“The struggle of maturity is to recover the seriousness of a child at play”.
People like to talk. They talk about things, or events. They talk about their life. That’s OK.
Only some people like to talk about concepts. If I meet someone who, instead of asking what I had for lunch, asks : “You’re French, do you think you have your own way to be skeptical? How?” – then sits and weaves a good two hours conversation with me about it, I want to keep this friend around me. No : I want to marry her!
What I do here is totally far-fetched, inappropriate and probably useless for almost all of us. What’s the point? I really don’t know. Maybe I’ll discover it while I write it?
“Unhappy Consciousness” is a concept from Hegel (Phenomenology of Spirit) – it’s very complicated, so… forget it. I just performed surgery on it to extract the pattern, the structure, the tool which is in it, then I wringunwrap it, just to see.
Hegel says “the Unhappy Consciousness is the consciousness of self as a dual-natured, merely contradictory being” : it can happen when you are in state A, you wish to reach a better state B, but there’s a moment you realize that you’re very far from it.
There’s a big gap (or a rift) between the reachable and the unreachable, the changeable and the unchangeable, and you understand it.
Euphoria meets the swamp of skepticism… You’re stuck. You met contradictions. Powerlessness. Stuck as a stuck.
Unhappy consciousness wishes relief from its misery, but it’s a surrender process which doesn’t work : thus a “perpetually self-engendered disorder”.
You have to let go. You need to take comfort. You have to find how. And you don’t.
This happens in Master-Slave couples, when the slave really tries to be exactly what his master wants him to be. Or more tricky : vice-versa. And it’s of course impossible.
What are other examples? How do you do – since you can not get out of it? What is it not as simple as “acceptance”? Do we have to wait? To find other paths? To admit we were wrong? Is it a selftrap? A spirit vicious circle turning like a hamster in its wheel between euphoria and despair?
Hegel seems to say that there’s a solution, though. It’s not in reason. It’s not in letting go. It’s not in surrender. All the logical solutions, at one point, fail and will fail.
It’s where I like it : Solutions are in the oblique.
It’s to forget some frames. To dare. To be crazy. Killing some rules. Finding the good sense of “idiocy”, the opening doors power of the fool’s wisdom. Stop the “desire to act in a comprehensible fashion”.
How to do that?
I don’t know!! Listen to strange advices? Take the wrong roads? Build on other territories of spirit? Kill your Gods and your certainties? Smell the winds ? Jump where you never jumped? What is the Revolution you need?
Where do you apply that? In your couple? In your creativity? Religion? Politics? Where are you stuck in a far-fetched way? Can you feel the energy charging inside the stuckystuck situation?
Let Hegel play with our mind now. Amen :
“its enjoyment becomes a feeling of its own unhappiness”
Thanks for reading!
Instagram : itspeteski
“Opera is when a guy gets stabbed in the back and,
instead of bleeding, he sings.”
If you go see a theater play, you have to make a deal with yourself, even if you even don’t realize you do it :
“I accept to believe that these people on the scene are real”
If you don’t, you’ll watch actors making as if, that’s weird, right?
This is not new, of course : Coleridge (an English philosopher) called it Suspension of disbelief :
“a willingness to suspend one’s critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment.”
You watch Braveheart on TV. You need your good “willing suspension of disbelief”, and if you don’t, you will laugh all along : you’ll see Mel Gibson (Australian actor) running in a skirt, pretending to fight for Scotland, hahaha.
And in a magic act, “an audience is not expected to actually believe that a woman is cut in half or transforms into a gorilla in order to enjoy the performance.”. Now imagine the work you have to do to accept an opera! 🙂
OK, you got the concept.
Creators and critics are aware of that. Nathalie Sarraute, a French writer, wrote a book (The Age of Suspicion), where she says that the novels’ readers less and less believe in the author “I know all” invention, and therefore that the writers tend to depersonalize the characters. Readers are more and more also critics, they analyze their pleasure, and you have to be smart and inventive to catch’em back.
In fact, this phenomenon appeared in many Arts.
I found this idea in interviews of movies directors like Billy Wilder, Alfred Hitchcock and Brian de Palma. Their idea is the same, I would formulate it like that :
“I KNOW for sure that I want to make movies for an audience who is AWARE that it’s a movie. I don’t want to put them in a classical “dream mode”, but I want to play with the audience with the fact a movie is like a clock, a fake funny mechanism MADE FOR HIM, therefore I constantly ELBOW THE AUDIENCE with nods, tricks, implausible twists and turns. They have fun not because they believe it, they have fun because they know I’m here with the scriptwriter working for their entertaining intelligence – so there!”.
So what is played here is not “sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment” any more, like in the normal Suspension of Disbelief. It’s a weaving between entertainment AND logic and realism. Inside the audience, the spectator AND the critic are dancing tango, with a smile. Intelligence is summoned, not only the dreaming capacities…
Where would you use this? Advertising? Poetry? Marketing? What would be a private joke to an audience? What is to elbow you spectators, and how to? Why? If you succeed, what happens?
You can also read : Strangeization.
Thanks for reading!
Instagram : __bodylanguage__
“All classifications belong to this style; they are mobile, modifiable, retroactive, boundless, and their criteria vary from instance to instance. Some instances are full, others empty. A classification always involves bringing together things with different appearances and separating those that are very similar. That is the beginning of the formation of concepts.”
“Toutes les classifications sont de ce genre : elles sont mobiles, varient leurs critères suivant les cases, sont rétroactives et remaniables, illimitées. Certaines cases sont très peuplées, d’autres vides. Il s’agit toujours dans une classification de rapprocher des choses très différentes en apparence, et d’en séparer de très voisines. C’est la formation des concepts.”
Gilles Deleuze, Le Cerveau, c’est l’Ecran, in “Deux Régimes de Fous”.
Fuir is a French verb, well, TWO French verbs, which are homonyms :
Therefore, it’s the same for “la fuite”, two homonyms :
So I suppose you understand it’s a bit “weaved” in our French brain. And if I ask “Fuite” in http://www.wordreference.com/, I find interesting things to prove it :
Gilles Deleuze is a playful philosopher. He likes to play with concepts to make tools.
He notices that to flee is NOT to renounce, or to give up, it’s a real action. To fly away is going on a line which stays like a symbol. It’s fuir (to flee) but also faire fuir (to “make a leak”). To run away is sometimes like to puncture the place you leave. You leave a hole, maybe… Therefore, a leak…
Fuir/Fuir : Flee/Leak.
Yeah I know, it’s a game of words, but it can give birth to ideas, right?
I like this idea too : to run away is to draw a line. Where you ran away, you have to do something else, the place you “leaved” (OK, left) does something else too. Flee as a disturbance. Each of them draws new lines, more lines. It’s like inventing new maps. To flee is quitting a territory A to go to another territory (B). Is it a “go back”? A flee & discovery? If there’s a leak on B, what is its nature? What happens, then? Can the runaway bird be replaced? By what? If you fly away, are you forced by something, pushed away, is it a choice?
More Territories games : you can see here.
Have a good day!
I read one day that Socrates asked to a master of ballet :
“Who are you and… how do you know?“.
There are many questions you can ask to someone you’re interested in, where do you come from? or what happened in your life? or what’s new? or what are you working on? or tell me what’s difficult? or what did you learn? or who is important in your life?, etc, but :
How do you “know” means a lot. How do you increase your knowledge? What is your package, your bond to reality, your system, your measures? Do you read? Do you watch things, people, actions? Do you think? Do you remember? In what way? What do you seek? What is the nature or the knowledges you pile up in your brain? Do you have models? How is it cleared up? What for? Are you curious, where, how, and why? What are you weary of? Senses? Interpretations? Where could we be mistaken, why? Do you need to understand or to change something?
It could seem pointless, but I don’t think it is. Because these questions ask about this :
What is your out/in interface with the world, and how does it work?
Just an example : memory. We all know that our memory is not perfect, and THAT is interesting : it doesn’t work properly, this is why we can work, interpret, metathink, analyse, retry, write, rethink, etc…
You’re a photographer : how do you know? You have your technical skills, right? And then? How do you know what to photograph? How do you know when to trigger? How do you know if the frame or the light is OK? How do you… make progress?
Now play this game with others :
Tool : How do you KNOW?
…when you’re a poet, a photographer, a teacher, a priest, a spouse, a journalist, a blogger, a writer, an architect.
And yesss, haecceity : you can be all of them, right?
Thanks for reading!
Let us enrich ourselves with our mutual differences.
“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 :
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)
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!