Not “Evil vs Good”, but “Chaos vs Order”

Not “Evil vs Good”, but “Chaos vs Order”.

Well, what the heck is this double opposition?

I don’t know.

Many movies are based on Evil vs Good, right?

Let’s make a geometric transposition : Evil towards Chaos, and Good towards Order. Okey?

In a crime novel, the murder brings chaos in the apparatus which is the good society of men. The detective brings back order, thanks mister.

It seems simple, but I thus and therefore automatically choose the contrary.

Order can be Evil. 1984 the book. Or Nazis perfect aligned armies. More : in the new Star Wars, the bad guys are named the First Order…

  1. I take pliers, I pinch “Order” and I pin in on a tree. Order is straight lines, obedience, conservative, religion, highways, mainstream, social pressure, black and white, perfectly mown lawns, rules.
  2. I take my two fingers and I grab “Chaos”, where I find colors, invention, freedom, progress in Art, little mountain paths, movements, punk happy gardens.

 

Well, let’s go on. Imagine a cross-diagram : left-right for evil good, and up-down for order-chaos.

Combine :

  1. Evil Chaos : Hell, The Battle of Stalingrad. Revolutions.
  2. Evil Order : 1984 Society, Fascism.
  3. Good Chaos : Picasso, Stravinsky : creativity, progress. Revolutions.
  4. Good Order : “The idea of Norway” – justice, rightful, legitimate.

 

What else? What do you think? Where does that go?

Everything immoderate is negative… right? Is it only a question of balance?
Paul Valéry, who is a wise man, says that in a society ruled by order, things happen :

  • What is sensitive in men can not always be precise (not everything can be measured and put in “order”).
  • Order is a burden to people. They have to dream, and invent. Under quietness of order, some brains shake themselves, hopes bloom…

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispositif

Dispositifa thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions–in short, the said as much as the unsaid. Such are the elements of the apparatus. The apparatus itself is the system of relations that can be established between these elements.

“Further expanding the already large class of Foucauldian apparatuses, I shall call an apparatus literally anything that has in some way the capacity to capture, orient, determine, intercept, model, control, or secure the gestures, behaviors, opinions, or discourses of living beings. Not only, therefore, prisons, madhouses, the panopticon, schools, confession, factories, disciplines, judicial measures, and so forth (whose connection with power is in a certain sense evident), but also the pen, writing, literature, philosophy, agriculture, cigarettes, navigation, computers, cellular telephones and—why not—language itself, which is perhaps the most ancient of apparatuses—one in which thousands and thousands of years ago a primate inadvertently let himself be captured, probably without realizing the consequences that he was about to face.” (Agamben)

 

 

Oh I don’t care what comes tomorrow
We can face it together
The way…

 

295058.jpg

 

Advertisements

Who’s lured & misled, here?

Il n’existe pas un esprit qui soit d’accord avec soi-même. Ce ne serait plus un esprit.
There is no one spirit who agrees with itself. It wouldn’t be a spirit any more.
Paul Valéry

 

 

“Qui trompe-t-on, ici ?” – Who’s misled, here?

A theatre professional (an actor, a director) knows he “has to create an illusion”. Therefore each time he goes to watch a play, a movie, or reads a book, he sees the illusion… but he may feel pleasure too. He is just not completely taken in…

We all have that skill, more or less : it depends. It happens when you’re in your domain, like the actress watching a movie. But for other people it happens all the time.

Who’s lured & misled, here?

It’s a state of mind. A quick capacity of “Inside Sidestepping”. You’re never completely taken in, you always see when you’re manipulated :

  1. It happens when you’re a pro and you know all the tricks.
  2. It happens when you’re in a situation where you’re forced to think different (illness or anything that modifies your mood).
  3. It happens when you have it, this ability to detect the use of illusion (or bullshit, if you prefer).

 

The problem is : you have to live, though. You see the masks, and you see that others don’t see the masks, and that’s all. It’s like you have to work on it, on shutting up the desire to warn others. Then you can have fun…

The world of men can become a subject of curiosity.

Most of the time, you don’t participate. 

Haha : Hunting Parrots, you can do. Very fun.

 

Thanks for reading!

la_fille_de_la_cote_-__newday______Juliette_Greco_-_Abd_Al_Malik.jpg

Continue reading

#Collage & Cie – Cutting out paper as a #Meditation #Flow

Bonjour Tristesse! You are very lost, sad, alone (pick one, or both, or threeth), you don’t know how to deal with yourself anymore. Nor others, right? So what?

Some days… you just need to invent a sadness corner.

I knowww, you “should go outside to meet people”, take photos, watch a movie, keep smiling, etc. But of course you are not able to do anything.

You can meditate (but you’ll fall asleep). Knitting is a solution, but you have to know how to, silly! Drinking is not. Or maybe, well… coloring books? Nahh.

For some wounds, there’s no recovery : you just learn how to live with them, and wait.

OK, knitting. Or… cutting papers. It’s easier!

More than 25 years ago, I salvaged a huge point-of-sale display, my size, a big solid rectangle cardboard. On difficult days I began to cut out photos in magazines and newspapers, and I gluesticked them on it.

It’s simple and easy to do, and it keeps your brain and fingers busy. You have to find your magazine, choose what to cut and decide where to stick the picture, this in a loop.

Thanks for reading!

 

1479202643649085597_4066914012.jpg

Instagram : such_a_pretty_crazy

The “Titanic Octet” state : stop panicking & arrange twinkles

The beginning is this : when you’re in a group, in a system, when everyone panics and runs, trying to save the situation from a complete wreckdisaster.

Imagine you’re working in a store in December. It’s crowded like hell. You need forty employees to make it work, but there’s a flu epidemic and you have ten persons on board. Donc, so, yes : it’s a disaster and everything is falling apart. Everybody runs to (try to) save the day. Mais c’est la catastrophe !

It can be fun, funny, at least sarcastically funny, right? When people begin to laugh (inside their belly, or really) because it’s all crazy, right?

This article is about AFTER that state. When you now know that the boat will sink, you and your colleagues stop trying to plugseal all holes. You take your instruments and you all quietly begin to play.

When you can’t save the situation, and after you laughed watching many little panics and disasters around you, there’s an understanding : you reach a quiet place where you feel like a zen tree in the middle of a storm.

Then, in this calm, you arrange sparkles where you can : a smile, a five-seconds quiet dialog, a treasure. You do your 2% of good thing in the middle of the catastrophe. It’s not about resistance anymore, it’s about humming, life poetry and micro-elegance :


offering glimmering moments for those who can notice it…

Breathe! Thanks for reading!

#whoisthis #magazine #repost

“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

 

 

 

Arthur Rimbaud & Glenn Gould : The “Big Less” Temptation

Rimbaud was a French poet who had a huge influence on Arts and Literature, but stopped writing at 21. He became a merchant, mostly in Africa (in coffee trading, for example!), and died at 37.

Gould was a Canadian pianist who stopped giving concerts at the age of 31 and became an eccentric hermit in recording studios.

Different destinies, but a similar pattern : at one moment, they stopped completely something they succeeding in, they closed a door.

Rimbaud stopped writing. Many wondered why : The artist had said everything? He wanted to explore another face of his personality? He had a secret wound? Dead wordsourcespring?
Gould didn’t stop making music, but never came back playing in concert, and he explained himself about that.

I write this because I wonder if sometimes we should consider a similar flip. A combination of levers & dials, studying what’s good in our life, considering that insisting (even in different ways) could be, from now, a failure : it’s maybe time for a closure?…

 

The Big Less is about considering to close a part of you which… works. Why would you do that, like “I park it”? Why would you stop what works? You feel you miss something? It’s too easy? You reached a plateau? I works but the wrong way? You lost a goal? You need to experiment to enrich? Fresh air? You need to get smaller to go faster? A fresh start to go elsewhere? You’re afraid of some ticking-over routine? Is it a bad idea? Why?

And who knows what will happen after some years? Maybe you’ll realize you needed the big disturbance of it? Maybe a bigger room will open? A secret path will appear? Maybe you’ll make good Bach records, or trade coffee?

Have a nice day!

1379933725357647501_40270600