acting the lead 's role. He laughed at what he saw, as to how he does his daily activities with rhythm, consistency, and habit. He was then surprised to see himself acting monotonously, without any feeling of surprise doing those daily activities.
At times in our life, we enter into this two theaters. Neither one of them is wrong nor absolutely right. The theater of reality allows us to get in part of the drama in life, making us see what is just perceived by the senses and showing us that life in reality has meaning, and is rational. Yet in 'reality' we tend to move unto that impossible without thinking of it's 'unimpossibility'. Thus that action would lead it's absurdity.
The theater of the absurd shows us the meaningless of life. That the actor's aim is to let the audience disagree with this phenomenon, this reality that life indeed is meaningless, irrational. Why would they aim for their disagreement? That would be the beginning of something profound.
The idea of absurdism was not intended to cultivate the meaningless. To produce a world of senselessness and irrationality. No, this isn't. The theater of the absurd is showing, exposing and unfolding the absurd in everyday situations, as the audience are forced to seek a truer and more essential life for themselves.
He wanted to see what the theater of reality was, and so he went in. Then the curtains rolled up and he saw himself playing the lead actor's role. He was so engrossed with his performance but he only saw what he ought to see, in that context, in that phenomenon. He was part of that theater, dancing to the music and acting with his heart. Then he left
He went into the next theater, the theater of the absurd. Again he saw himself, acting the lead 's role. He laughed at what he saw, as to how he does his daily activities with rhythm, consistency, and habit. He was then surprised to see himself acting monotonously, without any feeling of surprise doing those daily activities.
At times in our life, we enter into this two theaters. Neither one of them is wrong nor absolutely right. The theater of reality allows us to get in part of the drama in life, making us see what is just perceived by the senses and showing us that life in reality has meaning, and is rational. Yet in 'reality' we tend to move unto that impossible without thinking of it's 'unimpossibility'. Thus that action would lead it's absurdity.
The theater of the absurd shows us the meaningless of life. That the actor's aim is to let the audience disagree with this phenomenon, this reality that life indeed is meaningless, irrational. Why would they aim for their disagreement? That would be the beginning of something profound.
The idea of absurdism was not intended to cultivate the meaningless. To produce a world of senselessness and irrationality. No, this isn't. The theater of the absurd is showing, exposing and unfolding the absurd in everyday situations, as the audience are forced to seek a truer and more essential life for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment