Event VS Structure

“Event VS Structure” – This is a title, right?

A philosophical problem I pick like a screwdriver, to examine it.

  1. A Structure, it can be a rule, a law, a “it’s the way things are”, a habit, a skeleton under things, an axle, a map, a followed road.
  2. An Event is what suddenly happens, it’s life, it’s a surprise, an accident, a happiness, a present, a mishap, a disturbance, a movement, a change.

 

This article is an invitation. The game will be : choose your structure, and invent an event :

Where do they touch? Is it good, bad? What happens? Can an event change a structure, or entertain it? Destroy it? What then? Is a new structure needed? Is there a thirst for other events? What is a suite of events? Can a structure hide another one? What triggered the event? Another structure? Can a structure contain an inner “events invention”? Do you have to protect the structure against events? Are there Metastructures? Do a structure USE events to grow, to increase knowledge, to breathe life in? What is a mutation? What is a call for event?

Structure : Battle? Symphony? Plan? Marriage? Company? Life? Body?

Suddenly, an Event. Mutation, change, disease, sudden victory, cut, inspiration, meeting another structure, thoughts, failure, ending, bend, ideas…

Does an event have a structure?

 

What do you choose to study?

 

Thanks for reading!

 

(anapaula380)11263642_1579985992255706_178525723_n.jpg

Instagram : anapaula

 

Advertisements

Hegel’s “Unhappy Consciousness” as a pattern for us all

ONE

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!

TWO

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?

THREE

“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.

FOUR :

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?

FIVE :

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!

1310367807732597319_259996796.jpg

1492202461263185165_259996796.jpg

1363299956089230976_259996796.jpg

Instagram : itspeteski

Elbowing the Audience by killing the Suspension of Disbelief

“Opera is when a guy gets stabbed in the back and,
instead of bleeding, he sings.”
R. Benchley

 

ONE

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.

TWO

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.

  • In theater, directors began to play with the old “suspension of disbelief” trick : keeping the lights on in the room, allowing characters to call out to the audience.
  • In novels, the “omniscient narrator” began to speak to the reader (about his doubts, or the way the story was told).
  • In movies, characters suddenly watched the spectator, talking to him (Cf Pierrot le Fou, Godard).

THREE

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…

TOOL :

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!

 

1127563067526986335_1204809845.jpg

Instagram : __bodylanguage__

 

#Deleuze about classification

“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”.

 

1526801049263597330_40270600
#minimalism #minimalist #minimalistic #minimalistics #minimal #insect #minimalobsession #photooftheday #minimalninja #instaminim #minimalisbd #simple #simplicity #keepitsimple #minimalplanet #love #instagood #minimalhunter #minimalista #minimalismo #beautiful #art #lessismore #simpleandpure #negativespace

 

 

Fuir -> To Flee/To Leak – a #Deleuze word game

Fuir is a French verb, well, TWO French verbs, which are homonyms :

  1. Fuir : To flee
  2. Fuir : To leak

Therefore, it’s the same for “la fuite”, two homonyms :

  1. Fuite : a flight, an escape
  2. Fuite : a leak

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 :

  • Fuite de capitaux : Capital flight (a leak, a flee)
  • Fuite des cerveaux : Brain drain (idem)
  • Ligne de fuite : Convergence line (in French, so, more like “a lign of flight”)

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!

2014-10-21_1413908135.jpg

 

Socrates has a question for you

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!

986933118940832988_40270600.jpg

Let us enrich ourselves with our mutual differences.

Paul Valéry