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

Many mainstream movies have this pattern : “Evil vs Good”, and a good villain is funny, right?

Today I’ll play a cross-game with another pattern : “Chaos vs Order”.

It can be similar : “Evil brings Chaos, and Good brings back Order”.

But of course you’re like me, sensing, that the contrary is true, and probably more interesting…

Evil = Order, like the First Order in Star Wars, and the perfectly aligned Nazis army.

Order means “every rule obeyed”, and that’s a bit 1984…

Yesterday I watched “A little Chaos“, a charming little film (directed by Alan Rickman!) : chaos brought by an inventing gardener hired by Le Nôtre – while Louis XIV was building Versailles, in France.

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

“Something uniquely French”? Order, but with a little chaos, or a casualness, maybe a slice of disobedience (to the rules), effortless elegance, imperfections embrace. Yeah, that’s the Parisian Elegance…

 

Well, I have this in mind since I saw “perfect gardens” – my brain was craving for fantasy! There’s a wiki for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_garden_types –

 

Well, is it an article? Beginning with cinema, then France, then gardening? In what other fields of the human activities do we have to find our own frontier, balance, between chaos and order? In rocket science, 100% order, right? Art of Battle : 80%? What is discipline? What and where is invention? Can we have both at the same time? Differences of nature, quantity, places?

Have a nice day!

 

plan_domainejean-francois_peneau.jpg

Advertisements

An embarrassing rigmaroling douchebag : the ambitious

Y’all workers know the type : bossy boots, low level managers and tinpot dictators. They are proud to have their cap. They are useless and painful, and voilà. There are many ways of dealing with these donkeys, from murder to indifference by way of traps and other methodical counter-attacks. Weapon of choice!

As pronounced the wise man : one can take everything, but they won’t have my soul, EVER.

 

Nope, the douchebag of the day is the ambitious. It’s another type (though they’re cousins, right?).

The ambitious is at the bottom, but he wants to climb in the hierarchy. The ambitious has plenty of self-confidence, and a big, wooden, stubborn, strongly nutty stupid head. Watch him :

  • He lies. He reports and denounces. He has/fakes seriousness. He always seems “busy”. He is a bit agitated, like a hen, when a manager is around. He has “ideas” : the ambitious he is, and he has :

…the whole rigmarole, the whole panoply, the whole outfit and the whole shebang!

 

We ALL know the type, right?

What do they want, each of them?

The cap, silly! A little power that would make them important.

There’s no need to analyze further. It’s just another “bad sign”. Watch them move and talk like a living donkeypoo, but not too long. It’s too… embarrassing and somewhat gross, like a infirm hirsute farting dirty spider

 

Have a nice day!

33962025665_bcb2347925_b.jpg

 

 

 

Musetta is a pest in La Bohème (Puccini)

Don’t go, it’s about opéra but it’s short and there’s a pest!

La Bohème is this Puccini opera happening in Paris. Let’s make it quick :

Rodolfo is a poor writer living with a few pals (Marcello the painter, Colline the philosopher, Schaunard the musician) in the Latin Quarter (Paris) in the 1830s. He meets Mimi, who lives in another room in the building. They’ll become lovers (of course).

In the Act II, the four friends+Mimi are in a restaurant within a great crowd. Comes Musetta, “formerly Marcello’s sweetheart” with an elderly admirer. She’s hoping to reclaim Marcello’s attention, and Marcello is furious, jealous, and… in love. All this in songs!

OK.

We all have our comfort food, comfort film, comfort anything.

My COA (Comfort Opera Act – YESSS it can beeee) is Act II of La Bohème.

It’s fast, rich, crowded, full of surprises (lovers, drama, plenty of fun, kids, a Parpignol (who sells toys to kids)) and there’s a happy fanfare at the end!

Musetta is the bigger than life pest-and-pretty. Opera is exaggeration? Musetta is bigger than crazy, and the singers who play her have obviously plenty of fun.

Colored, pest, adorable and extraverted, Musetta is also visibly a delight for costume designers

Push the levers, Jane!

There are hundreds of ways of playing this character. Some days, I compare (YouTube is your friend) and I laugh a lot : Poor Marcello!

Have a nice day!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Game : Find Musetta in this finale :

act-two-boheme.jpg

 

Sydney Long, Australian painter

Sydney Long (1871 – 1955) was an Australian artist. People talk about “Art Nouveau”, or “Symbolism”. You’ll read plenty about him.

What I like is… I know it’s not great, but I constantly come back to see a little more. A way of unfinishing his work. A strange tree. A nice light. Details that make me wonder all the time : Why this? Why that?

a809e45dd58b5dba5bfbe4aa6744ee01

11_Streeton_Spirit-of-Drought_1896

840c304a898904efc9d40cea420c4a07

3962f3420a172c86ac58141905b832d1--australian-painting-australian-artists

6102##S

4203322-3x2-940x627

31828010

90291058

a160639af482ce12f09c33c7f1b6f4db

tumblr_nqa4xcMRRv1ryflmqo2_1280

Word’s Power : “Une Araignée” vs “A Spider”

Some words have a power.

Therefore, because they have a form of newness, foreign words can have a very strong power. For me, for example, the world BETRAYAL is almost diabolical. It frightens me! Betrayal. It sounds like – maybe because of Belial? – the essence of the Devil. Who we call in France : Le Diable. Brrrr…

“Spider” sounds very innocent – is it? I think of spiderman, or of a little spider, an harmless one. I wonder what it is for English speakers… The French word for this fascinating animal is ARAIGNÉE.

For a French, the word ARAIGNÉE is horrible when you examine (and hear) it. You immediately see a frightening dangerous horrible spider. You don’t laugh anymore. You feel the chill along your backbone… It’s not cute at all. At all! And, oh, sorry, it’s feminine…

This word, araignée, is like containing the essence of it all. It’s haunted. You feel the creepyness of it, just with the sound : araignée. It’s awful, complex, vicious, archetypically incomprehensible…

Have you met someone like une araignée one day? What happened? Did you survive? Did she trapcatch you? Was she haunted by death or a curse? How come you realized she was one? A web? Dead eyes? Some weird skill? What was her venom made of? Did you sicksleep, or die slowly, or lose all reason? Did she have bored slaves (like the flies on the first picture)?

What are other terrible words? Why? Why are some words so charged?

Yes, yes : their buttonlike many eyes… Brrrr…

 

OddlyShapedVietnameseSpiderWithFlies.jpg

insect-fauna-invertebrate-cobweb-close-up-spider-eyes-hotel-arachnid-ugly-hunt-tarantula-frightening-macro-photography-arthropod-arachnophobia-european-garden-spider-wolf-spider-araneus-terrible-crannies-orb-weaver-spider-tegena.jpg

 

Inner Doppelganger Turmoil

Last week I had to talk for five minutes with a 25 years old woman, and this demoiselle probably saw my eyes growing and gazing at her with conturmoilfusion, while I was trying not to show it.

No she wasn’t transforming herself into a chorizo-nosed beaver : It was me. I was victim of the Inner Doppelganger schock.

Yeahhh you know the legend : each person has a doppelganger, somewhere on Earth. And it’s disturbing to meet someone’s look-alike, right?

This lady looked like a friend of mine, but… not that much. But her voice was the same. Then the way she talked was the same. Then the way she was moving was the same. Then the way she stood up was the same. Her silhouette and height were the same. Then the kind of books she was talking about was from the same field the “original” one liked…

Not outside doppelganger : inner doppelganger.

I wonder what it means, but I immediately thought of R. Sheldrake, who invented the concept of the morphic fields, which he extended to collective inconscious, etc. Strange attractors…

So, like Archetypes, there is maybe only a finite number of “ways of developing”. Maybe, in certain conditions (education, peoples around, etc), you can begin a personality which is almost the same as someone else. Like an doppelganger of the inside!

Thanks for reading!

1475801_10152097541223713_281338458_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