Wednesday, April 05, 2000:

FUNDAMENTAL WAY TO RELATE TO MERSAULT

Andrew Crocker of The Existentialist Writes:

"Is there room for another interpretation of Mersault? I see Mersault as a person ruled by his subconscious. Notice at times high emotion for others (his arrest, his mother's funeral) he has thoughts very typical to the subconscious (I'm cold, I'm tired, Why do I have to listen to this?) It's as if what most people would barely acknowledge themselves thinking are Mersault's thoughts"

Dear Mr. Crocker, What I was trying to express, and did so poorly because I am just beginning to explore this, is that Mersault's indifference is something fundamentally and absolutely different, a different ontological region Heidegger would say, from 'everyday' indifference that seems to be merely indifferent to specific things and events. Mersault's indifference is something fundamental in basic human nature, a basic existential/category defining human awareness as such, that maintains human everyday activity at an average level.

One way you could put it is that you normally do not get exited about every little thing. You give your attention only to those things you or society consider important. But it is only one fundamental 'emotion' or 'mood' among others. I am relating Mersault's indifference to Heidegger's discussion of hate as distinguished from anger in his NIETZSCHE, (vol. 1, Krell translation, pg. 42 I think). There he talks about fundamental emotions like hate and love (though he says next to nothing about love), and says hate is permanent and fundamental whereas anger is like infatuation, so closely fixed on its object that it soon wears itself out. But hate on the other hand, one discovers as "always already" within, abiding in place, a strange and frightening notion but directly relevant to the meaning of indifference in Mersault. Mersault, to all intents and purposes, discovered this fundamental indifference of his at the very beginning of his consciousness, i. e., he has simply always been that way. He doesn't understand why other people take ANYTHING as important, and out of mere curiosity or whimsy even, indulges in these activities of seeming importance to others as if to find out about something he really knows nothing about, i. e., the importance of sex, which it seems he can take it or leave it, no matter.

French Algerians at the time were 'suppose' to hate Arab Algerians -- IF that even occurred to him -- so he indulged in a partially approved social act of killing 'one's' enemy to find out what it was like. That is the only reason I can think of why he murdered an Arab instead of a Frenchman if he merely wanted to find out what killing was like. And he would probably have got away with it, being one of the proper approved group, i. e., French Algerians, if he had not been so blatantly indifferent at his mother's funeral.

That is socially unacceptable, whereas killing Arabs is marginally so. So he is condemned to death for his indifference. And his response is fundamentally, "So what?" I do not like the word "alienation" because that implies an abnormal state. Mersault is indifferent. That is his whole nature. That is his whole being. But it lives in him, as him, in such a way it still is looking outside itself as though it/Mersault does not think it is enough, otherwise why is he curious at all?

And then when the day of his execution dawns, remembering that he has had only one 'emotion' all of his life, that very indifference opens itself up as a passion for life that has always been there BUT NEVER FOUND SOMETHING IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO COMMIT ONESELF TO! Until the day he is going to die. I hope this is more clear. Thank you for your response.