A to B : Frontiers & Movements

Call it “cheap structuralism”, because it is what it is. Or topography.

Here I choose to casually watch two territories, A and B.

It can be two apartments, two countries, but also two states (healthy/sick, or single/in couple), two styles, two blogs, anything by two.

Then you can begin to play :

  • If there’s a A and a B there’s a frontier. What is it made of?
  • Is it a line, like between two countries? Is it a wall? Symbolic?
  • A place (called C) which is a “space between”?
  • Do you have to study or focus on C?
  • Is there a door or many doors? Who opens, closes?
  • A bridge? Who build it?
  • Are A and B bonded? By what?
  • A and B can be different things (a house/outside) or the same nature (two people?)
  • When you have A and now also B, you own both. Kill the frontier, or keep both distinct territories inside you, like two facets? Like the two Germanies?
  • A becomes B is a mutation. Then where’s the border?
  • Rubicon process : once you crossed the border, A doesn’t “exist” for you anymore. Burnt bridge!

The tool is funny to use : determine if your problem can be structured as A and B (Do I have to live in the same place as my lover? Should I merge my two blogs? What is convalescence?).

Thanks for reading!

(thistlemilk)11358067_1434686386838338_1185576769_n.jpg

“A model is a lie that helps you see the truth” – H. Skipper

“A model is a lie that helps you see the truth” is a quote by Howard Skipper, an American doctor.

Here I try to extend this pattern, replacing “model” by cousin ideas : “pattern”, “structure”, “map”, etc.

So what? A “model” is not the real world, it’s a construction made to help us to understand the real world.

A MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY, right? A map is a LIE, it doesn’t give you changes, colors, moods, light, temperature and life. But it’s a useful, thought, for a purpose…

You can be very serious while modeling things (in Science) and an architect will build models (in cardboard or on computers), but you can also be a little casual “just to see what you’ll see”.

For example you can see each of these things : a school, a couple, or a battle, as : a machine, a living creature, a computer, a kingdom or a business company. If you “apply” your model, you’ll rule out something, but you’ll find interesting things too. Then, trash the model. Because it’s a LIE, of course!

A model is a construction made to help us to understand the real world.

It can be using a structure and also “a way to explain how it works”, moves and evolves. Let’s use the model of “a business company” to study “a married couple”. Who’s the CEO, how does the money flow, what are the goals, etc…

It can be more like a skeleton, a complex map of “what it is”, or a single archetypal word :

  • Mauss studied suicide or gift and made entire books about these. A way to search for “what is common”, the “fundamental characteristics”.
  • Simmel studied the bridge : it links two territories, it is a territory itself, it “shows itself” as a bridge, and it is a “will of connection” (over a river, for example).

Yes, this leads to Archetypes (Jung)

a statement, pattern of behavior, or prototype (model) which other statements, patterns of behavior, and objects copy or emulate

To Forms in philosophy (Plato)

pure forms which embody the fundamental characteristics of a thing in Platonism

and to the most precious diamond : the Symbol.

a symbol is a mark, sign, or word that indicates, signifies, or is understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship. Symbols allow people to go beyond what is known or seen by creating linkages between otherwise very different concepts and experiences.

(All quotes from Wikipedia – I bolded some words)

Questions :

Who’s right? Skipper who uses the word “lie”, or Plato and Jung who seem to seek a “pure form”? Is all this a search for a link, common aspects in different things, or are these just tools to explore a concept , moving aside difficulties and details? Are you more interested in details, or structures? Why do we say that there are only a few ways to tell a story (Google : Seven Basic Plots)? What are the “order” games like MBTI, Zodiac or Enneagrams? Is a symbol the tiniest and more radioactive possible model?

Let’s say you’re introvert, fast, jealous, a father, a murderer or a valet. Is it a lie, because it’s true but way too simple (and a label on your face) – then you list the subtilities, the movements, the reasons, etc -, or is it a funny truth which could lead you to make decisions, or find other archetypes to think about?

You can also read : Ecceity

Yeahh, overthinking, I know…

Thanks for reading!

#angel

 

 

 

#INFJ & #INTJ & the Tango Feeling/Thinking

“Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.”
Bergson

To say it very quickly, Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, says there are 2 ways to know something : Analysis is “turning around” the thing, it gives you a map, but Intuition is about “entering” it, it’s the only way to “feel” what is the thing. That makes sense, right?

Well, I linked this with the two MBTI families, INFJ (F is for Feeling) and INTJ (T is for Thinking).

What is YOUR way of appreciating things? Do you think, or do you feel?

I think I’m obsessed with the idea of weaving a braid with two opposite tools. Reason & Feeling, Numbers & Harmony, Improvisation & Schedules, Slow & Fast, etc. I constantly play with the idea of weaving them.

  • Maybe you are, like me, a INTFJ?
  • Maybe you like to be moved by a symphony AND to know how it’s built?
  • Maybe you like to have projects AND to decide thing in a second.
  • Maybe you invent poetry with your nose in the wind AND you organize words precisely while you write.
  • Maybe you like to decide and organize things AND you pray God at the same time?

So… when I do tests about MBTI I find myself a INTJ, but sometimes a INFJ. I feel like the French knight with a sword in a hand and an axe in the other. I hope you appreciate my power! 🙂

Why thinking couldn’t weave feeling?

Thanks for reading. Have a nice weekend!

nachoyague_-_Morning_watering

Instagram : nachoyague

 

 

 

 

 

Fruitful Constraints & Creativity

It’s an old tool many artists know : many constraints are fruitful. Mainly because a constraint is a problem calling for a solution, therefore you have to move, to be creative.

All jobs and activities have constraints : budget, environment, other people, time, space, your skills, your tools.

If it’s too loose, though, you feel a freedom, which can be messy. You can not catch anything. Stuck. You maybe need to tight something up, to find “your” freedom within a new frame.

Brian Eno invent the Oblique Strategies (mainly for musicians) as a card game. You pick a card and you have to obey (sometimes it’s terrible!). Some directors are well known to tell the actors to follow precisely something (the dialogs, or the places they have to move on the set, etc) before shooting. Some digital artists sometimes go out in a park with a pencil and a notebook. A photographer can go outside with the limit of 20 pictures taken, not much. And G. Perec wrote an entire book without the letter “e”.

 

Constraints are fruitful. You probably have many disposable levers for these. A poet can obey : write something in alexandrine; without any letter “p”, in less than 5 minutes. You may have to present a project in ONE minute only, and… with no words. What are your levers?

You can pull a lever to Zero, it’s the Total Constraint. For example, you’re a photographer and you go out without any camera. Just your eye. You’ll feel the need, you’ll feel your brain simmering. As you can only watch and… think, you’ll maybe have bursts of ideas (instead of taking pictures).

Of course it’s an example of “Amor Fati”, being content with what happens to you, even if it seems bad. Embracing fate : every constraint, if you can’t avoid it, should (and will have to) be danced with.

Thanks for reading!

 

(f_pilvi)10995141_1538399046448546_1999065878_n

Instagram : f_pilvi

Umberto Eco & the Open Work

Umberto Eco wrote an entire book about the idea of Open Work. I just present you here this idea, as a seed, that a “work” has an openness.

A work “appears” like this or like that, but has a number of ways of being read (seen, viewed, watched, decoded, interpreted, appreciated, contemplated, analyzed). This seems obvious for the sheet music, the score, or for a play, right?

  1. There’s maybe an “obvious” openness, a prescribed way to read a work, but it can be a little more vague, like a set of possibilities – until complete crypticness : find what you can, if you dare to do it, then.
  2. Some elements are often chosen by the artist to let the audience appropriate the work their way, but not “that” their way. Symbolic novels are obviously made for this purpose (Kafka is an example given by Eco).
  3. Opened or not, some people do what they want with a piece of work. It’s a whole decision, it requires culture, or tools, or ways of finding things.
  4. Some works, this way, can be enriched by a clever spectator, who would be delighted by elements, details, structures… the artist himself ignore!
  5. In classical music or theater, there’s a place between the work (the score) and the audience. The players (or the actors) have a big role about “how they see it”. But after that level, the audience will also interpret things…
  6. We probably want to find bonds between the work we study and our own searches, flaws, experiences…
  7. Add yours in the comments, please?

 

Tool : If you work out of the “artistic field”, in blogging, marketing, conversation, fashion, coaching, I’m sure you consider many parameters. You can make a list, right? Timeline, colours, variety, energy, waits, etc, there are many levers to pull. But have you considered the “openness” of what you propose?

 

Thanks for reading!

“Nommer un objet c’est supprimer les trois quarts de la jouissance du poème, qui est faite du bonheur de deviner peu a peu : le suggérer . . . voila le rêve”

“To name an object is to suppress three-fourths of the enjoyment of the poem, which is composed of the pleasure of guessing little by little: to suggest . . . there is the dream”

Mallarmé

igbest_shotz_-__by__jacopo-rigotti_-___follow___tag__igbest_shotz_-_please_show_some_support_and_visit_the_artist_s_gallery_for_more_amazing_photos-_-_selected_by__viktoriahaack_____________________

Instagram : jacopo.rigotti

Axes, Axis, Axles : “Become who you are”

Among all the empty phrases we find everywhere in the Self Help garden rubbish, I love this one :

“Become who you are”

You could examine this for hours just for having fun, like in front of a stupid golden loop, an exploding immobility, a… mysterious goal. Because, oui, bien sûr : how the hell could I become another person but who I am? Google it if you want, you’ll find the habitual waste : sunsets, roads, inspirational landscapes…

But Okayyyy, there’s something right into it. Which is this : we grow up, we become adults, and when we reach the middle of our life, where we know ourselves more :

  • Some parts of us became soft and rotten, they went to pieces and fell.
  • Some other parts became more solid, muscled.

A double process! From this process, some axes cleared and appeared, voilà. This is or these are your strong lines. I can be to “find love”, to be a wife, to take care of others, to be a parent, to work, to travel or to be creative. Your find, one day, your dominant trait. You became who you are… or at least,  you know more… what you would like to be!

There can be, I’m sure, some inferior axes : being famous, to be entertained continuously (bonjour kidults!), piling money, or to “appear happy” in the social media selfies big dumpster. Whatever : comes a day you know what is your main Axis.

The uncompleteness we all know (“something’s lacking in my life, but what?”) could ensue from the gap between what we do and what we should do, according to our axes. “Become who you are” could be a way to fill in this gap…

One could imagine that we invent some false axes : the real one then could show up suddenly after a shock or a crisis.

Take the exemple of the Sylvia Plath syndrome, a person who absolutely wants to publish a book. One day, the book is there, and the axis disappeared immediately : it leaves this person completely indifferent. We could call this the “So what” disillusion. This needs another article, right?

Axis disappearance. Axis revelation. Axes are maybe like milk teeth : you have some when you’re young, then another one emerges when you become an adult. Become who you are. Okayyyyy…

Thanks for reading!

#train #travel #station

The Art of Inside Sidestepping – “Social Dilettantism Protection Tent” #INTJ

This is a whole box of tools about Inside Sidestepping. I evoked it in an article about how to disappear in oneself for a short moment : Waldgänger. It’s about “staying where you are, but you don’t believe anymore”. An exercise INTJs love to do !

In love, at work, at a meeting, within a group of friends : you can use that everywhere. Suddenly you’re out. Suddenly you see how things work, and you become a watcher :

  • It’s not rebelling, it’s about watching, and feeling differently
  • It can be protection, sheltering
  • Suddenly you don’t play the game, or you do “as if”, and you watch
  • You let yourself be thoughtful, pensive, undecided
  • The others don’t know you’re in your tent
  • You can invent, build, and destroy your tent in a second
  • You stay there, but you don’t believe, you’re a dilettante, a dabbler
  • You can be sarcastic or ironic, or not – it’s not required
  • Suddenly, things are not that serious, and they even can become surrealistic
  • Being there is a recovery, a resumption, an escape, a relief
  • It’s a way to survive, to have fun, a way to stay zen
  • It can lead to a positive form of hypocrisy, a mask game
  • Sidestepping is like asking to yourself : “Who’s misled here?”
  • You can go back in the game in one second

You decide it, or you can be put there : if you’re pregnant, or sick, you go on living in the world but the way you see it is different. Your “inside sidestepping” carries on, for a long time.

Feel free to add ideas in comments. Thanks for reading!

danurben_-_helen_at_kilnsea__vintage__vintagefashion__vintagestyle__retro__retrostyle__retrofashion__fashion__fashioneditorial__photoshoot__model__modette__modgirl__yorkshire__60sfashion__60s__1960s__

Instagram : danurbel