Sometimes our society is warped, confused and acts with ignorance.

It can
operate or change in ways that challenges what we are and we must somehow
contend with that.
Society’s collective neurosis pressures a person’s sense of identity and
self.
We must consider: is there greater meaning in the social advancement?
Or is this for the worse?
And there comes a personal conflict of identity. If society acts in a way,
or has shifted, it has done so for a reason, so, are we wrong?
Should we want to ‘better’ our behaviour to satisfy our group? Or are our
people delusional and responsible for stupidity or malevolence and if we
participated, we would contribute to that harmful fantasy?
What can we do if we assess our community to be wrong?
What if we assess our people to be delusional?
Or even if they are, will they take us to the promised land? Is it worth
trusting that? How powerful can an idea be? Could this madness make the world
a better place?
Do we challenge what is and risk being singled out as deviant – become the
otherness that society does not accept – become part of the unknown; or
concede and conform to be accepted – abide – and see rightness in the group, in
its purpose to satisfy our people – that success would not only bring glory but a
better world and become one with the delusion.
Social good and bad are what benefit or detriment the group’s perception
of itself, and if we are part of that group it by extension should be beneficial or
detrimental to us.
The idea is an illusion – that idea can be enough – but if it breaks and true
reality returns, the concept is tested.

In peacetimes – the back and forth of individual and society – the push and pull
brings progress and nuance to culture; defiance of norms may lead to social
movement. These pushes and pulls are the structure of ‘behavioural
colloquialism’ or customs, habits.
From this, a collective greater good may be imagined and sought, we may
view others as lesser and if we expand, we infect other people to our delusion,
and in the worst circumstance we kill and replace or colonise them.
Metaphorically or actually.
But what we believe is good for us can be mistaken; better to just stay in
comfort that is familiar.
 Overlap with the other disturbs the framework and context of our
society, and we must encounter and contend with what is strange to us and
somehow whether the storm. We can brave it, or shy from it, we can choose to
follow our people and support their decisions or defy them and act
independently; but doing so risks lasting consequence.
Changes and groups can refer to anything from – LBGT, with friends, you
vs the law; or our society in general against others; the group – LBGT, the friend
group, you, and our society; must contend with the traditional or prejudiced
people, other friend groups or general society – the boys in a public bar -, the
law, other countries or what is unknown on earth.
Shall we fall back on our group or concede to that other? Are we wrong or
are they?

Imagine your group falls into a rushing river and they intend to follow it
downstream because they believe there is a soft bank around the bend and they
must do it together. They don’t know that and you assess there could be a
dangerous waterfall. If they all believe the bank to be true, that the bank is
safety – you’d seem like an idiot, an antagonist for resisting the current to get
out and claw yourself over the rocks on the edge – to potential safety – or
perhaps the rocks are also dangerous – but you’ve made that assessment and
made a decision, you’ve chosen your fate and willingly brave the hazards rather
than remain ignorant, relinquishing personal responsibility, and fall off the
waterfall in comfort, supported by your peers because the story of the bank is
easier.
Like Plato’s cave – maybe those in the river would try and kill you for
challenging their belief during that crisis.

All this to say sometimes our collective decisions can be foolish.

So when our normalcy is disrupted – and there are times of crisis or panic
we are met with the absurdity of existence, and the violent, uncontrollable
forces within - whether that’s natural disaster or war - the voice of reason is
often the first casualty – and we as a collective or as individuals can react with
the lowest form of thinking, the simplest response, and resort to messy mayhem
in attempt to thwart what has upset us and protect our identity, our purpose,
our self-belief; and from that stand point, entire regimes can be built
solidifying the response.
Many believe safety is found with our people and so they contribute.
Those who analyse the situation and consider the response can be seen as
dissenters.
So to be able to destroy the idea of what we don’t like – that other - and
cling to whatever safety and order there is left many bury themselves in
whatever comfort and familiarity – normalcy that can be found – fall off the
waterfall or stand guard at Auschwitz or groom their children (lbgt), or –
enslave natives and torture them into hunting ivory for you; or machine gunning
villages of civilians because communism is bad.
Others distract themselves from the horror, finding meaning in the
mission or simply zoning out while carrying out orders.
Still others refuse to participate, refuse to acknowledge what is
confronting, or perhaps they intellectualise it all, perhaps disassociating from
ego to observe and judge; or choose punishment, or death – escape.

The most dangerous people comprehend what was once other and unknown, have
come to understand and appreciate it and begin to see the folly of their own
people and the mission, see the delusion as an outsider and judge it to be wrong
and resist.

But if the barricades of our illusion shatter, to face the danger, the threat is to
see reality for what it is, and perhaps we can learn and grow from that, step
outside our understanding and see things for what they are. Perhaps our old
ways no longer fit into the new world and we as individuals and as a community
should have open eyes to what isn’t us; that we can be better informed and in
form.
But dare we risk destroying ourselves by peering outside of our sense of
safety?

Hello and welcome – in this video I will discuss the underlying theory behind the
sociology, psychology and philosophy in Conrad’s heart of Darkness (Marlow’s
journey into the Congo) and Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (Willard’s journey into
Vietnam) which depict the madness of forceful social campaigns for the
individuals that experience it – and shows how different people cope with the
bewilderment of transnational conflict. With exposure to extreme chaos,
extreme disorder; for one to remain composed extreme acclimatisation is
required.
Aspects of the stories will be explored in detail so it will be an open,
‘spoiler’ discussion for both versions of the story.
A very brief overview of both stories is: a man – Kurtz - is part of an occupying
force (The Company Traders (book) and American Military (film)) who are
destroying people and their land for wealth and victory – but – he, because of
hatred of the lie that the Western force tells itself, tells the natives, and tells
the world – he is a man of truth – and because of this he has separated from his
group and operates alone in an unfamiliar, conventionally uncivilised country to
fulfill the mission away from his peers.
Rather than follow ordinances, sanctions and orders he has disconnected
from command and operates his station in the wilderness with natives who work
for and worship him.
Called savages by the invaders, and treated as such Kurtz sees them as
what they are: human – they are like us – and he begins to learn them. Know thy
enemy.
Due to his methods being different from regulation and his ideas being
different to ideology and therefore deviant they are considered ‘unsound’ and
‘improper’ by officials and so Kurtz is to be ‘extracted’ from his station. His evil
was not the correct evil, despite his efficiency.
When the protagonist arrives – they find he has abandoned customs
completely and has indeed become wild, violent and extremely unhinged – as was
explained.
As the protagonist extracts him – he dies – leaving behind the monuments
to his deeds and the statement of his legacy.
Is he very obviously insane?
Are his methods worse than those of other colonisers or soldiers?
No – he has confronted the chaos of war and chosen how to react to this
social change, and hates that his people haven’t – and views them as weak.
Each text presents a representative for the yin – the obeyer – if my country is
doing it, must be right, it is wrong for me to disobey my country; and the yang –
the independent thinker, the mercenary, who will defy one’s country to achieve
success; and the individual in between who sails into the chaos of conflict, from
the order of safety – into Yang from Yin; and must choose how to respond, to
accept it, ignore it, fight it.
Darkness is not evil, it is unknown.
He was a reasonable, intelligent man, put into awful chaos and driven to do
unreasonable things; but in contrast to the Western forces – how unreasonable
can one person be?
Heart of Darkness, and by extension Apocalypse Now is a story about the evil of
executive power, that forceful confrontation with chaos, with the overextension
of our realm, our order. It examines how different characters respond to the
absurdity of their situation. Of the dissonance between the ideal, and the
reality. Of taking part in the vanity and attempted empowerment of one’s
country with violence.
With the attitude of we are more civilised than you, we are stronger, we
are better one can feel heroic. But at what cost?
The stories make it clear that the Belgium Traders and the American
Military are the villains of the story, destroying communities and environments
for the sake of profit or victory.
How would a soldier who has come to this realisation deal with the idea
that they are the bad guy; that their battle with chaos is wrong in both morality
and method, and that their people are purposefully ignorant and continue with
their stupid choices, deluding themselves.

Rather than be powerless Kurtz asserts himself as a superior, as a deity, and

takes control over the horror of the situation.
Doing so causes shame and disgrace to his soul, but he could either be the
horror or be subjected to it.
And – with the perspective – he realises the horror of humanity and how
he has contributed to that – he hates how he has had to be evil to thrive – but –
in a circumstance where westerners have brought hell to earth – he has chosen
to master the madness.
He is aware and suffers from the horror we, and he are capable of.

Ignorance may be the most harmful attribute.

Rather comprehend the reality of the task, and the reality of the people
you hurt; the ignorance of what is enables disassociation, defamiliarization,
depersonalisation.
Blind to the reality, unwillingness to see creates a guise to operate with.
The pain of realisation can be too much for some.
Willingly confronting it disillusions us but makes us wiser.
Makes one wonder what is so valuable about our way? What is so good about our
culture beside that we are in it? Why are we convinced that this is the way –
that our culture is better? Why? Just because we made it? How egotistical.

Collective ego:

Growing power in the west, their idea for their best world or their most
fabulous experience becomes a powerful motivation, and believers can believe it,
but, the cost of such luxury, such power is the infliction of hatred, extreme
destruction, torture, slavery and death. For a people to thrive at another’s
expense, they must see themselves above others – superior.

Individual self:

Realisation of commonality; that they are not monsters, they are men, we are
killing them – for what? Realisation of evil, of justification.

Clash of evil, biblical evil vs social evil vs personal evil.

What is righteous, holy, universal.
What benefits our people.
What we believe.

One who vows not to kill, personally hates violence yet must fight in a military
force where thou MUST kill is a major moral conflict and a dilemma that would
haunt one’s soul. One must choose how to be, to confront the changing ways or
remain true to oneself. What are the consequences of each decision?

Part 1
Familiarity

What is the heart of darkness?

To put it over simply: order of familiar civilisation (light / good); chaos of
unknown civilisation (dark / bad)

We are born needing the protection of our parents, family and community.
First, we know only what we need and obey our bodies, we need to shit; we are
ids.
Then, we learn we have choices and can act to protect ourselves, perhaps the
first realisation of this is: we can not shit on ourselves; we develop our ego.
 Then we comprehend that we are part of the group and must abide; we can shit
in a toilet, the social solution to bodily waste – we can also keep that toilet clean for
others use – others who are in our group. To benefit the group is good; a good group can
help us, to damage the group is bad, a bad group or a group that dislikes us cannot or
will not help us. That affects us; we mature our superegos.

Through this process, our morality is developed inside the community and we identify
with it.
That is not contemplating the truth, it is believing the story.
During peacetimes, the story works.
But outside of it, when the unknown breeches what is familiar and we are
confronted that chaos and must respond to it.
Do we double down into what Is familiar? Or do we confront the chaos, learn
from it and become knowledgeable and expand perspective.
The illusion of what we are can be challenged; the story we know. Do we
sacrifice our protection for the truth?

To be integrated in a group – clan or civilisation - has been vital for everyone’s survival
and prosperity since we stood upright.
Not only do others provide security, support and we collaborate with, reenforce
and protect each other, especially as we venture into the unknown. Acceptance into
personal as well as intimate relations with others enables the opportunity for us to have
families and continue our bloodline in supported, safe environments.
So to be disliked or perceived to be incompetent by one’s group could be
existentially dangerous, to be undesirable, to have low social status could have major
consequences. This is true in the modern day – if you are disliked in all social groups –
you’ll not be attractive enough to find intimacy – is why public speaking is so terrifying
to some. A remnant of the fear of exclusion from the clan for being a dorkish
embarrassment.
It safest for us to fit in rather than deviate – or be normal and nor stand out -
to do what others do and abide all governmental/committee developments as to not
stand out or be a threat to the prevailing ideology – it is our clan after all. Safest but
not the most beneficial or progressive.
From a young age we develop awareness that we are part of a whole and that we
can harm or heal that whole. From this we develop morals, compassion – the knowledge
that we are a part of something greater than ourselves – to want to change that
greatness – is extremely risky for others could deem your ideas good and use them, or
bad and persecute you – despite how intelligent new ideas may be.
As we grow we learn what is good – or acceptable behaviour that will gain favour
and reward from others – and what words or actions will be met with scorn or
punishment. So we become learned in and try to abide by our cultures customs. With
established right and wrong we become able to project ‘otherness’ and classify that as
‘bad.’

Perhaps the war itself is irrational, and it is the natives who have some sense. Perhaps
their morality, their ethics, their code is superior to our own. Ignorant generals would
not consider that.

Philosophy of heart of darkness

Community, society, law and civil harmony are organisational constructs that
keep individuals feeling protected from the horrors of potentially random malevolence.
People are our most precious asset and it is extremely difficult for most of us to cope
without them. Any group – from a partnership to a nation – must oblige a mutual – and
mutually beneficial collaboration.
What is beneficial for that faction – what that group deems valuable – is what is
good – in a social sense; and what is not valuable is bad. To be a member of a group and
participate one must obey that faction’s enforced law. This is the basis of functional
good and evil which we learn as we grow. Each nation in each time period had their own
conception of morality – and good and evil.
So social morality is formed; a concept we learn as we grow.
We are born with only our id, our instinctual and natural urges – we then develop
our ego, our awareness of self and who we are – then around age four or five we fathom
that we are part of a collective and that there are proper and improper ways to behave
– thus begin to establish our superego.
Independent of morality is intelligence, spiritual morality, awareness and
personal judgement.
The structures of right and wrong, good and evil can be challenged by us or by
an outer force.
Kurtz, in such a different place, responded intelligently to the surrounding evil
sacrificing his connection with his soul and his life.
But is that better than keeping it in such tumultuous times?
The lieutenant says Kurtz is insane.
Yet – this video argues that he is insane in the western sense, but sane in the
human sense.
The ivory trade and the war effort are sane in the western sense but insane in
the human sense.

Kilgore
Marlow/Willard
Kurtz
Thou shalt not kill for spiritual reasons
Thou must kill for military necessity.

Which evil is chosen therefore? To not kill may risk the lives of fellow soldiers, but
save one’s soul. To kill may save lives, but corrupt one’s soul.

Familiarity, order and control are how we have survived since we fell from the treetops
in the mid-Cenozoic – that has been the fundamental driving force of civilisation. If our
people – or if we - can control the most resources, land and knowledge we may be able
to overpower others – economically or militarily – we will be successful. The wealthier
we become the more able we are to expand into what is not us, the unknown – the chaos
of the unfamiliar.
What is unknown is potentially dangerous, threatening to our lives or our
ideology and so we defend ourselves against it, or attempt to conquer it.
We are nascent – unaware of what is not us and must learn from what we
encounter.

These plays in two mediums – personally, we, when we are born must breach the
unknown that is life – and in the safety of our family become familiar with our
community and society.
And our society breaching what is unfamiliar to it.

Question: How can individuals contend with the madness of social development?
Answer: suicide, distraction, acceptance – OR – integration
Question: How can that psychologically or sociologically change a person / people
Answer: sacrifice of self and identity, challenge self, transform OR snub.
Question: what happens if they don’t?
Answer: the shadow grows within them, the energy of darkness – and it never
extinguishes but must find a way to manifest.
Question: What happens if the shadow continues to be repressed?
Answer: extreme neurosis and confusion, a split of identity.

Thesis: The West has adapted improperly to the land they have colonised. They are
blinded by their identity and their own sense of right and wrong, and, are the clear
antagonists and evil of both book and film.
Many who participate struggle with the mission, with the purpose, with the
violence.
In the absurdity of that sort of conflict – fighting on what may be the wrong side – how
can one process that idea?

Albert Camus outlined the three primary strategies: To not participate, to

distract/resist and to embrace. Chaos threatens our identity. Is our identity worth
saving? What is the identity we value so much and is it good?
The Company and the American Military represent the resistance. To conquer
the darkness and bring OUR light OUR familiarity into it and vanquish what isn’t us. We
are better than it, our ways, our culture, our success is more important than
integration with savages.

Kurtz represents the spirit of embracing and becoming the darkness. To

sacrifice his identity to face the truth and let the chaos in, and his chaos out. To let go
of ideals and philosophy and see the conflict for what it is.

Extreme examples, but in such extreme circumstances – there is no normality and to

attempt to keep it is futile.
What causes society to make mistakes and how should we cope with them?
With reason; something Kurtz maintains, but is lost to the West.

The Congo traders, and the American military, and all colonial activities should have
focused on communication, to breach the gap between unknown and unknown and
filtered the darkness in carefully and with purpose. Learned of their ‘enemy’ and
understood he similarities between them to create comprehension and be able to work
together for whatever common goals they may have.
But to accept that they are like us, is a threat to the ideology and thus refuse
resulting in extreme.

It is all about the comfort, vs the truth and what we prefer.

We like to think of ourselves as good; and find ways to tell ourselves that. To accept
that we are evil is extremely scary and so we refuse; but we can behave evilly, but
justify that to ourselves.

Psychology of safety.
Expansion.
Enemy are evil so kill.
Threat to my truth is threat to the truth.
Deep in the jungle – a white man sits in his hut and contemplates the newest severed
head on a spike. He admires it before commanding a group of natives to hunt with him.

A gnarly image; to be able to do that, the man must be insane – so is thought.

The goal of this video is to explain the sanity of Walt Kurtz by examining his situation
more closely.

First some definitions and structure:

Sanity / evil

Id Ego Superego

Conscious / unconscious

Shadow

Group / individual

Yin / Yang

Morality

Setting of story:
Story:

Textual evidence

What is the heart of darkness?

The past fifteen years have seen a significant culture shift with new ideas and new
protocols introduced in society. From virus regulations to concepts of identity and
absolute acceptance of expression being discussed.
Established identities with cultivated views must reconcile with changing social
perspectives, especially when directly exposed to humanity’s nuances.
At what point does one open their self to the changes?
Does one not participate, reject and disdainfully oppose or fully ignore the
presence of what is new and simply not acknowledge it.
 Does one tolerate the nuances for what they are and acclimatise to the culture
shift, being functionally open to it or distractedly indifferent to it
Does one embrace it as the new way that society is and even extend their own
personality into the new social movement?
Our ids and egos weigh up the pros and cons – and we choose.

Not accepting that which is new can be seen as noncompliance, thus, ‘other’.

peddling notions—you are interfering with me. I will return. I....’

“The manager came out. He did me the honour to take me under the arm and lead me
aside. ‘He is very low, very low,’ he said. He considered it necessary to sigh, but
neglected to be consistently sorrowful. ‘We have done all we could for him—haven’t we?
But there is no disguising the fact, Mr. Kurtz has done more harm than good to the
Company. He did not see the time was not ripe for vigorous action. Cautiously,
cautiously—that’s my principle. We must be cautious yet. The district is closed to us
for a time. Deplorable! Upon the whole, the trade will suffer. I don’t deny there is a
remarkable quantity of ivory—mostly fossil. We must save it, at all events—but look
how precarious the position is—and why? Because the method is unsound.’ ‘Do you,’ said
I, looking at the shore, ‘call it “unsound method?”’ ‘Without doubt,’ he exclaimed hotly.
‘Don’t you?’... ‘No method at all,’ I murmured after a while. ‘Exactly,’ he exulted. ‘I
anticipated this. Shows a complete want of judgment. It is my duty to point it out in
the proper quarter.’ ‘Oh,’ said I, ‘that fellow—what’s his name?—the brickmaker, will
make a readable report for you.’ He appeared confounded for a moment. It seemed to
me I had never breathed an atmosphere so vile, and I turned mentally to Kurtz for
relief—positively for relief. ‘Nevertheless I think Mr. Kurtz is a remarkable man,’ I
said with emphasis. He started, dropped on me a heavy glance, said very quietly,
‘he was,’ and turned his back on me. My hour of favour was over; I found myself lumped
along with Kurtz as a partisan of methods for which the time was not ripe: I was
unsound! Ah! but it was something to have at least a choice of nightmares.
“I had turned to the wilderness really, not to Mr. Kurtz, who, I was ready to admit,
was as good as buried. And for a moment it seemed to me as if I also were buried in a
vast grave full of unspeakable secrets. I felt an intolerable weight oppressing my
breast, the smell of the damp earth, the unseen presence of victorious corruption, the
darkness of an impenetrable night.... The Russian tapped me on the shoulder. I heard
him mumbling and stammering something about ‘brother seaman—couldn’t conceal—
knowledge of matters that would affect Mr. Kurtz’s reputation.’ I waited. For him
evidently Mr. Kurtz was not in his grave; I suspect that for him Mr. Kurtz was one of
the immortals. ‘Well!’ said I at last, ‘speak out. As it happens, I am Mr. Kurtz’s friend—
in a way.’
“He stated with a good deal of formality that had we not been ‘of the same
profession,’ he would have kept the matter to himself without regard to consequences.
‘He suspected there was an active ill-will towards him on the part of these white men
that—’ ‘You are right,’ I said, remembering a certain conversation I had overheard. ‘The
manager thinks you ought to be hanged.’ He showed a concern at this intelligence which
amused me at first. ‘I had better get out of the way quietly,’ he said earnestly. ‘I can
do no more for Kurtz now, and they would soon find some excuse. What’s to stop them?
There’s a military post three hundred miles from here.’ ‘Well, upon my word,’ said I,
‘perhaps you had better go if you have any friends amongst the savages near by.’
‘Plenty,’ he said. ‘They are simple people—and I want nothing, you know.’ He stood biting
his lip, then: ‘I don’t want any harm to happen to these whites here, but of course I was
thinking of Mr. Kurtz’s reputation—but you are a brother seaman and—’ ‘All right,’ said
I, after a time. ‘Mr. Kurtz’s reputation is safe with me.’ I did not know how truly I
spoke.

Explorations and expressions of the self are common themes in story, yet critical
analysis of the reality of society’s decisions and how they affect people, and how people
can challenge it can be difficult.
Society is a conglomeration of flawed, ambitious people who want the best for
themselves and their kind. Ideals, and ambition for the best reality is
Published in 1894 – in the era of Belgian colonisation in the Congo – for the
export of goods such as ivory and rubber – Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is about a man –
Kurtz – who sees the madness of his people and seeks to break away from them yet
continue his task, slowly he becomes familiar with the natives and their ways and so is
able to see both perspectives and is able to choose for himself how to act.
Kurtz is condemned to be relieved due to his methods being unsound, he has
become evil and insane.
Evil and insane – to the eyes of the Belgium trading company – the same trading
company who are enslaving and murdering thousands of natives in horrific forced labour
conditions – not because he is evil – but because he is not evil in their way.
Inspired – Francis Ford Coppola directed Apocalypse Now – during combat in the
Philippines – set in the Vietnam Jungle during the war – Kurtz – sees the absurdity of
America’s war effort – and seeks to find the strongest way to fight.

The thesis of this video is: Kurtz is not insane, rather, he is the most rational
Westerner in the Jungle at the time – he is a genius.
Yet – his genius is not morally pure. It destroys him. But he would rather be
destroyed by the truth of the horror than be deceived by the lies and so follows
through.

Heart of darkness is a story about a journey into the psychological shadow on both
personal and social accounts.

To address these concepts, three models must be structured: The Id, Ego, Superego;
the Conscious and unconscious, and order and chaos.
We are born with only our instincts, become aware of our selves and our interaction
with the world, then learn that we are a part of a group.
To fit with that group, we must oblige protocol.
Yet much of what we are defies what our community is, or what good is, what we
allow ourselves to be, and so much of that is pushed to our unconscious, to our shadow –
and we must channel that shadow healthily – both individually and as a societally.
Apart from morality, there is intelligence, capability, willingness, and emotion.

Marlow and Willard are born in the Western ideology – and participate in their cause –
but as they travel downriver to Kurtz – they become exposed to the horror and begin
to question the ethics of either the West or Kurtz and learn from both – but closer to
Kurtz they go they deeper into the Heart of Darkness they go – into the shadow, into
the unknown, into the self.

What is the heart of darkness?

Order of familiar civilisation (light / good)
Chaos of unknown civilisation (dark / bad)
To stay in the light is to destroy the dark
To know the dark is to journey into the heart of darkness – with eyes open.

Civilised is a very specific word.

Other cultures, or behaviours within our own culture, can be uncivilised if they
don’t adhere. There is darkness – within us – and there is darkness outside of us.
Conrad’s text and Coppola’s film present: Western ideology, African/Vietnamese
ideology, and examine how individuals manage the contrast.
Raised under the western idea of right, of civilised, one can become convinced
by it. Misbehaviour is misbehaviour.
There is collective and individual conscious and unconscious, persona and shadow.

When collective consciousnesses act, to itself, it cannot be evil, for evil is

defined within it.
Individuals are able to choose whether they participate with the collective
effort, and be deemed good, sane and proper.
Or decline the collective effort, even defy it and be deemed deviant, evil and
insane.

To abandon the light of order and explore the darkness of chaos; is to delve into the
depths of the shadow.
The shadow, the dark, the chaos being anything that isn’t established.
Belgium’s slavery of the Congo
America’s war in Vietnam

These are the order, the light. To defy in any way is to breach into the dark, to break
the illusion.
The Trading Company and the Military want to keep the illusion that what they
are doing is proper and sane, it is the American way. The damage of ignoring the dark.

It is the company that is evil in its mission, the military in its war.
Both destroy much of the environment, torture, enslave and kill the locals,
reduce the populations of wildlife. They are the cause of death, but because they
profit and that profit benefits them and benefits the west, their actions are ‘good.’
Despite this, the traders are inefficient – resulting in unnecessary devastation.
Financial ambitions driving this.
Inefficient perhaps because they are unwilling to do what is necessary to
overcome the horror of chaos, and hide in the order of protocol.

In the film – numerous attempts to futilely bring order and familiarity to the warzone
are shown to be as ridiculous as it sounds. The reliance on comfort causes calamity:
From shooting missiles from painted helicopters screeching Wagner, to beach
parties with beer, surfing, even bringing a playboy arena for entertainment.
Kurtz finds that laughable, and hates the hypocrisy, the lies – that they are
there to ‘do good’ when they are clearly causing so much harm. The story the tell
themselves, the inability to be honest to themselves.
Comparing Kurtz’ ideology to the west and ask who is worse – for the earth, for
humanity.
The Company has moral rules for itself, that are not universal, beneficial only to
them.
If we are part of the people who benefits from violence, we can oblige it,
tolerate it, even become it. Greed. Securing resources to be more powerful. Contribute
to the evil.
But to be aware of the social illness that is causing it, one can transcend it.

Comparison:

Faring madness.
How do intelligent, educated people cope with the madness of society?
Examination of Kurtz’s sanity in Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now.
Community is composed of flawed people bound together over unified ideas and
goals that they believe will benefit them and are therefore good. Our belief systems
dictate our social construction and are formed by collective experience.
Whenever social norms are challenged, disrupted, progressed – or changed in any
way. We ourselves must choose how to respond.
Belief and purpose.
Our group – culture – has a certain collective id and ego – and once a decision is
made based on either – temperament or intelligence – we individually see that as a
change in the cultural superego and must respond to it.
Do we abide, oppose or not participate?
From wider conceptions of identity to changes in law.
We all choose our own path to respond to the fracturing and remoulding of
society; and in those moments the illusion can break, and we see the mess of
cooperative organisation that we have made for ourselves, and how we are all clinging to
stories and legends as to who we are as people and as a people.
Consequences of disagreeing with the development is defiance of the group; and
opens the stance for shunning or persecution due to deviation of the norm – causing
‘detriment’ to the collective.
Sometimes we take these in our stride and openly scorn the idiocy of the
collective and are willing to take the fallout.

The absurd break – may be minor – like a new traffic law – but most major, and
most extreme, is when our people engage in war, in violence, in persecution and
murderous oppression.
What do we do when we are supposed to participate in a combat we see as
immoral or strategically moronic?
How do we respond when we see our community be reckless, even stupid in their
malevolence?

That is the question at the heart of Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now – and the
question that will be explored today – through the argument that Kurtz is not insane.
This is a primary contemplation in the film – but why I believe he is so sane, and
the framework and philosophy underlying the context shall be explored in this video.

Overview:

But what is the heart of darkness?

Is it evil?

Familiarity, order and control are how we have survived since we fell from the treetops
in the mid-Cenozoic – that has been the fundamental driving force of civilisation. If our
people – or if we - can control the most resources, land and knowledge we may be able
to overpower others – economically or militarily – we will be successful. The wealthier
we become the more able we are to expand into what is not us, the unknown – the chaos
of the unfamiliar.
What is unknown is potentially dangerous, threatening to our lives or our
ideology and so we defend ourselves against it, or attempt to conquer it.
We are nascent – unaware of what is not us and must learn from what we
encounter.

These plays in two mediums – personally, we, when we are born must breach the
unknown that is life – and in the safety of our family become familiar with our
community and society.
And our society breaching what is unfamiliar to it.

That is the darkness – the unknown, the threat to our normalcy.

Is it bad?
Might not be beneficial to the group.
How good is our group?
With an outsider’s – or broader perspective – we can compare us to others; and
perhaps the others are correct.
What do we value more? Truth or preservation?

The horror of humanity in heart of darkness.

We are governed by the illusions we believe in.
Power and prosperity are natural goals for human bands.
To achieve wealth, we are capable of extending our power and see those who are
conventionally less powerful than ourselves as lesser, therefore justify their
persecution for our benefit.
The total evil.
The fact that, in such a place, to be good is useless.
To be evil is to be successful.
To comprehend that and choose to be evil to be successful may kill one’s soul and
it takes strength to do that.
But in doing that… all of the evil that must be endured to thrive is truly horrific.
Many distract themselves and shy away from the true grit of the violence, but to face
it, but to stare and it and have it stare at you, then realising that you are staring at
yourself – is a truly confronting and horrific experience – that – may be necessary to
endure.

We can choose to be better or worse

Willard states that home isn’t there anymore – once he’s seen the truth of humanity –
he also can see the illusion – and grows to hate the illusion.

>A threat to the war effort

>is the war effort justified?

What is the heart of darkness?

All that is not our accepted self, from unacceptable inner experiences and unexplored
depths of self, to, the unknown – all that is outside of our understood social familiarity.

Is the heart of darkness evil?

Not necessarily – it challenges convention. It is our instincts, and the other.
Neither of which are inherently bad, but oppose or are unknown to our value system.

How to face the unknown?

Many find comfort in the familiar safety of home.
Others conquer outside the home. Home being family, convention, country – and
with an outsider’s perspective we can see how our community behaves, and maybe we
can see how illusionist, mistakeful and deceitful it all is.

Order of familiar civilisation (light / good)

Chaos of unknown civilisation (dark / bad)
To stay in the light is to destroy the dark
To know the dark is to journey into the heart of darkness – with eyes open.

Civilised is a very specific word.

Other cultures, or behaviours within our own culture, can be uncivilised if they
don’t adhere. There is darkness – within us – and there is darkness outside of us.
Conrad’s text and Coppola’s film present: Western ideology, African/Vietnamese
ideology, and examine how individuals manage the contrast.
Raised under the western idea of right, of civilised, one can become convinced
by it. Misbehaviour is misbehaviour.
There is collective and individual conscious and unconscious, persona and shadow.

When collective consciousnesses act, to itself, it cannot be evil, for evil is

defined within it.
Individuals are able to choose whether they participate with the collective
effort, and be deemed good, sane and proper.
Or decline the collective effort, even defy it and be deemed deviant, evil and
insane.

To abandon the light of order and explore the darkness of chaos; is to delve into the
depths of the shadow.
The shadow, the dark, the chaos being anything that isn’t established.

Belgium’s slavery of the Congo

America’s war in Vietnam

These are the order, the light. To defy in any way is to breach into the dark, to break
the illusion.
The Trading Company and the Military want to keep the illusion that what they
are doing is proper and sane, it is the American way.

Group integration
Self /persona /shadow
Sanity
Conflict
When social chaos presents / society’s shadow
Coping
Intelligence vs morality | Shadow work deviance
Choice

hiding bad intentions with good intentions

characters like Kurtz:

Anakin Skywalker – Jedi Code
Red Hood (Tim Drake) – Batman’s morals
THE MANAGER / KILGORE

Mr. Kurtz symbolizes the effect of a savage environment on a

civilized man.
The civilized man certainly civilizes the backward people; but, if a
civilized man is compelled to live alone among the backward natives for a certain length
of time, then he too is likely to fall under their influence.
This condition happens to Mr.
Kurtz,
who is an educated man.
In other words, Mr. Kurtz has imbibed the culture of all
the European countries

“thin veneer of civilisation”

THEY ARE NOT SAVAGES THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

SIN

Such a realization does not come to hardened criminals and seasoned scoundrels
who are beyond redemption. It comes only to th
ose devils that still have some spark of
goodness in them. By virtue of the spark of goodness, which still remains in Mr. Kurtz,
he is able to see a vision of death and the damnation which waits him. Mr.
Kurtz
evidently sees the horror of hell whither he i
s to go after his death. The last words of Mr.
Kurtz produce profound effect on Marlow who regards these words as an affirmation
as a
victory, and as of some firm be

Mr. Kurtz symbolizes the western man‘s greed and commercial mentality
of the white
people from the western countries
.
Then he symbolizes the western man‘s love of power.
Mr. Kurtz's desire to co
llect the maximum possible quantity of
ivory
is mean
t
to
symbolize the
greed and commercial mentality of the westerners, and to
convey to
the reader
the exploitation of
the backward
people of the dark continent by the white colonizers
, which at the same time to
symbolize their love for power
.
Furthermore, he symbolizes the effect of a savage
environment on a civilized man
.
Mr. Kurtz's becoming a savage because of his prolonged stay
in
the interior of the dark continent symbolizes the
irresistible influence of barbarian modes of
living upon a civilized man who is cut off from civilized society.
This change in Mr. Kurtz
shows that in every human being the primitive evil instincts continu
e to exist, no matter how
civilized he may have become.
Kurtz represents man's dark side and what can happen when it
envelops
human beings
completely. Kurtz's prolonged exposure to the untamed regions of the
Congo has removed all his ties to civilization.
He no longer feels satisfied with just being a mere
mortal, so instead transforms himself into an omnipotent being.
H
e
also
symbolizes
experience and maturity
, and finally
h
e symbolizes the repentant
sinner.
Then there are other symbolic elements also in
the novel
, and one of them is ivory.
Ivory symbolizes the white men‘s greed
and evil
. Ivory is the commodity in which the
Company‘s agents are most interested.
Ivory dominates the thoughts of the white men
coming to the Congo.
It is to collect ivory that
these white men have come to the Congo.
Even, it not only dominates the thought of Mr. Kurtz but also becomes an obsession
with
him.