There is no Sky of Ideas

Found this idea in a book about Deleuze. I share. Share, then.

 

This good old Plato had a funny idea.

To separate :

  1. the world of the perceptible in which we live
  2. the world of ideas where they are fixed for eternity

 

When we judge someone we compare a pure idea, an idea of perfection, with a reality.

Then we declare something.

Is what we see worthy of the general idea?

Well, then we can give a rating, a grade.

 

Problem is it doesn’t work like that.

There is no Sky of Ideas.

 

We all constantly want to escape that. We want to embark. We want to become. We search for sense, and meanings, and feelings. We dig. We watch. We cook and bake our life with what we find. We perpetually change. We hate to stay “the same”, to be put into boxes. We are alive and we want to try speeds and ways, to invent and to explore. We are simmering ourselves, and what we do… makes us understand a little more who we are and who we want to be; and this is called life.

 

There is no Sky of Ideas. Only possibilities.

Thanks for reading!

1257003234129328534_1204809845.jpg

Instagram : bodylanguage

Endless Amendments : Reality

There’s a tree, in front of you, while you walk.

Perception. Your eyes send images to your brain. “It’s a tree”.

In a second, you brain has the image, thus the word and the concept linked to it.

You brain has a powerful tool : Analogy.

If it “looks” like a tree, thus you decide it’s probably one. Then you watch and fix, adapt.

Analogy is pretty good for representations, drawings…

If you hear something behind you, your brain computes immediately a 3D-Map of what is probably there. Then your turn around and your eyes fix, amend the “reality”.

Successive drafts, like instant sketches…

Endless Amendments…

 

Yes, it’s splitting hairs the French way, to imagine dials. Donc :

  1. What if a word was a tack? And a strong one…
  2. What happens when our senses send us something else than the tacked word?
  3. How do we know that all these are the Letter A?
  4. Who are those who think with preconceiveness?
  5. Why am I wary of words (as labels)?
  6. What are hallucinations?
  7. Why should we train ourselves to endless improve, enrich, amend what we think we know?
  8. What is movement, here? Haeccity?
  9. What is to plug with possibilities and propositions?
  10. What does “She’s mean” mean?
  11. Really?

 

Have a great day!

 

68f0ecba36164eca5e71468f8cd56c4c.jpg

 

01ZKkPtr8OYKN8Df46fI9AFm1Grdlo7ftMzcOHrcPX2_FK6X4R-0MXhMFWzlDcZ0w71hMJcy3bYLq3gpeNUsnYrslk7APZsVJe2Ay-ZB2dOsPFkB6QaUURZHLKB2LxXi2QBtrKL9K8IW4nwCR3UuA7iWohv4Nxs3TVL2TZI4NnBy2Fo92_3br8ZNw8Mzo1Xd0huW26FMEh82Twpfj7rAuXfm5hgc7jv1npkd.jpg

 

“It wasn’t a mini-tornado, these don’t exist”

As the weather is a bit stormy these days in France, some trees fell, some houses lost their roof, and you read articles in the press telling about mini-tornadoes, with an explicit picture (you can google.fr “mini tornade”).

Immediately, weather specialists stand up in furia and learnedly explain to the community that “It wasn’t a mini-tornado, these don’t exist”. You see their point : categories, how “real” tornadoes appears, etc.

As if you’d slap your little boy in the face because he plays with cars. “It’s not a car, silly, it’s a toy car!“. Bim!

There is something to notice here, a pattern we should watch closely.

At first you want to say “Breathe, buddy”. This thing looks like a mini-tornado, so why can’t people use this word? What’s the point with definitions, here? Isn’t, like a “toy car”, mini itself enough to say “not real”? What if we obey? It’s not a mini tornado. So what?

 

It’s like a cristallization of our problems with words and reality.

  1. Reality is real. Your house really lost its roof, even if mini-tornadoes “don’t exist”. Words are impartation, values – and names are conferred words.
  2. When we think about someone, we have a bunch of labels all ready, and the person disappears under stickers. It is convenient, but wrong.
  3. We often amalgamate the word and the reality, which deprives us from intelligence. A word closes the box, letting us stuck in stupid simplicity.
  4. What else?

 

“Haecceity” is about Labels on your Forehead, from where I copy paste this :

Deleuze says we are more accurately longitudes and latitudes, a group of different speeds and slownesses, an individual, a singularity, constantly inventing grapes of possibilities, a play of forces or encounters.

 

Thanks for reading!

(jenamalone)925340_1501739293429302_129233518_n.jpg

Instagram : jenamalone

 

 

IMG_20180102_082527.jpg