Nobel literature prize for Slobodan Milosevic 'apologist' (Peter Handke) sparks scandal:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...parks-scandal/


It isn't clear to me where this controversy springs from.


Several authors have criticised the selection, while Serbian media and Austria's president lauded it.


“This is Sweden today. An apologist of war crimes gets a Nobel prize while the country fully participated in the character assassination of the true hero of our times, Julian Assange,” said left-wing Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek.


The Nobel committee said in its announcement that Mr Handke has “at times caused controversy” but was not politically outspoken in his writing, which “with linguistic ingenuity has explored the periphery and the specificity of human experience.”

That guy, Zizek, has a quip from his many quips to offer in this piece by the Telegraph, and "several authors" have piped up to. I enjoy the last bit to the above quote, something that deserves a moment of silence without and within, a type of prayer for silence and meditation, though it is difficult to cease the mind's thinking, categorizing, compartmentalizing, and vapid social judgments. The things of the mind that being honest, one would see as being a conflation of the sense of what the self is, when one is not wholly humiliated in the presence of reality and is then only able to act as the self that it was born for.


History has enough Christ-like figures, notable foremost in the West, is Socrates. All the rest are stained with sin.


Fools will ruin this post with terrible words for the Serbs or for the Muslims, or words for "apologists" of tragedies that have no conclusion except for the greater tragedy of further foreign involvement in conflicts between diverse groups that live too near in proximity.


The committee for the Nobel Prize suggests that while Handke straddles controversy - for it pays money I assume, a market of ethics perhaps - he approaches subjects not with politics but by the human experience. Now what is the import of politics then if it something to avoid when attempting truth? Or what use are words; if, when dealing with the diverse experiences of ethnicities, religions, and all that of belonging to a spiritual mind of a lineage in sacrifice and blood; what use is politics in attempting to come to a compromise of understanding what is the experience in a culture of millennia.


I believe in the possibility of using language to relate the world and spirit to another person, but I believe that these things are only possible among very advanced individuals when all the other factors of a living creature are not present between them. Jesus, Siddhartha, Lao Tzu, could relate to the other and they had lived in separate ages. Language is a process of millennia among people born after the other, it is a genetic imprint of lineage that creates minds suited to understanding the experiences of ancestors, like little baby turtles racing into the sea. Then what is politics, if not to advance truth?