Subversion is not found in the simple reversal from light to shadow, from bright to dark, from feeling to knowledge. A subversive relationship with nature does not, therefore, start with the inversion of man and nature, but with a change in man himself. He does not conceive nature as something that he can subdue, nor as something that can subdue him, but as something on which he depends, as something that delights in his dependence and something that gives pleasure. People mutually exclude themselves from this pleasure, instead inflicting poverty, crime and terror on themselves.

In holding sway over other people and their natural needs, does the human being perceive chances of subversive behaviour? Perhaps he finds it once he starts playing with the symbols of his power.

God, nature: two pseudonyms of man, which demand of him that he define himself in subversive terms, as slave and master of his own relationships.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 10th, 2009 at 9:00 am and is filed under Art, English, Mathematics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.