One does not discover the absurd without being tempted to write a manual of happiness. “What —by such narrow ways–?” There is but one world, however. Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd. discovery. It happens as well that the felling of the absurd springs from happiness. “I conclude that all is well,” says Edipus, and that remark is sacred. It echoes in the wild and limited universe of man. It teaches that all is not, has not been, exhausted. It drives out of this world a god who had come into it with dissatisfaction and a preference for futile suffering. It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men.

All Sisyphus’ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is a thing Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols. In the universe suddenly restored to its silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his efforts will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is, but one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable. For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory’s eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Albert Camus- The Myth of Sishyphus

Un message à graver dans la pierre, fusse-t-elle d'imitation!

Je  souhaiterais partager avec vous la lecture d’une très belle lettre du philosophe Michel Onfray au Président Sarkozy.

“Monsieur le Président, je vous fais une lettre, que vous lirez peut-être, si vous avez le temps. Vous venez de manifester votre désir d’accueillir les cendres d’Albert Camus au Panthéon, ce temple de la République au fronton duquel, chacun le sait, se trouvent inscrites ces paroles : “Aux grands hommes, la patrie reconnaissante”. Comment vous donner tort puisque, de fait, Camus fut un grand homme dans sa vie et dans son oeuvre et qu’une reconnaissance venue de la patrie honorerait la mémoire de ce boursier de l’éducation nationale susceptible de devenir modèle dans un monde désormais sans modèles.

De fait, pendant sa trop courte vie, il a traversé l’histoire sans jamais commettre d’erreurs : il n’a jamais, bien sûr, commis celle d’une proximité intellectuelle avec Vichy. Mieux : désireux de s’engager pour combattre l’occupant, mais refusé deux fois pour raisons de santé, il s’est tout de même illustré dans la Résistance, ce qui ne fut pas le cas de tous ses compagnons philosophes. De même, il ne fut pas non plus de ceux qui critiquaient la liberté à l’Ouest pour l’estimer totale à l’Est : il ne se commit jamais avec les régimes soviétiques ou avec le maoïsme.

Camus fut l’opposant de toutes les terreurs, de toutes les peines de mort, de tous les assassinats politiques, de tous les totalitarismes, et ne fit pas exception pour justifier les guillotines, les meurtres, ou les camps qui auraient servi ses idées. Pour cela, il fut bien un grand homme quand tant d’autres se révélèrent si petits.

Mais, Monsieur le Président, comment justifierez-vous alors votre passion pour cet homme qui, le jour du discours de Suède, a tenu à le dédier à Louis Germain, l’instituteur qui lui permit de sortir de la pauvreté et de la misère de son milieu d’origine en devenant, par la culture, les livres, l’école, le savoir, celui que l’Académie suédoise honorait ce jour du prix Nobel ? Car, je vous le rappelle, vous avez dit le 20 décembre 2007, au palais du Latran : “Dans la transmission des valeurs et dans l’apprentissage de la différence entre le bien et le mal, l’instituteur ne pourra jamais remplacer le curé.” Dès lors, c’est à La Princesse de Clèves que Camus doit d’être devenu Camus, et non à la Bible.

De même, comment justifierez-vous, Monsieur le Président, vous qui incarnez la nation, que vous puissiez ostensiblement afficher tous les signes de l’américanophilie la plus ostensible ? Une fois votre tee-shirt de jogger affirmait que vous aimiez la police de New York, une autre fois, torse nu dans la baie d’une station balnéaire présentée comme très prisée par les milliardaires américains, vous preniez vos premières vacances de président aux Etats-Unis sous les objectifs des journalistes, ou d’autres fois encore, notamment celles au cours desquelles vous avez fait savoir à George Bush combien vous aimiez son Amérique.

Savez-vous qu’Albert Camus, souvent présenté par des hémiplégiques seulement comme un antimarxiste, était aussi, et c’est ce qui donnait son sens à tout son engagement, un antiaméricain forcené, non pas qu’il n’ait pas aimé le peuple américain, mais il a souvent dit sa détestation du capitalisme dans sa forme libérale, du triomphe de l’argent roi, de la religion consumériste, du marché faisant la loi partout, de l’impérialisme libéral imposé à la planète qui caractérise presque toujours les gouvernements américains. Est-ce le Camus que vous aimez ? Ou celui qui, dans Actuelles, demande “une vraie démocratie populaire et ouvrière”, la “destruction impitoyable des trusts”, le “bonheur des plus humbles d’entre nous” (Œuvres complètes d’Albert Camus, Gallimard, “La Pléiade”, tome II, p. 517) ?

Et puis, Monsieur le Président, comment expliquerez-vous que vous puissiez déclarer souriant devant les caméras de télévision en juillet 2008 que, “désormais, quand il y a une grève en France, plus personne ne s’en aperçoit”, et, en même temps, vouloir honorer un penseur qui n’a cessé de célébrer le pouvoir syndical, la force du génie colérique ouvrier, la puissance de la revendication populaire ? Car, dans L’Homme révolté, dans lequel on a privilégié la critique du totalitarisme et du marxisme-léninisme en oubliant la partie positive – une perversion sartrienne bien ancrée dans l’inconscient collectif français… -, il y avait aussi un éloge des pensées anarchistes françaises, italiennes, espagnoles, une célébration de la Commune, et, surtout, un vibrant plaidoyer pour le “syndicalisme révolutionnaire” présenté comme une “pensée solaire” (t. III, p. 317).

Est-ce cet Albert Camus qui appelle à “une nouvelle révolte” libertaire (t. III, p. 322) que vous souhaitez faire entrer au Panthéon ? Celui qui souhaite remettre en cause la “forme de la propriété” dans Actuelles II (t. III, p. 393) ? Car ce Camus libertaire de 1952 n’est pas une exception, c’est le même Camus qui, en 1959, huit mois avant sa mort, répondant à une revue anarchiste brésilienne, Reconstruir, affirmait : “Le pouvoir rend fou celui qui le détient” (t. IV, p. 660). Voulez-vous donc honorer l’anarchiste, le libertaire, l’ami des syndicalistes révolutionnaires, le penseur politique affirmant que le pouvoir transforme en Caligula quiconque le détient ?

De même, Monsieur le Président, vous qui, depuis deux ans, avez reçu, parfois en grande pompe, des chefs d’Etat qui s’illustrent dans le meurtre, la dictature de masse, l’emprisonnement des opposants, le soutien au terrorisme international, la destruction physique de peuples minoritaires, vous qui aviez, lors de vos discours de candidat, annoncé la fin de la politique sans foi ni loi, en citant Camus d’ailleurs, comment pourrez-vous concilier votre pragmatisme insoucieux de morale avec le souci camusien de ne jamais séparer politique et morale ? En l’occurrence une morale soucieuse de principes, de vertus, de grandeur, de générosité, de fraternité, de solidarité.

Camus parlait en effet dans L’Homme révolté de la nécessité de promouvoir un “individualisme altruiste” soucieux de liberté autant que de justice. J’écris bien : “autant que”. Car, pour Camus, la liberté sans la justice, c’est la sauvagerie du plus fort, le triomphe du libéralisme, la loi des bandes, des tribus et des mafias ; la justice sans la liberté, c’est le règne des camps, des barbelés et des miradors. Disons-le autrement : la liberté sans la justice, c’est l’Amérique imposant à toute la planète le capitalisme libéral sans états d’âme ; la justice sans la liberté, c’était l’URSS faisant du camp la vérité du socialisme. Camus voulait une économie libre dans une société juste. Notre société, Monsieur le Président, celle dont vous êtes l’incarnation souveraine, n’est libre que pour les forts, elle est injuste pour les plus faibles qui incarnent aussi les plus dépourvus de liberté.

Les plus humbles, pour lesquels Camus voulait que la politique fût faite, ont nom aujourd’hui ouvriers et chômeurs, sans-papiers et précaires, immigrés et réfugiés, sans-logis et stagiaires sans contrats, femmes dominées et minorités invisibles. Pour eux, il n’est guère question de liberté ou de justice… Ces filles et fils, frères et soeurs, descendants aujourd’hui des syndicalistes espagnols, des ouvriers venus d’Afrique du Nord, des miséreux de Kabylie, des travailleurs émigrés maghrébins jadis honorés, défendus et soutenus par Camus, ne sont guère à la fête sous votre règne. Vous êtes-vous demandé ce qu’aurait pensé Albert Camus de cette politique si peu altruiste et tellement individualiste ?

Comment allez-vous faire, Monsieur le Président, pour ne pas dire dans votre discours de réception au Panthéon, vous qui êtes allé à Gandrange dire aux ouvriers que leur usine serait sauvée, avant qu’elle ne ferme, que Camus écrivait le 13 décembre 1955 dans un article intitulé “La condition ouvrière” qu’il fallait faire “participer directement le travailleur à la gestion et à la réparation du revenu national” (t. III, p. 1059) ? Il faut la paresse des journalistes reprenant les deux plus célèbres biographes de Camus pour faire du philosophe un social-démocrate…

Car, si Camus a pu participer au jeu démocratique parlementaire de façon ponctuelle (Mendès France en 1955 pour donner en Algérie sa chance à l’intelligence contre les partisans du sang de l’armée continentale ou du sang du terrorisme nationaliste), c’était par défaut : Albert Camus n’a jamais joué la réforme contre la révolution, mais la réforme en attendant la révolution à laquelle, ces choses sont rarement dites, évidemment, il a toujours cru – pourvu qu’elle soit morale.

Comment comprendre, sinon, qu’il écrive dans L’Express, le 4 juin 1955, que l’idée de révolution, à laquelle il ne renonce pas en soi, retrouvera son sens quand elle aura cessé de soutenir le cynisme et l’opportunisme des totalitarismes du moment et qu’elle “réformera son matériel idéologique et abâtardi par un demi-siècle de compromissions et (que), pour finir, elle mettra au centre de son élan la passion irréductible de la liberté” (t. III, p. 1020) – ce qui dans L’Homme révolté prend la forme d’une opposition entre socialisme césarien, celui de Sartre, et socialisme libertaire, le sien… Or, doit-on le souligner, la critique camusienne du socialisme césarien, Monsieur le Président, n’est pas la critique de tout le socialisme, loin s’en faut ! Ce socialisme libertaire a été passé sous silence par la droite, on la comprend, mais aussi par la gauche, déjà à cette époque toute à son aspiration à l’hégémonie d’un seul.

Dès lors, Monsieur le Président de la République, vous avez raison, Albert Camus mérite le Panthéon, même si le Panthéon est loin, très loin de Tipaza – la seule tombe qu’il aurait probablement échangée contre celle de Lourmarin… Mais si vous voulez que nous puissions croire à la sincérité de votre conversion à la grandeur de Camus, à l’efficacité de son exemplarité (n’est-ce pas la fonction républicaine du Panthéon ?), il vous faudra commencer par vous.

Donnez-nous en effet l’exemple en nous montrant que, comme le Camus qui mérite le Panthéon, vous préférez les instituteurs aux prêtres pour enseigner les valeurs ; que, comme Camus, vous ne croyez pas aux valeurs du marché faisant la loi ; que, comme Camus, vous ne méprisez ni les syndicalistes, ni le syndicalisme, ni les grèves, mais qu’au contraire vous comptez sur le syndicalisme pour incarner la vérité du politique ; que, comme Camus, vous n’entendez pas mener une politique d’ordre insoucieuse de justice et de liberté ; que, comme Camus, vous destinez l’action politique à l’amélioration des conditions de vie des plus petits, des humbles, des pauvres, des démunis, des oubliés, des sans-grade, des sans-voix ; que, comme Camus, vous inscrivez votre combat dans la logique du socialisme libertaire…

A défaut, excusez-moi, Monsieur le Président de la République, mais je ne croirai, avec cette annonce d’un Camus au Panthéon, qu’à un nouveau plan de communication de vos conseillers en image. Camus ne mérite pas ça. Montrez-nous donc que votre lecture du philosophe n’aura pas été opportuniste, autrement dit, qu’elle aura produit des effets dans votre vie, donc dans la nôtre. Si vous aimez autant Camus que ça, devenez camusien. Je vous certifie, Monsieur le Président, qu’en agissant de la sorte vous vous trouveriez à l’origine d’une authentique révolution qui nous dispenserait d’en souhaiter une autre.

Veuillez croire, Monsieur le Président de la République, à mes sentiments respectueux et néanmoins libertaires.”

cet homme est génial.

tout est dit. ça fait plaisir.

cette histoire de Panthéon, c’est juste n’importe quoi: laissons Albert Camus tranquille.

quant au “signal fort”, c’est l’expression creuse qui tue.

vivement vendredi!

bien @ vous,

nicogé

J’ai eu la chance et la surprise de voir Christophe Dechavanne au Grand journal de Canal plus, faire une déclaration fracassante, une déclaration d’homme révolté et ça m’a fait un bien immense !

Ca m’a fait un bien immense de voir la révolte d’un honnête homme !

Voyez ce que sont devenu les valeurs dans ce pays depuis l’arrivée de Sarkozy !

Tout se mêle, tout y est mêlé, dans un bonneteau quotidien !

Nous pataugeons dans une sorte de salade de mesclun à la sauce du chef , où s’entrelacent, la droite et la gauche, la tricherie et la fraude, Jaurès et Le fouquets, le héros et le traître, le fric , les Rolex et le mannequin nu qui fait tellement une grande dame, et qui lui fait tellement de bien !

Où sont nos valeurs ?

Où est notre identité ?

Que dire à nos enfants ?

Allez sur You Tube regarder la vidéo, allez y vite , Canal l’a déjà fait interdire sur Daily Motion , pour droit à l’image !

Vous allez sur Youtube ,

vous tapez Dechavanne,

vous tomberez sur “ Le coup de gueule de Dechavanne” .

Cliquez ,

Voyez ,

Appréciez .

Un peu de sincérité de l’Homme révolté dans ce monde malade de La peste ou l’Etranger devient suspect  !

Merci Christophe Dechavanne, je ne vous regarderais plus tout à fait comme avant !

C’était la une du Canard Enchaîné du 25 novembre. Et ça m’a fait rire.

Pour situer le contexte, l’article est une diatribe à l’encontre de la volonté de N. Sarkozy qui voudrait mettre (ce qu’il reste de) Camus au Panthéon.

Camus, rappelons le, a écrit de très grands romans, dont L’étranger et La Peste. Mon préféré restant Noces, œuvre assez méconnue qui décrit l’Algérie où vivait l’auteur avec force émotions visuelles et olfactives. D’habitude, je saute les passages descriptifs qui m’ennuient profondément, honte à moi, mais là, impossible. C’est juste si bien écrit qu’on s’y croirait. Le premier texte du recueil, “Noces à Tipasa” évoque une union, une connivence, une osmose même, entre un homme et le monde qui l’entoure. Tout fait appel aux émotions, c’est lyrique, c’est exalté, c’est superbe. C’est un hymne à l’hédonisme, on sent l’auteur en pleine ascèse. Il est difficile d’expliquer ce texte finalement assez court, c’est simplement un bijou de littérature.

Le talent indéniable de cet auteur (prix Nobel en 1957) qui a écrit des œuvres qui retournent l’esprit (on ne sort pas indemne de la lecture de La Peste), me fait admettre qu’il aurait sa place au Panthéon, en temps que grand penseur de ce siècle. Mais voila, on ne l’y a pas mis à sa mort, il y a quelques cinquante ans. Aujourd’hui, le président voudrait l’y mettre. Pourquoi lui ? Pourquoi maintenant ? On ne peut nier qu’il y a une instrumentalisation de cette “panthéonisation”, une récupération politique du symbole. Quoique grand lecteur de Camus (du moins c’est ce qu’il nous dit), Sarkozy ne partage pas franchement beaucoup d’idéaux avec lui visiblement. Et les descendants de l’auteur avancent qu’il n’aurait jamais voulu être transféré au Panthéon.

Qui peut parler pour un mort ? Qui peut décider ? Un politique ambitieux ? Un rejeton qui n’a aucune raison de partager les idées de son aïeul ? L’opinion publique qui, pour une immense majorité, ne connait de Camus que le nom de ses œuvres (et encore…) ? Des journalistes, probablement renseignés et supposément fins connaisseurs de l’œuvre mais dont la morale et les intentions sont à vérifier ?

Il est illusoire de tenter de déterminer quelles auraient été les volontés d’un mort. Les tombes sont muettes et les morts impassibles.

[The interviewer sits, playing with his tape recorder. Zizek enters. They shake hands, and Zizek sits. He drinks from the glass of water already prepared for him.]

Mr. Zizek, I’d like to jump straight in, if you don’t mind.

Certainly. I actually have a plane to catch later, and I always like to be there at least four hours ahead of the flight. An irritating habit of mine, I’m afraid.

Not that strange though. I can’t fly at all.

[The interviewer laughs. Zizek doesn’t.]

An extreme…interesting.

The flying?

Yes, your fear of it. Not that you’re alone, but there is, I believe, a construction of weakness within the anxiety of an extreme, or someone who has withdrawn into such an anxiety.

[The interviewer puts his right leg on his left knee. Zizek takes a sip of his water.]

Well, like you said, it’s not an unusual state…

Yes, I agree. But there is still a position of weakness involved, an almost pathetic self abuse or unravelling.

I think…I’d say pathetic might be a little strong…

Not in the philosophical sense.

Still, I’m not sure about the terminology of ‘self abuse’…Jung, I think, said that it wasn’t so much the conscious self that was responsible, but more like a trigger that…

Oh yes, the mind is a terrible master, that old debate. I believe I stand with Popper on that one, I’m afraid. There is control, or can be control.

Really…Popper…

Yes, Karl Popper. A remarkable thinker, wouldn’t you say?

[The interviewer smiles and switches his left leg onto his right knee. Zizek stares at him.]

Ok, if we can leave Popper for another time and move onto the film. I’ve been told you watched it for the first time last night?

Yes, on cable.

First impressions?

You mean did I like it?

[The interviewer laughs, awkwardly?]

Not exactly, but that probably should’ve been the question.

Debate often gets in the way of the fundamentals.

Yes, agreed.

So…yes, I did like it. On an emotional level, very much so. On a technical level, it was very well composed by the director, McTiernan, I believe…a lot of the angles were well constructed, the low shots, the Homeric delineation of McClane as he first enters the building. It was very accomplished.

Yes, it was. Did you also notice the portrayal of the terrorists, the size of Hans Gruber positioned against his men as they walk up to the party?

Hans Gruber?

Yes, the main villain. The antagonist.

Yes, I noticed it. The thinker and the brutes. I actually recognised it a little earlier than you, perhaps…when the terrorists arrive outside the building, and the two vehicles come together in what you might call antagonistic unity…and they drive parallel to each other before separation…the larger, more sinister looking van goes down out of shot, and the smaller, more acceptable public face of the threat, the car, stays on ground level.

Interesting. A representation of duality perhaps?

Well, yes, that’s quite obvious. The van is the true nature of the threat, and the car is merely the facilitator, a thing to be discarded once parked. And furthermore, there is the schematic of the environment itself, which is of course never an accident in film, where the road leads directly to the building, the castle of the city, we can presume, as the structure is shown in long shot throughout the film, dominating the landscape, which implies that the corporation, the entity boasting its success, is also inviting its doom. This, of course, applies to any object with an entrance, but is especially pronounced when the subject matter is capitalism, and as a consequence the endgame it begs for, which is destruction.

Well, you might have to consider the security guard and CCTV cameras in the building. There is always a defence somewhere in the invitation…

Yes and no. In this film, the security guard is the first to die. He doesn’t even move, or doesn’t have time to move. Therefore the defence is not sufficient, it is reactive, a shop dummy.

But it is inherent in its nature to be reactive, is it not?

Yes, and that is its failing.

But defence as a warning can be very effective…

Until the one time the warning is not heeded and, in this film, is the destruction of the building, or potentially so. And this is the interesting aspect, the placement of defence, any defence against potential intrusion of destruction of the concept…and the building in this film is very much an embodiment of concept, of ideal, an abstract wearing glass and concrete and wondrous fountains…and it is doomed from inception. As soon as you create an ideal it becomes finite and the inevitable outcome is destruction, not necessarily the end, but an end. To quote Spinoza, ‘belief and comprehension of an idea occur at the same moment,’ so once the ideal is comprehended it can only be negated, and the final negation is destruction.

I see. So you would argue defence is ultimately superficial?

Actually, it’s not an argument, it’s theoretical fact.

Really? But aren’t we debating it now?

Not at all. You merely do not understand the full complexity of it. I do.

I’m not sure I’d agree with that…

I’m sure you wouldn’t. In the same way, a 12^th Century scholar wouldn’t agree the earth was round. Never mind.

[The interviewer takes a sip of his water and spills a little.]

Ok, so how about the defence that works, John McClane? How do you place him in your dialectic?

McClane is particularly interesting as a protagonist as, naturally, he shares a lot of characteristics with the antagonists, with Gruber especially.

Is each a mirror to the other?

Not exactly, but they are similar. They are both willing to kill to achieve their endgames, and neither of them are what you would call socially adept. Gruber seems to play that part, but it is an illusion. The best illustration of the point is his similarity in appearance to the man he shoots…I forget his name…

Ellis?

Perhaps. The second man he shoots, holding the cola…

Yes, Ellis.

Ok, so Gruber is costumed in a similar way to Ellis, the beard, the grin, the suits…both men represent the face of a concept. Ellis, the smooth face of capitalism, even drinking capitalism when he is shot, and Gruber the face of politicized violence. The difference between them is the truth underneath, the inner stream of self. Ellis’ face is genuine as it is a construction of what he believes, what he loves, which is capitalism, the system which allows him to drink, have sex, take drugs. The procedure of the act is false, of course, but the act is easy enough to unravel. Gruber, in contradiction, is the many layered fraud, the Babushka doll of true intention. He acts out the political terrorist role yet it is later revealed he is a thief. He practises violence yet seems to have no real love for it. To him, it is simply a means to an end.

So what is the truth of Gruber? Is it revealed?

I would say, yes. If you look closely enough you can see what he is.

Which is?

Simply, he’s the Edmond of capitalism. Its worst face if you will. A man who is cold, detached, who can act out the face of political reason and empathy, but has no real attachment to it. And as the film’s antagonist it is implied that he is intent on destroying the capitalist ideal, the balance to the excesses of the ideal, yet as the film turns, ultimately he reveals himself to be the concept itself.

The concept stealing from the concept?

Not precisely, more like the concept eating itself. The idea eats me or I eat the idea, that kind of problematic. In this case, it’s probably the case that the idea has eaten Gruber, possibly without his cognition, as he reveals his classical education and his knowledge of industrialisation and fine suits. This is a man who knows and lives the concept and ultimately is so informed by it that he can only be its destroyer. The concept invites participation and is constructed in such a way as to prevent any kind of final victory, as it is a concept designed for the individual and one victory for one individual makes no difference to the system, a system which has, in fact, been manufactured by its first successes, and forced into compatibility with a very selfish, individualistic ideal.

Yes, one success, I suppose, means many losses for others…

Well, yes, obviously. So the stakes get higher and higher until you have a Gruber type, the macro-sized snake’s tail trying to eat the rest of the body.

Ok, so, following this logic, McClane would play the role of…?

A flake of the snake’s skin, I believe. The small man, the flea taking little chunks out of the antagonists.

 Little chunks? He does kill them all…

Yes, clearly, but look at the technique, the choreography of the violence. The first man he kills proves the point. McClane is dwarfed physically, and the only way for him to succeed is to jump on the man’s back like a child. Then a later kill, he hides under a table and shoots from behind his shield. And this is very recognisable, in fact, as an extension of guerrilla warfare. Hit the enemy and run, hit and run, constant mobility and devious, sudden violence, this is the strategy of McClane.

Does that mean he is anti-capitalist?

Not at all. Anti-system perhaps, as all guerrilla warriors are, but if you consider what he is defending then it would be difficult to promote him as anti-capitalist. He’s the defender of the castle, the quick thinker, the barbarian, the survivalist who does whatever it takes to succeed, which is inherently capitalist. And, tellingly, all actions from both characters occur inside the building, the physical actualisation of the ideal, and not from external threat…the police and FBI are shown to be impotent throughout the film…which suggests, of course, an inevitability of implosion, of the ideal eating itself.

In that case, both Gruber and McClane are pro-capitalist?

Yes, and not just the theory of it, the good and the bad, they are the totality of it. They are the practising nature of its ideal, one must win, the other must lose, but they’re both fighting under the guidelines of the system. Gruber wants his wealth, McClane, ironically, wants the preservation of the building, the hostages, the cogs or hardware of capitalism, and the continuation of the system itself which will inevitably lead to the creation and introduction of another Gruber, many more Grubers in fact.

McClane is the reason for Gruber…

Almost. A constituent part, at least. He kills him, but wants no change to the system, so more will come. Like cutting down a tree and planting another, if you can stomach such a simplified metaphor.

[The interviewer takes some more water. Zizek watches him.]

Moving on to another part of the film, what did you make of the representation of McClane’s marriage?

Ha, moving on, you say, but this could be argued as an extension of the capitalist theme.

In what way?

[Zizek pauses. He stares at the interviewer, no smile then takes some water.]

In the way that the wife is an important part in the company, in the ideal, and it is her watch that Gruber hangs onto at the end, just before he falls to his death. A Rolex, I believe, which is interesting in itself not only as a symbol of McClane’s, the hero’s,  recapture of her from the corporate…a slightly misogynistic problematic, if I may say…but also as a superficial act. The fact that the watch is gone is essentially meaningless as they walk outside at the climax still very much entrenched in the system, the ideal. One might suggest…hope even, for her sake…that there will be another Rolex in the future, under different conditions, of course, but still constituent of the system.

So their marriage is a representation of the system?

In a sense it is, yes, but in another sense it isn’t. The capitalism aspect is just one of many readings we could attribute to that marriage, or at least what we know of the marriage.

You mean, as it’s a film we can only know so much?

Clearly. It is well established that the principle of modern film is to show, not tell, and, certainly, film cannot express any part of the interior condition, not successfully at least. I suppose they could do voiceover, but it is still limited as those thoughts have to be linear and servile.

Servile?

Yes, servile to the plot.

The character has to think about the plot, I see…

Perhaps, you do. It’s really not that complex in itself. The character is not interior in the sense that he has control of his conscious self. No, the control is applied from the form of the medium, the limitations of plot and film character. In this film, to elucidate the point, McClane is sometimes shown talking to himself, supposedly an elaboration of self that tells us a little more about how he acts when in isolation, yet adds nothing to what we already know. In that sense, it is not an elaboration, but a stretching of, or a further repetition of, previously established attitude.

I don’t know, I always find it interesting when characters talk to themselves…

No, it’s not interesting at all. It’s a fraud, a false projection of the inner condition. How do we know this? Simply, because it is impossible to show on film the interior mind in isolation. The actor is not alone, he is surrounded by cameras. If it is improvisation then it is specious, as no actor would reveal anything of his own interior state, not the truth of it at least. What he would show would be a false cognitive state, a repetition most probably of something he has read or seen elsewhere. There would be no truth to the presentation. However, if you argue that it is the writer’s expression, which I sense you were about to do…

[The interviewer switches position again. Zizek smirks.]

Ha, when you’ve been interviewed as many times as I have you learn to read the other quite accurately…

[The interviewer looks at his tape recorder, flushed?]

…helped by the conditions of the environmental construct we are in, of course…by that I mean, the interviewer and the interviewee, and there are only so many scenes which can be constructed from that…but, back to the text, where were we?

The writer’s expression…

Oh yes, the writer…if we reject improvisation on the actor’s part then what remains is the writer’s expression. Now, we’ll forget for the moment that film is often written by committee, and, for our own theoretical agenda, follow the line of a sole authorial voice in the script…well, in this case, it is also impossible for the writer to express any internal truth of McClane, simply because McClane and the writer are undermined by the form. The form demands story, and character that is chained to such a story. This is why the internal thoughts that are expressed en audio are still censored, and we know this because all the thoughts are related to the plot.

I’m not sure I’d agree with that theory…

Please, it’s not theory, young man. It’s theoretical fact.

Ok, well…I’m not sure if it’s true either way.

Really.

It seems to me that McClane, when he speaks out his thoughts, is revealing himself. When he’s about to jump off the roof he tells himself, ‘I’ll never go inside a tall building again,’ which I think is a legitimate thought, and it shows his anxiety…

Yes, yes, I’m aware of what it does, but it is not truth, it is not the internal revealing itself in the external. It is plot, nothing more.

[The interviewer puts his hand under his thigh and pinches himself hard.]

Ok. If it is plot, nothing more, then what would true internal thought be if you were standing on top of a…a forty storey building?

No, that’s not it. You’re moving sideways, not forwards.

McClane should move sideways?

[Zizek pauses, puts his head in his hands. The interviewer shakes his head.]

Dear Lord…

It was a joke, Mr. Zizek.

[Zizek comes out of his hands and says ‘dear Lord’ once more.]

Well, joke or not, the point is still invalid. McClane cannot reveal internal thought at this point because he is a character within his setting. He is unaware he is being watched or listened to, of course, but the actor and the writer are not. And you could argue that the configuration of a setting, a false world environment, allows the writer to transplant the internal, the truth, onto this environment…after all, they might say, it’s McClane who said it, not a real person…but such an argument is unsustainable if you run it to its end, as, simply, this false world environment has been established to entertain an audience, and not just an audience, but a mass audience, which by its nature invites a limited amount of truth, if any…and ultimately, the false world environment of the Nakatomi Plaza must be governed and accepted by the rules of the real world environment, and therefore real truth, the real internal condition cannot be revealed as the real internal truth is absurd…or as Sartrellian theory would have it, the real world environment is absurd and real internal thought is normal. And all of this is separated, of course, from the Deleuzean reading of the film, which would argue that any externalisation or performance of the internal condition automatically renders it false. Therefore in film, and perhaps in fiction too, the internal is an impossibility.

Really? Even in novels?

Yes. And you don’t need to ask your next question, I already know it. Yes, there are internal narratives, novels done entirely in “voice”, and you would argue that it is the extension of the writer and by relation the extension of their internal condition, yet there is a fallacy involved in that assumption which leads to a cul-de-sac…how could any writer continue to exist in the real world environment if he revealed the internal truth? If the truth was written then the only realistic option for the writer would be suicide.

But…I disagree…truth has been revealed in novels, surely. What about Camus’ ‘L’etranger’?

That wasn’t truth, it was theory.

But he killed someone, and couldn’t connect with the world. Doesn’t that jar with the real world environment?

No, no…the character was disconnected, yes, but he could only go so far. As Camus himself said, ‘There is a limit to thought, and a point at which you cannot relate to yourself or the others around you as an object.’ You can show character deeds, and define him on a basic level, you can show feelings and thoughts, and define him further, but such thoughts must be censored to prevent complete alienation of the audience…what you cannot do is show everything, the absolute truth of the mind. Therefore, Camus’ character represents a state, but not an absolute truth, as it is impossible for the writer to do so. Or perhaps I should say, almost impossible. Like I said earlier, if a writer did manage to write the truth then he would have to kill himself because life would be impossible.

I’m sorry, I’m not really sure I understand why that would be so…

It is unimportant whether or not you understand it.

Perhaps you could explain further…

[Zizek looks at his watch.]

I think that would be unnecessary. We’ve talked about this more than enough.

If you think so…though I believe the point is still inconclusive…

Really.

[Zizek takes a sip of water. The interviewer looks at the clock.]

Ok, final question. Is there anything else you noticed about the film? The hero complex perhaps?

No. I’m not really interested in heroes.

Fine. No heroes then.

[The interviewer picks up his tape recorder. Zizek coughs.]

There was another aspect of the marriage that was interesting…

[The interviewer pauses then puts the tape recorder back down.]

Ok…

From a gender-sociological viewpoint, I think it was very important how McClane functioned with his wife before the crisis of the plot was introduced.

Really. And how did they function?

It was very discreet, you may not have noticed it, but there was a brief argument between the two of them in the office, when McClane was cleaning his face.

I noticed it…

Well, the actions perhaps, but did you understand it?

Yes.

Well?

[The interviewer looks at his hands, reading the answer? Zizek waits, arms folded.]

It showed, I believe, the troubles in their marriage up to that point.

And?

And…I don’t know…I don’t think there was any more to it, really. They were fighting, he didn’t respect her as a successful woman…this is what they would deal with in the film.

Interesting. That’s probably ten percent of it, maybe a little more.

Ten percent? Really…

Yes, from the actions, that was the detail we were obviously intended to pick up as the audience. However, as is common with film, it is what is implied by its absence that provides more of the detail. The state of their marriage before, for example…we know they were fighting, or a little distanced from each other, but we can suspect no more from the action as presented. However, if you take McClane’s actions as a starting point, and the socio-psychological viewpoint implied by his resistance to his wife’s career then it becomes clear that this is a man who can only function in a crisis. When the antagonistic force asserts itself on the plot, McClane becomes heroic through the same qualities that make him misogynistic in the stasis period between crises. His endgame, as we see through his actions over the course of the film, is not simply to oppose the antagonists, but to oppose his wife…to get her back in the kitchen, if you will. And it is successful…he wins her trust by killing the threat to her life, the heroic impulse other writers love to intellectualize over, despite such an impulse indulging violent and pathological fantasies, which will clearly erupt again when threatened by other external agency, most probably his wife, I believe, and her desire to prove the ‘I’ in ‘wife’…a desire which acutely conflicts with McClane’s view of the world.

So their marriage is doomed?

Yes. Destroyed by two incompatible world-views.

Well, I like to be a little more positive about things…I believe their marriage will be fine…this was their crisis, they overcame it.

You would be wrong.

Or maybe not…remember, McClane is aware of his own failings…at one point, after the argument in fact, he bangs his head against the door, calling himself ‘an idiot.’

It is unimportant. An awareness of one’s failings is not a cure.

Yeah, but people do change. That’s undeniable…

A narrow change, if any, but mostly not.

Nah, they do change…

No, they don’t.

They do.

They do not.

[The interviewer looks at the clock. He puts his hand on his thigh and pinches again.]

Ok, it’s running late, and you have a flight to catch…

Yes, I do.

So, thanks for your time, Mr. Zizek.

[They shake hands. No smile from either man.]

Yes, thank you.

[Zizek gets up and walks to the hotel room door.]

Have a good flight.

Yes, thank you.

[Zizek pauses, his hand on the door.]

I do enjoy flying.

[The interviewer smiles, turns, grips a cushion in his hand.]

Goodbye.

[The Interviewer mutters ‘enjoy your four hour wait, motherfucker.’]

[Zizek exits. He stops by a water fountain in the corridor, takes a breath, and drinks. He puts his hand on his shirt, where his heart is, and puts his other hand over his eyes. A few moments later he stops, breathes out and leaves.]

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/11/21/le-fils-d-albert-camus-refuse-le-transfert-de-son-pere-au-pantheon_1270456_823448.html

Après les stars poussiéreuses remisées au fond de nos armoires (Mireille Mathieu, Enrico Macias et les autres), c’est au tour d’Albert Camus d’être propulsé sur le devant de la scène médiatique par notre cher président.

Et voilà qu’en plein pseudo-débat sur l’identité nationale, Albert Camus, pacifiste patenté,  symbole de la France-Afrique des petits, devient le nouveau chouchou du Président. Celui-là coûte moins cher au contribuable que son excellence Carla, il est vrai. Tout de même, on peut se questionner sur le choix d’un homme de littérature -et celui-ci en particulier- pour figurer sur la liste des “nomminés” du Panthéon 2009…

Albert Camus : le brainstorm

Afrique du Nord, Algérie, Mère, Voiture, Pied-noirs, L’étranger, La chute, La Peste, Prix Nobel, Albert Memmi, The Cure.

Tiens tiens, un écrivain de gauche, pacifiste patenté, qui s’est opposé -mais avec mesure- au Général de Gaulle… Tout un symbole, pour notre cher Nicolas !

Toute une réserve électorale, surtout…

Albert Camus in the Panthéon ?

Nicolas Sarkozy would like to transfer the ashes of Camus – on the  50th anniversary of his death (the 4th of  January 1960) to the Paris Pantheon. That is the national memorial for GRANDS HOMMES LA PATRIE RECONNAISSANTE (“To the great men, the grateful homeland”). Interment here is severely restricted and is allowed only by a parliamentary act for “National Heroes”.

His son Jean  is opposed (here).

There was an extraordinary brilliant and concise interview with Camus’ biographer, Olivier Todd, in le Monde yesterday (here). Todd, a first-hand witness of the post-War Left Bank, refers to Camus’s brief membership of the Algerican Communist party in 1934 – he left because it failed to support independence movements clearly enough. In the full article (the on-line version is cut), there is an account of the author of the Etranger’s later hesitation about the FLN’s campaign for full independence. And an account of  his disputes with Sartre – right about Stalinism, wrong about anti-colonialism.

Todd’s judgement on Camus is worth citing, “ Camus fut d’abord un écrivain, un artiste, un artisan, beaucoup plus qu’un philosophe dans la série Platon, Kant, Sartre, Wittgenstein.” He was first of all a writer, an artist, a workman, much more than a philosopher in the mould of Plato, Kant, Sartre, Wittgenstein.” This view TC shares.

His courageous Resistance  activity, his journalism,  moral presence on the left, and searing novels deserve better than a credential-boosting stunt by Sarkozy.  

Fue hace unos meses que mi padre pasó infinitas horas escuchando a Freddy Mercury una noche de luna llena. Para no molestar a nadie, o tal vez para que no lo estorbáramos, conectó los audífonos a la computadora. Ahí estaba él, atónito, y Mercury bailando en sus anteojos.

¿Sabían que nació en Zanzíbar? Una isla a la costa este de África…

No, no sabíamos. Creo yo que fue precisamente durante esa iluminación repentina que mi padre desarrolló las habilidades de buscador cibernético. “Es un genio ese hombre” decía “verdaderamente un genio”. Y otra vez: “Is this the real life? / Is this just fantasy? / Caught in a landslide / No escape from reality…”

“Bohemian Rhapsody”, escrita por Mercury, salió al mercado en 1975 y forma parte de la lista de Rolling Stone como una de las 500 mejores canciones de todos los tiempos. La canción va al estilo de un monólogo interior, más cerca de las rapsodias clásicas que de la música popular. A pesar que dudaban que fuese exitosa, por ser extremadamente larga (5:55) y tener una estructura un tanto extraña para la época (un segmento operístico, un pasaje a capella y un solo de heavy rock), “Bohemian Rhapsody” estuvo en lo más alto de las listas durante 9 semanas. Después del éxito que obtuvo en Inglaterra, “Bohemian Rhapsody” conquistó la audiencia americana cuando Mike Myers y Dana Carvey hicieron un lip synch en Wayne’s World. En el 2002 ganó el lugar de la canción favorita Inglesa de todos los tiempos de los record Guinness, seguida por “Imagine” de John Lennon y “Hey Jude” de los Beatles.

No fue una canción fácil de grabar, tomó tres semanas y convirtió A Night At The Opera en el álbum más costoso de producir de la época. La canción cuenta con alrededor de 180 capas sobrepuestas de instrumentos y voces, muchas de las cuales se perdieron en la versión final. Sólo el fragmento operístico tardó 70 horas y dicen por ahí que el piano utilizado por Mercury en la grabación fue el mismo que utilizó Paul McCartney para grabar “Hey Jude”.

Hay quienes apuntan a El extranjero de Camus como una elucidación; un joven confiesa a un asesinato impulsivo y tiene un epifanía antes de ser ejecutado. Otros dicen que sencillamente es una letra sin sentido, escrita para encajar con la música. Partiendo de lo básico, Bohemia es una región en la República Checa pero ha sido conocida, gracias a los gitanos bohemios, como aquello de personalidad poco convencional, artística e incontrolable; un poco lo que se dice del sujeto en cuestión, y cuando lo pienso me imagino a Mercury guiñarme el ojo. Rapsodia, a su vez, es una pieza musical formada con fragmentos de otras obras. Sin embargo, el significado exacto de la canción escapa mi curiosidad porque, para mí, en lo abstracto está el gusto.

Existe una nota acerca de un supuesto panfleto producido por la banda, al publicar un disco en Irán, que explica y traduce las letras. Queen plantea que la canción habla de un hombre que ha matado accidentalmente a alguien y, como Fausto, vende su alma al diablo. La noche anterior a su ejecución, llama a su Dios (en árabe) “Bizmilla” y con la ayuda de los ángeles recupera su alma. ¿Será verdad? El siguiente párrafo lo disputa.

En una entrevista acerca del DVD del disco, que incluye el aclamado video de la canción (Precursor de videos grabados en video, y no en film), Brian May opina: “What is Bohemian Rhapsody about, well I don’t think we’ll ever know and if I knew I probably wouldn’t want to tell you anyway, because I certainly don’t tell people what my songs are about. I find that it destroys them in a way because the great thing about a great song is that you relate it to your own personal experiences in your own life. I think that Freddie was certainly battling with problems in his personal life, which he might have decided to put into the song himself. He was certainly looking at re-creating himself. But I don’t think at that point in time it was the best thing to do so he actually decided to do it later. I think it’s best to leave it with a question mark in the air”.

He escuchado la letra miles de veces con el propósito de descubrir bajo los escombros líricos los orígenes de su talento. Existe un arte colectivo que empieza, en este caso, con Mercury y deviene con los distintos homenajes que se le han hecho. Sin embargo, al igual que May, creo que el verdadero reconocimiento del arte se origina en nosotros mismos, de aquellos símbolos que nos mueven, que nos seducen. Nada más importa, nada más que buena música.

If you liked this post Share It!

“Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower.”

—Albert Camus

In New York we’ve almost passed the time of brilliantly shining leaves, yet when I found this quote yesterday it struck me as perfect for this moment. As nature hunkers down to rejuvenate itself during the winter, it’s tempting to let your spirit go into hibernation, as well. But we are capable of creating a new spring for ourselves—in our lives and our souls—whenever we choose to try. I choose now.

 Photo taken by me in Green-Wood Cemetery, fall 2006.

William: you know, love and deep friendship is definitely possible in cyberspace
William: you and I, Steve and you, are proof
William: me and Krishna, me and Geetanjali

Aida yes

- Friday November 20 2009, 04:57 -

William: lunch time?
William: I am now in my beloved Ubuntu operating system

Aida I just had lunch
Aida today is weekend
Aida how are you?

William: went to sleep at 9 pm and woke up at 3am

Aida wow

Aida what time is it there now

William: excited to be making progress in learning Linux
William: almost 5am in New York. What time is it there in Iran?

Aida it is 1:30 pm here in Tehran

William: did you have lunch

Aida do you know how I can use Socratic method?

Aida yes I did.

William: you mean, you desire a tutorial in use of socratic method

Aida yes

William: i would liken it to Zen Buddhist Koan method

William: which means that books which instruct in Koan, give insight into socratic

William: in a nutshell: Socrates has TWO nick names in the dialogues

Aida I want to extract the truth in myself and people without offending them and as if they have discovered it themselves

Aida yes?

William: one is NARKE which means sting-ray, it is where we get our work NARCOTIC

William: because Socrates NUMBS his interlocuter into APORIA, which means cul-de-sac, no-way=out

Aida haha

William: he does this by a technique called ELNENCHYS, which means refutation
Aida refutation?what is it

William: and it is part of a process called DIALECTIC which Plato likens to a weavers loom with WARP AND WOOF, threads at 90 degrees
Aida what is warp and woof

William: ok… hypothetically, lets say that YOU are prepossessed or convinced of some position

William: it might be regarding a medical treatment

William: or, political issue

William: or whatever

William: so, by means of dialogue, question and answer,

William: i maneuver you into the position where you contradict yourself

William: and i help you to reach a BLANK WALL, in which you suddenly FREELY admit to yourself and others that you did NOT really know what you took for granted

Aida can we practice that

Aida but what if am smart enough?

William: now, socrates is also called MID-WIFE

Aida I know

William: in the sense that he helps people GIVE BIRTH to understanding

William: but, there is a joke in plato about WIND EGGS
Aida yes?

William: IN nature there are times when a bird does lay an empty egg
William: which has nothing but air inside

William: but it is also a pun on FLATULENCE
William: in other words, if someone is full of shit… they give birth to fart
William: so, it is a bit of platos humor

Aida haha

William: now, the very best way is to actually read the dialogues

Aida but socrates thinks we are all full of wisdom but we have forgotten the truth we carry

William: one brief dialog with Meno, Socrates attempts to prove that mathematical knowledge is inherent even in an uneducated slave boy

William: so, Socrates takes a slave boy, and questions him about a geometric issue of triangles
William: socrates seems to demonstrate that, through eliciting questions, the slave boy arrives at the true answer….
William: for Socrates, this means that the soul has pre-existence…
William: otherwise where would such understanding come

- 05:07 -
Aida interesting.
Aida do you think he is right?

William: second, Socrates (plato) sees geometric and mathematical truth as EXISTING as IDEAL FORMS (eidos) or plural EIDEI

William: WELL, this is very interesting, Einstein and Kurt Godel were friends, and mathematicians

Aida yes?

William: Kurt Godel passionately believed that the elements of number and geometry had some real existence in another dimension

William: whereas, Einstein saw them as ad hoc tools

Aida what is ad hoc?

William: and not having any sort of Platonic existence as ideal forms

William: ad hoc is latin for TOWARDS THIS END OR GOAL

William: IT is a contrivance or tool, a means to and end, and once the end is acheived, the tool is discarded

William: Wittgenstein speaks of this in Tractatus

William: Wittgensten says that we construct a LADDER of sorts, which is some ad hoc method, for us to ascend to some higher plane of understanding, and once we arrive, we push away and discard the ladder

William: same with Mahayana buddhism….

Aida we invented geometry and numbers etc

William: Samsara is the 10001 things in life which mess our minds…
William: the VEHICLE or boat, is a contrivance of ideology, which helps us arrive at the other shore

William: but ONCE WE ARRIVE we leave the boat behind
William: the boat was not the end, but only a means to an end

Aida yes

William: one sees this symbolism in Homer, when Odysseus is advised to take a ships oar (for rowing), place it on his shoulder

Aida but it mattters a lot in the beginning

William: and begin a pilgrimage to some distant unknown land

- 05:12 -

William: he is told that eventually, someone who has never seen the ocean will ask him what that strange object (the oar ) is

William: when THAT happens, then he must plant the oar in the ground, and make a sacrifice, and he will be purified

William: now, of course, Homer is mythos,…. but the story is very useful for us to understand the ad hoc nature of language and axiomatic systems

Aida I dont understand

William: and, sometimes, we make the error of seeing THOSE as an end in themselves, with a substantive reality

Aida why should he plant the oar
Aida and how he will be purified

William: well, the oar is a TOOL, which is only useful at sea, to propel a ship

William: but, in a desert, it is useless

Aida yes

Aida like religion which is useless in this century

William: so, in life, and in cultures, we often see that individual or even nations, cling to something which was really meant as a transitional tool

Aida yes

Aida like money ,,,

William: for example, in pre-history, before writing, there was only discourse and oral tradition

William: around a campfire

Aida how exciting

William: THEN writting was devised

Aida yes.how else I could talk to nietzsche and plato

William: THEN, the liveliness of the tradition kind of DIED, as the redacted and codified text became something SACRED in itself

Aida they dont move around my campfire

William: which is a form of idolatry
William: and your example of money is excellent
William: in pre-history, no money, but communal tribal survival where there is no concept of private property
William: and the SHARING means survival of the small struggling group or species
William: THEN money as coins of precious metal is devised

Aida but lets not get distracted from our aim which was to learn socratic method
Aida but lets not get distracted from our aim which was to learn socratic method
Aida dialectics.

William: then, love of people is replaced with love of money, and people become a MEANS to an end , rather than an end in themselves

William: now, Kant says that once people become only a MEANS to an end, that is the source of the unethical

- 05:17 -
Aida I wonder if there is an end even.

William: and Azar Nafisi, in “Reading Lolita in Tehran” offers the notion that the Iranian Govt. does to its people what the old man in Lolita, Humbert Humbert does to little Lolita

William: namely, he OBJECTIFIES her

William: she is no longer a person, with a life of her own, to be nurtured

Aida what do you mean objectify

William: but instead she is an object, a possession, for him to hold on to for his own gratification

Aida yes men usually think that way of their wives

William: when we love another in a non-erotic sense, as a parent for a child, we are not selfish, we endeavor to lead the child to INDEPENDENCE, which naturally involves their distancing themselves from us

Aida they forget they are similar human beings who have to live their lives.

William: to lead a life of their own

Aida well usually parents cant take that independence without suffering

William: that is why in old testament bible in genesis, in early pages, it says that the children leave the parents and cling to the new spouse

William: so, what we selflessly love, we are willing to give up one day, for the sake of their independence

William: but a selfish love is treating person as OBJECT for our own needs, and so, we do not EMPOWER them towards independent self-hood
Aida yes..I always thought what is the use of me getting married..my mom sacrificed her life to prepare everything that is needed for my growth?and development and what is the point of me leaving her
William: a modern expression of socratic method is exemplified by that one psychotherapist, i will think of name in a minute, who wrote “On Becoming a Person”

Aida oh
Aida is it a book

William: he developed a technique of REFLECTING back to the patient, like a mirror, what the patient was really trying to say.

William: i think i must google on his name
Aida yes please
William: Carl Rogers

- 05:23 -
William: and his technique is Rogerian

Aida aha

William: in otherwords, often, in discourse, we do not really LISTEN well to the OTHER person

William: we are anxious to express our SELF , our own notion
William: BUT, if we become Rogerian, we act as a MIRROR, for that person to explore their true feelings

Aida that is true.I talked with my boyfriend today. and realized myself doing that.

Aida so he got bored and left.!

William: we reflect BACK to them, in slightly different words, what we perceive them to say

Aida I usually try to be the mirror.but sometimes I like to be seen too..to find myself in others

William: AND we act in a positive manner, as if we agree, as if they are really helping us to understand something

Aida yes perfect

William: but in reality, we are allowing ourselves to serve as a kind of SCAFFOLDING to help them construct their own edifice or building of self

Aida true

William: but you see, a builders SCAFFOLD, the bars and ladders that allow the builder to scale the walls and roof of the structure

Aida but the problem is

William: they are AD HOC

Aida usually people do not talk what we like to talk about
William: and when the edifice is finish, the scaffolding is dismantled and perhaps discarded

William: well, you see, for example… with you and me….. you suddenly ask about socratic method

Aida how can we lead the conversation to some meaningful subject
Aida yes.but you are my type.

William: so, i transform myself into an instrument , a tool , which can possibly help lead YOU to your own conception , understanding, of socratic method

William: but, to be such a teacher, a socratic teacher, requires the ability to shift into a selfless non-egoistic mode

- 05:28 -
William: i must take one minute to refil humidifier for wife, and give her pill for thyroid be right back

Aida sure

William: back, quick like a bunny

Aida hi

Aida is she fine?

William: Bertrand Russell commented that all of the history of philosophy is but a footnote to PLATO

Aida what does it mean

William: she wakes up, takes thyroid med, sleeps for an hour more, and then she can eat

William: well, it is very helpful to read Bertrand Russell’s History of Philosophy

Aida yes am reading that

William: to gain grand overview of western philosophy

Aida I have read half of it

Aida but then decided to read each philosopher

William: now, Russell means that, in essence, Plato posed everything, every problem, issue that the next 2500 years has attempted to address
Aida about him there first and then his works

- 05:33 -
William: and he is quite correct, regarding the west

Aida that is perhaps true

William: BUT, One cannot make the same claim about EASTERN, buddhist, hindu, taoist, philosophy

Aida why not?

William: now, one CAN claim this about Arab Islamic thought in the sense that they were heavily influence by Aristotle, and preserved the greek writings for the west

William: ah, hmmm…. well, that would take me some time to put into laypersons terms

William: the DIFFERENCE between platos west, and the east, likes hidden in the understanding of JAIN philosophy, and taoism

William: as two repositories

Aida i dont know much about eastern philo

William: BUT, east and west come together in 20th century with the workers in relativity and quantum

William: as a matter of face, on physicist, a personal friend of einstein, designed his own heraldric emblem based upon the YIN YANG symbol

Aida yes?

William: and, during the lifetime of einstein, kurt godel, max plank, heisenberg, and the other fellow whom i forget, with the yin yang heraldry

William: they debated about the eastern vs western ways of understanding reality,….

William: so for first time in history it came together
Aida interesting

William: one may also gain insight into the merging of east and west by reading the writings of… oh my, i just had his name, aha…. Radhakrishnan

- 05:38 -
Aida is he indian?

William: who was a prime minister of India, but also, a consummate scholar of both eastern and western tradition

William: yes, an Indian scholar, prime minister for a period

William: i have a collection of modern essays ABOUT the works of Sarvapal Radhakrishnan

William: you see how my memory skips like record with a scratch
William: that is why google helps so much
Aida

William: like, i google on “the making of a person” and come up with Carl Rogers name

Aida your memory is perfect.am amazed

William: i cannot retain everything at once
William: no one can

Aida true
Aida am reading about how to improve memory
Aida how to use mneomonics?

William: it has to do with something called MULTIMIND which was coined by Robert Ornstein, a researcher into the psychology and physiology of consciousness, in the 1970s along with Charles Tart

Aida how can you have a multimind

William: you see, in the human brain, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
William: so, we have multimind structures, from very primative to most advanced, and they are multitasking

Aida what do you mean by ontogeny and phylogeny

William: so, at same time as we philosophize about ethics, another part is a neanderthal seeking food, violence

William: ok,… consider the development from embryo to child to adult

Aida yes?

William: each stage of development in womb, the ONTOLOGY or becoming… emulates the evolutionary PHYLOGENY

William: kingdom, phylum, class , order family genus species
William: which is Linnaeus
William: in the 17th century

William: and, curiously , it resembles certain operating systems and sofware products

- 05:43 -
Aida ontology means development of the person?

William: which of necessity, preserve backwards compatibility to earlier platforms

William: well, ontos means being existence palpable reality
William: logos means reason, understanding , expository expression in language

William: so the logos of the ontos , is an account of BECOMING
Aida and phylogeny is?

William: in platos Timaeus, BECOMING is the middle ground between non existence and BEING

William: phylos is a family or tribe

Aida interesting!

William: but, first are ancient seas, with millions of years of lightening striking the chemical laden waters
William: until, organic compounds form
William: and those begin to acquire a behavior, like a meme, to replicate
William: and those become bacteria, which is quite different from a nucleated cell
William: the bacterium has no nucleus but had the ribosome directive activity

Aida yes and

William: so, right now, we use the various classes of bacteria, as laboratories to understand synthesis

Aida this is ontogeny?

William: but the ONTOLOGY, or evolutionary development, over eons
William: produces various levels or phyla of organisms

William: and in the GENOME study, we can quantify the similarity and different

William: BUT, each new stage, bears deep within the markings, the heritage, of earlier stages

Aida this is not true

- 05:48 -
William: so, for example, in the brain, the Limbic SYSTEM is VERY PRIMITIVE, and yet it is perhaps there that our moment to moment experience of consciousness is SYNTHESIZED

Aida there are differences between procaroytes and eukariotic creatures

William: aha, but, it IS true, and as long as you embrace the resistance, and say that it is not true, then you have an empediment to the understandings

William: yes, but ALWAYS, there is some common precursor

Aida no I mean it is not that they carry the primitive state forms

William: just as there is common precursor to human and neaderthal

Aida but that they have things in common

William: i was trying to remember the procaroytes aud eukariotic terms
William: regarding bacteria…

Aida am confused what was the main track

William: now, everything boils down to the big question, is reality ultimately digital or analog

William: which hinges on HOLISM vs REDUCTIONISM

William: holism says that the whole is GREATER than a sum of the parts, and that cognitive analytical axiomatic analysis will never breach the gap
William: wherease REDUCTIONISM is that the whole is PRECISELY the sum of the parts, and that through analysis, we can ultimated digitize everything precisely
William: descartes dreamed that one day there would be an equation for a tree

Aida yes. he believed in reductionism

William: hegel dreamed of an END TO HISTORY, which means ABOSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE where they succeed in string theory AND CAN ultimately express symbolically what is happening in the ontology of being
Aida

William: so, from big bang beginning, to final heat death of maximum enthropy

- 05:53 -
William: where nothing further can happen, because thermodynamically there is no more potential energy
William: you see, life lives upon negative entropy
William: entropy is a measure of disorder

Aida yes

William: a crystal is a highly ordered structure with potential energy
William: when crystal is disolved, energy is released
William: it also gets into Carl Jungs monograph on The Nature of the Psyche
Aida yes

William: can you not post for one minute, until i say hello, i have one system message

Aida how can you correlate all those things
Aida sure

++++

William: you see,…. discourse and writing itself is an artificial PROJECTION of a multidimensional process of multimind, into a linear discourse of axiomatic precations

Aida talking to you is like reading a james joyce novel
Aida one needs some big refrence book to see what your words are reffering to.

William: so, in an aristotelian syllogism is A implies B, implies C….. emplies Z, ergo, Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum) we have demonstrated what was to be shown

William: that is LINEAR

William: but, my mind, my understanding, is not linear, it is many many things at once

William: my 60 years of experience
William: sO, If you mathematically project a 3 dimensional shape onto two dimensions

- 05:59 -
William: you have something you may graph and use as a tool, but it is DIFFERENT from the original object of three diminsions under consideration
William: BUT, suppose we seek a model of some economic phenomenon, or some metabolic phenomenom,…. it may have 10 or 20 dimensions
William: but, we cannot deal with 10 or 20 dimensions at once
William: so, we seek an axiomatic model, as a tool, which allows us to deal with it
William: but, you see, our moment to moment experience of CONSCIOUSNESS, IS A Process of data reduction…

Aida yes

William: we selectively ignore a myriad of external and internal experience, to focus on our discussion, or an opera…. or ball game

Aida yes

William: BUT, when that funciotion of brain BREAKS DOWN and we are overwhelmed simultaneously of ALL sensations
William: then it is madness
William: it is psychosis
William: i am forgetting better word
Aida
William: it is the stage beyond nurotic
William: neurotic
Aida nervous breakdown!
William: well, yes, psychotic… better yet SCHIZOPHRENIC

Aida yes.psychotic

Aida what was the exact name of the book of carl rodgers?

William: a neurotic person understands whee and who they are, but, the overemphasize things which are unimportant, and they are caught in a circle of repition, like a broken record

William: carl rogers “on becoming a person”

William: now, carl rogers had one psychotic patient….
William: he merged so closely with her, that HE began to suffer psychotic symptoms
William: and he speaks of that danger

- 06:04 -
William: aristotle said the one unique characteristic of being human is MIMESIS, we love to IMITATE
William: and that allows us to adapt
William: we BECOME Like fish with scuba, and like birds with plains
Aida
William: planes
William: but what is our virtue, and makes possible survival in diverse ecological niches
William: can also be our enemy

Aida how can we distinguish ourselves from our enviroment

William: whenever we become locked into one mode, even when changing circumstances demand a shift in gears to some opposite mode

Aida and how exactly know what we say or do is beloning to us and not external words.

William: each of our faculties has a positive necessary function, fear, desire , lust, hunger, weariness
William: but, each can become imbalanced and become pathological
Aida I wonder how one can generate new ideas out of nothing.
William: if our species did not have an overwhelming sexual dimension, we would not have survied for 500,000 years

Aida yes.

William: BUT if we cannot bridle the sexual side, then we cannot be doctors or lawyers of professors
William: similary if we bridle or suppress TOO Much, then that becomes a patholgy

Aida why not?

William: think of anorexia
Aida it takes time?

William: a virtue of moderation taken to an extreme which becomes a pathology

Aida sorry got disconneted

William: there is a healthy place for anger, it is a useful tool for survival, and even for healthy function society

Aida I wonder how can one balance all those elements
Aida make balance between*

William: but, when anger becomes unconrolled, then it is destructive, and also, it becomes an END IN ITSELF rather than simply a means to an end

- 06:09 -
William: so, the whole greek thing was, balance, moderation, the MIDDLE WAY, the mean between the extremes

Aida for example………I was thinking to acheive what I want to in my life I dont have time to get married and have children etc

William: so, it is like the goldilock fairytale

Aida what is it

William: one bowl of porrige is too hot, the next is to cold, and third is just right

William: goldilocks

Aida oh

William: and the three bears

Aida yes
Aida aha yes
Aida it was funny story

William: it is a childrens story , but it illustrates balance, moderation, in a simple way

William: no matter HOW Complex something is, there is always some simple model or parable to illustrate it

Aida yes a guy asked his class why should she rest in the bears house after eating porridge etc

Aida a student said…to commit suicide!
William: and a parable or a sufi teaching story, is a tool to reshape our mind to better comprehend the REAL problem

Aida hey wait a second

Aida can we study a problem of me

William: well, again, WIttgenstein reachs the higher plateau, and then kick away the ad hoc ladder which helped him to get there
William: you see, bible, koran, vedas, and roman law, are all ladders which help us to evolve to where we are

Aida are you listening?

William: BUT, at some point, we must let go, and adopt something that suits TODAYS
William: oh, the problem of you
William: well, i see you from a great distance, and have my theories
William: but, i may be mistaken
William: for example your boyfriend, now ex, was a ladder which helped you to make a certain life transition
William: and it was positive
William: BUT, if you stay with that, it becomes counterproductive

- 06:14 -
William: a ladder which serves its purpose and one point, becomes a crutch, if we do not let go

Aida but I havent said my problem yet

William: so, say your problem

Aida but you do not listen…

William: i was speaking of my perception of your problem
William: so i am listening
William: you ask me to address grand issues of all history
William: i cant go to warp speed, and easily put on the breaks

Aida yes but then you disconnect from me.

William: i am listening

Aida and then you forget am talking to you.

William: well, it depends on how dear the topic at hand is
William: to you
William: i am listening now

Aida yes the topic is dear.

William: state your problem

Aida but you forgot we wanted to practice socratics dialect and not a one way speech

William: your NEXT problem

Aida ok now my turn!

William: well, you MUST carefully read all the dialogues, and study what Socrates is doing

William: and ask questions

Aida but you leap from one subject to the other and I get confused
William: but, what is the life circumstance in your life where you desire to use socratic method

William: because, my mind works as it does, multidimensional
Aida and lose the track of our subject

William: and i try to project it to linear
William: for you

Aida it is interesting.. but at the end you have said too many beautiful statements but we cant reach the end

William: plus, you must understand, i can afford the luxury to be multidimensional ME, because long ago I gave up the chance to be a directed and disciplined YOU

Aida we can not have a meaningful conclusion of what was said.
Aida am not disciplined

William: well, you must understand, discourse has its limits, the next stage is writting essay or book

Aida that is my problem
Aida I have too many interests

William: SO, if you could have lunch with Pplato himself, it would NOt BE as good as reading Plato’s republic

Aida and want to understand too many things

- 06:19 -
William: because, a writer, SPENDS YEARS, distilling everything into one book or essay

Aida yes I read his republic

William: so, at any given moment, the author is LESS than his work

Aida but I am talking to you now.and not reading hid republic

William: and he at times STUDIES his own work
William: because it has become a scaffolding which surrounds the cathedral

Aida can I ask something

William: he constructed it, true, but he must climb about in it,…. he cannot be everywhere at once, on the dome, and at the windows

William: yes
William: ask

Aida which methods you think works best being multidimensional and gain a little of everything or being one dimensional and going in to depth of one subject only?

+++++

William: you confront your own frustration

Aida since I have this problem…………………

William: you see, i cannot give you a Sitaram pill, to swallow, and instantly become 60 yr old sitaram

William: yet, when we approach a teacher, that is what we desire
William: which is only natural

Aida in order to improve in my studies………..I have to put all the time I have on studying medicine

William: now, what is your precise roblem
William: exactly, at each moment in our life, we GIVE UP 1000 possible futures, in order to actualize only ONE

Aida but I love to learn …I like to read philosophy and psychology and history and art I like to paint and practice my violin

William: so, successful life, is a process of data reduction
William: success is a process of intentional failures

Aida but if I do that I wont be able to organize my studies to the level that I could continue them the way I desire.

William: we give up chance to be a ballerina or concert pianist, in order to be physician or politican

Aida but I can not do that..I mean I can not be a physician only

William: and as physician, we give up chance to be surgeon or anestheosiologist, in order to become our one specialty

- 06:24 -
William: lets say nephrologist, or cardiovascular
William: or neurologist

Aida I want to understand life

Aida and it is not all written in medical books

William: it is division of labor
William: well, you want to be , what do the call it, POLYMATH

Aida yes and unfortunately I want it to be perfect.

William: actually, though i sounds blasphemous, you want to be God, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent
William: now, that is a GOOD desire, for it is a desire to perfect oneself

Aida I mean I want to be the best I can be in my job and also in whatever am interested in
Aida but it contradicts…I mean I can not focus on everything and be perfect in them
Aida yes I cant be god..

William: we desire ALL that is good, but we must make choices, and settle for what is reachable, achievable, based upon our own gifts and shortcomings, and the age and society and technology in which we live

Aida and I reproach myself of not being able to be one

William: so the woman who wrote Pride and Prjudice, Jane Austin, had to be content with paper and quill and ink
William: no word processor, no internet

Aida we make choices but we do not know if they are the best ones

William: and she had to make do with a patriarchal society, with victorian morals, which frowned upon the woman author

Aida for example I can put time to succeed in my career only and study and study
Aida and of course it is a precious career
Aida but I worry to lose my human side and goals and become narrow-minded and lose insight about why I am doing my job

William: there is a story about a donkey, who is surrounded by many different buckets of grain, delicious,…. all at an equal distance

Aida why am living it
Aida or giving life back to people

William: but because the donkey cannot decide which is best to approach
William: he sits there, hungry

Aida yes am the donkey

William: because to chose any one bucket, is to give up and ignore the others
William: now, diffeent story,…. thee are many piles of hay, and many hungry cows
William: but, there is also a dog

Aida I dont sit there but I go toward each for a while and then doubt!!!
William: the dog cannot eat the hay

- 06:30 -
Aida and go back to the other direction

William: but the dog is selfish and barks at all the cows, to keep them fromt he hay

Aida haha

William: so, you are caught in an existential trap
William: which you may explore with Kierkegaard and Sartre and Camus

Aida yes I recognize myself while reading them

William: Sartre speaks of the young man, in war torn france, who is his mothers only support, but his friends join the underground resistance
William: he is damned whatever choice he makes

Aida I really worry not to live my life they way I want to lead it
Aida yes?

William: if he stays to care for mother, he is unpatriotic bastard who does not joint his comrads in underground resistance of nazis
William: but if he is patriot, and good comrad, his is bastard to abandon his poor mother

Aida yes

William: so, damned if he does, and damned if he doesnt
William: so this is the BIND…

Aida I feel that way

William: i forget the best term

Aida bondage?

William: but the schizophrenice is a pathology which seeks to escape from the intolerable DOUBLE BIND

William: ACTUALLY, when i was only age 4
William: i noticed the dog in the next yard, on a chain
William: i realized he was in a double bind

Aida how come?

William: but i could not put it into words
William: well, he wanted one thing, but the chain kept him back
William: he had two directives, mutually exclusive
William: lets say, his job is to chase way the intruder

- 06:35 -
William: but, when he runs to do that job, the chain chokes him and pulls him back
William: so, my mother was placing me in a similar bind
William: and i told her about the dog

Aida wow
Aida how cute

William: i exlained to her that she was doing to me just what the dog was in
William: but, she could not catch the analogy

Aida how could you do that in age 4?

William: because, SHE had two conflicting goals to place upon me
William: well, that was how my mind was…

Aida how exciting

William: also, i heard someone say “time passes QUICKLY when we have a pleasant passtime, but SLOWLY when we have an unpleasant task
Aida yes
Aida can I ask something?

William: SO, i thought they meant quite litterally that TIME itself changes
William: but listent
William: I DID AN EXPERIMENT at age 4
William: at nap time, i took my most favorite book, whcih was soft blue colors, about virgin mary

Aida are you sure it happened then

William: and looked at it
William: yes, positive
William: and while i looke at the pleasant book, i tried to judge the speed of time
William: then i switched to my LEAST favorite book, a harsh red on fireengines

Aida wow

William: and as i looked at that, i tried to sense the slowing down of time

Aida how?
Aida haha

William: but, i realize that one could not detect the change in time
William: so, that was my existential experiment at age 4

Aida wow very impressive

William: so, you see, such Sartrean things are innate in the human mind
William: because, i was illeterate, i couldnot read
William: and there was no telivision
William: and only music on radio
William: so i could not have overheard
William: and the people around me did not read or discuss such matters

Aida so how could you measure time..you couldnt read the clock

- 06:40 -
William: BUT, the point was, i constructed an experiment
William: i attempted to measure

Aida yes .very unbelievable

William: but, yet, not uncommon
William: Ramanujan was a poor boy in india with no schooling
William: he found a handbook of mathematics, no proofs, just the formulae
William: and he independently PROVED, and derived all the equations

Aida is it possible?

William: Ramanujan died in his 40s

Aida do you think we all can do that?

William: but he was one of the greatest minds in NUMBER THEORY
William: and number theory is called the QUEEN of all mathematics

William: number theory involves statements like, all prime numbers

Aida can I ask you something ?again

William: and greater and lesser infinities…
William: yes

Aida now that you are 60 …do you think you lived your life and gained what you wanted to?

William: so, you see, at 4, i was like socrates slave boy in the Meno
Aida did you reach where you wanted to reach
William: well, i had many blessings
William: i never knew war or hunger and had good health and dental care
William: i had luxury of liberal education

Aida no I mean human achievements……..

William: and freedom from constraints of professional requirements like university
William: i did not have to “publish or perish”
William: i had my own printing press and soap box of internet

Aida but didnt you want to do that?

William: well, it HAPPENDED…
William: i didnt set out to be this or that
William: opportunities arose and i chose them

Aida I mean when you were 30
Aida what did you think of your 60
Aida what you wanted to gain and you gained it or not?

William: of course, i had notions of goals, but that was an illusion
William: well, what i did gain was the opportunity to become what i am
William: you see, and acorn is not an oak tree

Aida how do you feel now that those goals arent fulfilled?

- 06:45 -
William: yet, its essense is an oak tree
William: so, we BECOME what we are
William: an infant is not Bertrand Russel, or Walt Whitman, or Barack Obama
William: but, it is a seed containing that ultimate personal
William: so we become what we are
William: by labor, chance, circumstance, serendipity

William: if one reads the Nobel acceptance speech of Hemingway, and then of Faulkner

Aida and if we dont become what we wanted to become do we feel we wasted life?

William: who were always lifelong enemies

Aida I really worry to waste my life

William: as they embodied literary values / goals which were diametrically opposed
William: then one sees how their life unfolded
William: and the extent to whcih they were fulfilled
William: and the extent to which they were frustrated and failed
William: and throw in F. Scott Fitzgerald

Aida yes?

William: so, in that limited literary context, one may explore the drama of the very question which you pose, about the individual as the pass through life

William: making choices….and with each choice, giving up forever a 1000 possible futures
William: to actualize ONE future
William: and it is an act of faith

Aida and you know then we are not sure we really made those choices.freely

William: we cannot know, at the moment that we risk our lives to cross a berlin wall
William: we cannot know whether it is our doom, or our salvation
William: BUT, even inaction is an action
William: if we do nothing, that too is a choice, and has consequences

Aida so you do not regret for whatever choices you made?

William: if we are the donkey who never approaches one of the equidistant food buckets
William: well, i often think about these things

- 06:50 -
William: and, i could choose to mourn and have regrets
William: but yet, what I became, Sitaram, was a unique opportunity

Aida

William: to say and do things at a stage in history when no one else could afford to say and do those things
William: without suffering consequences
William: because i was no one, there were no constraints

William: imagine you are rev. Billy Graham, or he Dali Lama, or Pope Benedict, but suddenly you walk along a beach one morning with Mic Jagger
William: and you suddenly are inspired by some truth that Mic Jagger possesses

Aida who is Mic Jagger?
William: Mic Jagger is a successful rock star singer
William: and age 70 he still belts out songs like age 20

William: and he embodies wild rebellion
William: but, because you are Dali Lama, or Pope, you are CONSTRAINED to be true to what you embody
Aida

William: otherwise, millions become disillusioned, and you give up your special persona

Aida haha

William: so, your very success, in being what you have become, is a chain, a limtation

Aida true

William: so, you are not totally free…

Aida that is true

William: there is a part of me which feels talented to explore in writing my sexuality
William: BUT, if i do that, i become branded as a porn writer
William: so, i give up what i have as Sitaram

Aida aha

- 06:55 -
William: and, the author of Tropic of Cancer, Tropic of Capricorn, gives up is persona if he begins to write as I write
William: so, whatever ladder we climb to reach whatever cloud or plateu
William: we must KICK AWAY that ladder, so we lose our precious ladder

Aida yes

William: PLUS we are stuck one the top of Everest, but we cannot not be on top of Killimanjaro, or Madderhorn, or Grand Titons

William: so, there are many heights, many depths, but we must choose one…

Aida how do we know it is the right one

William: but in one Psalm in bible, it says, “I go up to the highest moutain and Thou are there Lord, so I go to the deepest ocean, and Thou are also there,… and whereve I go, I cannot escape you, but neither can I join with you and unite with you in an absolute fashion

Aida or there is no right or wrong path

William: but, it is all realtive, sujective, contextual
William: i cannot tell someone to become Sitaram, they must become THEIR OWN Sitaram

William: which may be very different from me, but it is all essential
Aida

William: That Argentinean writer.
William: Jorge Luis Borges

Aida yes?

William: writes a story about an orthodox man, who spends his life chasing and persecuting an Heresiarch
William: a leader who teaches heresy
William: finally, he captures the Heresiarch, and execute him
William: the, he too dies, and comes before God

- 07:00 -
William: only to learn that, for God, both HE and the Heresiarch, are important components of some much larger organism
William: some much larger being…. and BOTH are essential
William: just as in musical harmone

William: the three notes of a chord are DIFFERENT,
William: yet in combination, they become something beyond themselves

Aida superhuman?

William: a Neapolitan sixth is a major 7th chord build upon the flatted second note of the scale of the piecee
William: so, it sounds as a profound punctuation
William: discordant, yet, making a point
William: so e.e. cummings speaks of “the dilemma of flutes”

William: it comes back to Platos analogy of Dialectic being the weavers loom
William: there is the WARP, the treads running vertically
William: and the WOOF, whcih run horizontally
William: and the SHUTTLE which weaves in and out,….

Aida ?

William: and it s a continual process of SEPARATING and CONJOINING of opposites
William: but the product is a TAPESTRY
William: and the tapestry on one side, depicts a picture
William: but on the back side, is all loose threads
William: there is a famous tapestry from the middle ages
William: depicting the norman conquests
William: or, the prehistoric cave paintings

Aida yes?

William: my vision, my view, is based upon these 60 years

- 07:05 -
William: but, it is unique to me…
William: to share it, you would have to be me, to have lived through the 50s and 60s and 70s

Aida what is unique?

William: MY view, my understanding, my contentment, my frustration
William: same with Hardy “Jude the Obscure”, same with V. Woolf and “Orlando”
William: I couldnt remember yesterday that the Novella was “Orlando”
William: but i saw the book this morning on my shelves

Aida yes?

Aida and
William: someone said to Helen Keller (the blind deaf from birth) “life is filled with suffering” and she answered “BUT it is also filled with the OVERCOMING OF SUFFERING
William: so, as lincoln said “each person is about as happy as they make up their mind to be
William: cognitive therapy “is my cup half empty or half full”

Aida true

William: in highschool, had i known what i know now, i could have rejected liberal arts, beecome an accountant CPA, and perhaps been wealthy, financially secure
William: but i would not be able to speak with you today of these matters
William: now, perhaps, some of my thoughts will live on for 1000 years

- 07:11 -
William: and become a part of something much larger

Aida yes.I wouldnt talk with you now if you were an accountant
William: but, had i become wealthy accounant,… at the end… my house would be sold, my art collection,…. relatives would take the inheritance, and perhaps it would ruin them, they might become gamblers or alcoholics
William: NOW, what we have discussed these past years…..become seeds which i plant in tehran, and seed which you plan in new york

Aida maybe you would go to different museums around the world and explore more
William: so, perhaps that grows in the next generation, to something that works a lasting peace an harmony
William: between our cultures
William: so, are we being wastrels, with empty talk, idling our time
William: OR, is this the most essential dialogue
William: which will build something enduring, like the Great Wall of China, which is the only man made structure which is visible from outer space
William: and yet the Great Wall itself is crumbling….
William: and Venice is sinking

Aida

Aida it is essential at least to me

William: because like every good ladder, and every seamans OAR, there comes a time when it is pushed away, or planted in the ground and sacrificed
William: so, like shakespear says in Lear….. we are on the stage for our hour, and we rant as a mad man, with great sound and fury
William: and it passes away, as the tinkling of bells and the sounding of brass symbols
William: Hegel saw Napoleon one day, pass through a town , in all his glory

- 07:16 -

Aida yes?

William: and yet Napoleon had his Waterloo
William: so, we play roles, and in the end, all passes
William: Solomon’s wisdom – THis too shall pass

Aida what remains then?

William: the riddle “what is the ONE THING i may say to you that, if you are sad, you shall become happy, but if you are happy, you shall become sad
William: the answer is “This too shall pass
William: sickness passes, health passes, poverty passes, wealth passes,
William: nothing endures

Aida life passes.

William: yet, if it were not for constant change, there would be no drama

Aida so it loses its meaning.

William: and we draw the meaning of our life from that drama
William: without failure, there can be no victory
William: yet victory carries failure within itself like the seed which carries withing the oak tree

William: such is life
William: but, we have some good conversation
William: there is a cartoon of Charlie Brown from Snoopy, Charles SHultze
William: wearing his baseball cap and catchers mitt
William: never winning a game
William: always the losing team
William: but he grins, and says, we may not win many games, but we have some great conversations

Aida haha

+++++++++++

Aida I enjoyed talking with you
William: so, have i helped a little

Aida yes very

William: yes, and I cannot be me without questions like yours
William: every answer is meanings outside of the context of a question

Aida thank you for sharing time!

William: and thank you for asking

Aida it made me relieved so much.

William: yes,….. therapeia, in greek, is a process of maintaining balance, and realieveing pressures

William: or releasing pressures
William: kind of a discursive acupuncture
William: one, a patient said to his therapist, whatever shall i do when you are no longer around

Aida yes?

William: the therapist (Sheldon Kopp) said, by then you shall become YOUR OWN therapist, and internalize these discussions

Aida ok I have to become my own therapist now!

William: just as, even when our parents have passed, we leave a room, and hear our mother or father say SHUT OFF THE LIGHT
William: CLOSE THE DOOR, you dont live in a barn
William: we internalize

Aida haha

William: we become our own parent our own teacher

Aida our own lover and friend

William: our own judge jury and executioner/jailor

Aida and child

William: yes, that oo
William: that too

Aida I always find myself guilty and execute myself

William: yes, but then, the next day, you give birth to yourself again and like the Phoenix arise from your own ashes

Aida I have to find another judge within me!

William: but, if you were not driven by that torment, that suffering, you would not struggle and strive up the mountain

Aida now I have to do something with my life uncle wiggly.

William: your Sisyphean task
William: you ARE doing it
William: you are exactly as you SHOULD be at any given moment

- 07:27 -
William: that is the message of the Bhagavad-Gita
Aida yes., in a more practical form.am passive now.

William: and various eastern gurus

Aida only mentally active

William: the saint, the thief, the tyrrant despot, the prostitute, the scientist, the politician the lawyer

Aida have to form the thoughts and give birth to ideas and then act based on them

William: each are what they should be, at that moment

Aida ah that is beautiful message

William: unravelling the karmic knots of many previous existence

William: without hitlers opression we would not have things like Viktor/s Mans Search for Meaning

Aida haha

William: or that movie… now i forget the name AHA SCHINDLER’S LIST
William: the movie about the man who saves all the jews
Aida I was readiung the search for the meaning
William: all i can think of now is jacobs ladder….
Aida it really made me depressed.so I couldnt continue
William: but that is not the movie
William: it will come to me
Aida now you take care of yourself and hug concordia for me
William: sams message, jacobs ladder
William: ok…. yes.

Aida love you !
Aida you helped me gigantically

William: luv you to very much, my daughter
William: but, in a pinch i would marry you, if it made sense, ha ha

Aida thanks..take care@}

William: a means to an end
William: a ladder to that cloud

Aida am no good wife.. I have no time

William: to be kicked away

Aida yes

William: but, it would be a marriage of celibacy

Aida I prefer to be your niece

William: much like my current one

Aida be well !!

William: you too sweet heart
William: in love, we become what is needed by the other
William: but when we love ourselves properly, then we become what we need when we need it

- 07:32 -
William: and then move on
William: now, run along
William: and play nicely

In der Kollegstufe habe ich gerne gelesen. Handke. Menasse. Camus. Alles abseits des Schulkanons. Auch im Zivildienst noch, der Zeit, in der man, liest man nicht wenigstens, völlig verdummt. Der jüngste meiner blinden Fahrgäste, leider auch der, der am weitesten weg wohnte, nötigte mich dazu, im Malteser-Bus Bibi Blocksberg und Benjamin Blümchen zu hören. Und nur um die Stimme des Kindes nicht hören zu müssen, willigte ich ein. Das Kind auf die hinterste Bank des Busses verbannt, Bibi sehr laut. Die Kollegen verlangten nach Geschichten über Besäufnisse oder noch besser: Tussen, die man gefickt hätte. Wenn man da nicht mithalten konnte, musste man einen anderen Weg finden, Aufmerksamkeit zu erhalten. Unfälle mit dem Dienstbus. Autos, die man quasi gefickt hätte. Zivildienstleistende meines Jahrgangs schienen mir allesamt die Pubertät nochmals zu durchleben. Der lästigste, der hoch angesehene Bachmayer brachte es auf hunderte von Tussen und von seinem Unfall wird man sicherlich heute noch bei den Maltesern sprechen. Er hat einen an einer roten Ampel stehenden Kleinwagen ungebremst mit 60 km/h gefickt. Kein Wunder, wenn man die Nacht in einer Discothek zubringt und nach durchwachter, durchgemachter Nacht den Dienst antritt.

Discothek. Serjoja fuhr mir neulich über den Mund; er hasse dieses Wort. Man sage Club. Discotheken seien die Orte, an denen unsere Eltern und Großeltern tanzen gingen. Ausgestorben also. Für jemanden, der gerade einmal ein paar Wochen in Deutschland lebte, der gerade mit der deutschen Sprache kämpfte, eine doch bemerkenswerte Beobachtung. Es sei denn, im Russischen gibt es auch beide Wörter. Und Club, tatsächlich, sehr in Mode.

Dass ich Menasse gerne gelesen hatte, wusste ich. Fast täglich viel mein Blick auf die drei Suhrkamp-Bücher im Regal. Weshalb ich nicht weitergelesen hatte hingegen, wusste ich nicht. Vielleicht bedurfte es des Aufklebers „Bestseller 8,90€“, dass ich den Namen heute erst wieder wahrgenommen habe. Das Bestseller war mir dabei egal, der Preis aber schien attraktiv für fast dreihundert Seiten Sprache, die ich mochte. Der Titel lockte zudem, diese Verquickung zweier literarischer Stoffe. La Mancha habe ich erst im Januar dieses Jahres gekreuzt. 

Ziemlich enttäuscht übrigens, keine einzige Windmühle gesehen zu haben. Und Don Juan, an ihn denkt man doch sowieso fast täglich.

Mit Siegfried Lenz hatte ich keine besonderen Erfahrungen. Die Deutschstunde. Keine große Erinnerung mehr daran. Nur an die Leseumstände. Mit Frau Henschke, Tine, Nina, Janni, Alexander und einigen, deren Namen ich schon lange vergessen habe. AK Lesen, Pluskurs Lesen, Lesestunde. Keine Ahnung mehr, wie diese nachmittägliche Stunde in der elften Klasse hieß. Auch nicht, was wir noch gelesen haben. Insofern, naja, Siegfried Lenz ist hängen geblieben. Deshalb heute vielleicht der Griff zu ihm. Neu. Kurzer Titel. Dünnes Buch.

Der dritte Kauf. Murakami. Vor vielleicht zwei Jahren einmal einen Band mit Erzählungen verschlungen.

Una prensa libre puede ser buena o mala, pero sin libertad, la prensa nunca será otra cosa que mala.

Albert Camus

]]> http://lucasemece.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/camus-nobel/ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:02:39 +0000 lucasemece http://lucasemece.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/camus-nobel/

No pasan ni siquiera semanas hasta el argelino más celebre del momento vuelva al clima previo a la distinción. A finales de diciembre Camus se encuentra de nuevo sumergido en sus mujeres, la insalubridad de sus pulmones, la hirviente Argelia y el teatro. La diferencia ahora es que estos “asuntos” han intensificados los matices.

Su corazón ahora alberga un especio privilegiado para otra mujer -además de Francine, Maria Casares y Catherine Sellers- la enigmática pintora Mi.

En su tierra natal, la tensión escala día tras día, y a fines de 1957, la figura de Charles De Gaulle comienza a proyectarse nuevamente sobre Francia y la caliente Argelia.

Los Doctores habituales le comunican al prestigioso paciente que vive en un estado de semi asfixia. Esto atemoriza a Camus, quien parece reaccionar ante adversidad pulmonar internándose en el trabajo: nunca tendrá suficiente teatro, ahora planea una colosal adaptación de “Los Poseídos” de su estimado Fiodor Dostoievski. Además avanza con las formas de “Le premier homme” (El primer hombre), su nueva novela.

DESCARTE DEL ARTICULO “ALBERT CAMUS 1957″ PERTENECIENTE A LA EDICION DE OCTUBRE DE CULTURA ETEREA. EL TEXTO COMPLETO AQUI

“People begin to become successful the minute they decide to be.” — Harvey Mackay

“We are told that talent creates its own opportunities. But it sometimes seems that intense desire creates not only its own opportunities, but its own talents.” — Eric Hoffer

“The starting point of all achievement is desire. Keep this constantly in mind.  Weak desire brings weak results, just as a small amount of fire makes a small amount of heat.” — Napoleon Hill

“Failure will never overtake me if my determination to succeed is strong enough.” — Og Mandino

“In the depths of winter I finally learned there was in me an invincible summer.” — Albert Camus

The Nose

Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol

The Ring of Thoth

Arthur Conan Doyle

The Lady With The Little Dog

Anton Chekhov

The Guest

Albert Camus

Malmömoderater kan samarbeta med SD – DN.se.

Eller Aftonbladet

Något senare: Appelros förtydligar: inget sd-samarbete – Malmö – Sydsvenskan – Nyheter dygnet runt.

Huruvida partierna kommer att samarbeta med SD eller inte verkar i Malmö ha blivit en praktisk maktfråga. Är man tvungen att smutsa ned sina händer för att göra politik?

Sartre och Camus förde diskussionen i Les Mains Sales respektive Les Justes. Kanske något för Appelros att läsa?