Complex Water vs Simple Delights

Found this idea while listening to many new Progressive Rock tracks. From oldies to new things, I listened to a dozen albums (it’ll be another article), until something materializes

…between four “poles”, inside a square, showing me what I seek in this music.

ONE

The first pole is Esthesis. A very clean sound, changes, interesting instruments. But there’s a weakness, a strange one: chords and harmonies are static, and they are… simple. And if they change, it’s to come back immediately into “simple”.

It’s quiet, pleasant, harmless, it’s “simple water”.

TWO

The second pole is Dream Theater. Take any track. It’s fast, powerful, always changing, fireworky (listen loud!). But they build nothing! Watch the drummer…

It’s “complicated water”. No taste, bland, nothing-music, only energy. Technicians virtuosity, “things”…

THREE

The third pole is Fish on Friday. Suddenly more… comfortable. Much more quiet, like the first group, almost bland. But, like in the last Pink Floyd albums, they know something about giving pleasure harmonically.

It’s a good little thing. Like a petit four.

FOUR

The fourth pole is Flower Kings. A 27-minutes piece where they try to build something. Forget the nincompoopy lyrics, go to 20’20”, and watch them building something. They have pleasure! The bassist knows how to wait or accelerate. The drummer is present (instead of pattering like an idiot). And at 23′, the infinite modulante Puccini-esque crescendo gives me goosebumps.

Well this is a square, a four-points machine, a structure. You can study poetry or photography, love or sex, anything with that.

  1. Simple bland?
  2. Complex boring?
  3. Simple tasty?
  4. Complex tasty?

Each one has advantages! A good glass of water is great. Dancing on big DJ music is cool. Enjoying a complex whisky in winter is perfect. Having a 6 hours conversation with someone who likes it is fantastic.

But everywhere, a little tenderness, OK?

Merry Christmas, thanks for reading!

Complex Tasty “too much too much more more I like it” example:

Structures against Changes

Again, always:

“How to catch what moves, generates, leaks, becomes, invents, slips, spurges… instead of contemplating what we think is fixe, immutable, eternal, stable, immobile?”

Today I like it because I think about models:

“A model is a lie that helps you see the truth”

– H. Skipper

So there’s a bias: the propensity of the thinker to believe that the model IS the principle of people’s actions. That’s wrong because “Haecceity”: people move, mutate, and invent!

We have time to think outside of life, but when we’re inside of the flow, models and rules are just “grids”. Life’s more about strategies, hesitations, adaptation and attempts. We try to plug!

Nevertheless, structures are useful, they are tools to watch, magnifiers or rulers.

What I’d like to study, in a given field, is “how structures change”.

We also could study the difference between structure (or model) and practices, or how it is a mistake to trust “habits” and customs. In fact: surprises!

Working with models is great but they are virtual cages, and we lose a substance: the complexity of the human mind.

That’s the purpose of the at-the-top quote: “How to catch what…”

Thanks for reading!

To consider the world like something to decipher

“To consider the world like something to decipher”, says Gilles Deleuze, “to be mindful to signs is a gift”.

Decipher is a splendid word, right? What’s the engine?

  • We are structuralists (we find some knowledge on systematic structures)
  • We are phenomenologists (we find some knowledge on pure experience)

Hey, maybe we’re post-structuralists (doesn’t that sound good?)!

Here’s Wikipedia :

A post-structuralist approach argues that to understand an object (e.g., a text), it is necessary to study both the object itself and the systems of knowledge that produced the object.

 

So when we watch a person, an object, a text, as we globally function with analogies, we seek structures, skeletons inside. And then we watch something else…

Therefore if a new teacher enters the room, we quickly seek, we try to decipher if he’s a Type (an Archetype?) – is he a Boss, a Preacher, a Guide? Are his ways chaotic, structured? What’s his pace?

We seek structures, but also we notice. What do we notice? Signs.

What do we expect? What is disappointment, here? How do we offset against disappointment?

Proust says he has a burden : for him, things (persons, events, anything) HAVE TO recall him something else – or have to make him imagine something else.

Let’s call it the addiction of links.

All this, because we seek. We need to decipher.

Effort of the will is not enough – Deleuze mentions “Those truths of the intelligence that lack the claw of necessity”.

What do you think?

 

 

IMG_8266.jpg

 

 

A possible Machine-Manifesto for afrenchtoolbox

Here’s to the ones who dream
Foolish as they may seem
Here’s to the hearts that ache
Here’s to the mess we make

She told me
“A bit of madness is key
To give us new colors to see

 

I could use a deleuzian concept for this blog : Machine… a word Gilles Deleuze used for S/Z of Roland Barthes, too. Those who know, will know.

My blog is a Machine, an entity which swallows things, ideas, concepts, memories, sights, life, quotes, website. Anything can enter my blog and will potentially come out a few paragraphs later like a little candypoo.

The machine itself is a bit quirky :

  • It’s changing all the time
  • It’s casual (because I’m an amateur, and… “I’ve seen things…”)
  • It’s multi-faceted
  • It contains plenty of little engines

 

Many little engines are indeed running in operation here.

  • Recycler (I use old letters, emails, diary, even my own blog)
  • Thief (I steal concepts from many books or articles, and I built up two bookshelves of “books with seeds” for this purpose).
  • Many mouths (sociology, music, art, psychology, parenting, etc).
  • Antennas. To guess.
  • Combiner that links ideas that should never be linked.
  • Microscope that searches tools, structures, patterns, skeletons.
  • Translation : I’m French and I write in English on purpose. Like a “necessary displacement”, an important decenterization. I needed it.
  • Collecting : I like to gather ideas like seashells, which will in the end draw something, globally.
  • Blender mixing concepts or domains to see what spillspurts out.
  • Frenchiness : I don’t work that much, I’m casual and I like to define my own rules. I’m disobedient. And certainly not steady. And I judge. Ohlalaaaaa.
  • A bunch of tools : a map drawer, a mirror, a fences jumper, a rules eroder, a veiled referencer.
  • Hydra : A child having fun. A storyteller. A thinker. A lover. A father. A bookseller.
  • Inchoater (“don’t finish, please, and let it opened”).
  • Grid : most of the time unappropriate, to see what it can see.
  • Energy. It’s been provided – at the beginning – by the golden knowledge that a splendid high-level of conversation can exist. It stayed in the machine, like a burning core. This core radioactivate a wave : SHARE.

 

This machine held me alive for a long time! Today it’s a part of me. A daily one. I’m this machine. I like to blog!

Most of the time, everything I put in it helps me to know who I am, what I want, what I’ve been through, what I wish, what makes me smiles.

This article was the meta-article of the month, yeyyyy.

Is your blog a machine too? What is YOUR machine made of? Do you need to decenter too? Why?

 

Have a great day!

 

Here’s to the mess we make

1339279204319285412_1204809845.jpg

Instagram : bodylanguage

 

Pecking ways & means of apprehend a work of art

#French #Blogging in #English : un Songe

Finder Keeper Sharer, “What is my blog about?”

 

 

Everybody’s talking about “golden voices”. But don’t you hear, when Emma Stone speaks at the beginning of the clip, that her voice is made of silver?? There’s a veil. It’s silver. Period.

Squares, Fractals & Butterflies : it seems that there are… 2 kinds of cultural hunger

It seems that there are 2 kinds of cultural hunger.

Well, several of us human beings don’t HAVE this hunger. They want to jump from a trance to another. They don’t like to read, nor to think, nor the silence, nor nor nor. They want TV, entertainment, being busy, shopping and all tralala. Good.

Hungry?

  1. I noticed that some people are very curious, but… Paradoxically… IN THEIR SQUARE. They thus become huge specialists, taciturn or full of energy, silent or sharing their passion everywhere… Food. Fashion. Architecture. Cinema. They stay in it and go deeper.
  2. Some others are very curious… to find and explore unknown territories, and extend what they already have. They butterfly (oh allow me to invent this verb OK?) every time and everywhere they can. Oh this. Oh that! Psychology, Arts, Photography, Teaching, Cars, they never stop.

(As “to butterfly” is a culinary real verb which means “to split and open”, I associate this to the “fly like a” and I’m happy, thank youuu)

 

In a way, there’s a way to be both. To stay in your square (example : baking, or fashion), but exploring many types, countries, eras, centuries. It’s all about VARIATIONS : you like the differences between cultures and dates. Like the thin details of a shore draws fractally infinite motives. You can spend your life on Science Fiction novels like that. Good!

 

Me?

My Instagram is marked “constantly random”. My blog is about plenty of things (classical music, architecture, self help, lyrics, painters, photographers, astrology, language, movies or management). And you should see my bookshelves! Type 2.

But :

UNDER that, I know that I constantly seek the same things : Patterns. Motives. Structures. Seeds. In a way, I am an impostor. I care about architecture, in photography, in poetry, because I care about limits, creativity and between-words-mysteries. I’m looking under carpets, each time. I’m obsessed by “finding the other side” and activate it. With the act of sharing. With weaving two opposite energies. With oblique approaches and paradoxes. With love and its ways and paths. And how to heal from wounds…

As for today I wrote 682 articles about plenty of things, but I care about a dozen. Probably less.

OK, I admit it.

I’m in a SQUARE, like everyone. My quest is little :

How to live, how to give, how to stand up honestly…

Where do you stand?

 

Thanks for reading!

volkovteatr_-_____________________________________________.________________________.__festival___theatre__youth______________________________________________________________.jpg

Instagram : volkovteatr

 

 

 

Dexterous Swinging Between Two Properties

…du balancement adroit de ces deux propriétés…
…of the dexterous swinging between these two properties…

I found this great tool, this “pattern” in a Paul Valéry‘s notebook. He was a poet and a philosopher and was, here, thinking about the process of consciousness.

(I won’t translate it here, but let’s say he talks about the swinging between consciousness and unconsciousness, the first one as an engine to drive the production of the other one).

If you’re a psychoanalyst, it’s interesting, you’ll try to link this with Freud’s theories, etc. But with my cheap structuralist mind, I operate on it – to extract its minitool :

dexterous swinging between these two properties

Swinging means you go from one thing to the other one, and vice-versa. Dexterous means you know your doubletool, you are a pilot of it. You just have to find the field where to use this.

  • Reason and Instinct?
  • Skills and Attempts?
  • Talking and Listening?
  • Passion and Casualness?
  • Fast and Slow?
  • Following orders (or rules) and Following your mind?
  • Control and Let go?
  • Fight and Flee?

 

Find other examples. You have now your two “aspects”.

Then think about a “dexterous swinging” between the two.

Then, apply your wooden tool to your field : photographer, poet, soldier, writer, blogger, designer, architect, gardener, who knows… What do you find?

You are GOOD in playing your TWO FACETS. What does that mean? How do you play that? Can you teach it? How do you think it? Can you apply your method to other fields?

 

Thanks for reading!

 

(ashleymcky)1208223_1057966637564079_2141019712_n.jpg

Instagram : ashleymcky

 

A to B : Frontiers & Movements

Call it “cheap structuralism”, because it is what it is. Or topography.

Here I choose to casually watch two territories, A and B.

It can be two apartments, two countries, but also two states (healthy/sick, or single/in couple), two styles, two blogs, anything by two.

Then you can begin to play :

  • If there’s a A and a B there’s a frontier. What is it made of?
  • Is it a line, like between two countries? Is it a wall? Symbolic?
  • A place (called C) which is a “space between”?
  • Do you have to study or focus on C?
  • Is there a door or many doors? Who opens, closes?
  • A bridge? Who build it?
  • Are A and B bonded? By what?
  • A and B can be different things (a house/outside) or the same nature (two people?)
  • When you have A and now also B, you own both. Kill the frontier, or keep both distinct territories inside you, like two facets? Like the two Germanies?
  • A becomes B is a mutation. Then where’s the border?
  • Rubicon process : once you crossed the border, A doesn’t “exist” for you anymore. Burnt bridge!

The tool is funny to use : determine if your problem can be structured as A and B (Do I have to live in the same place as my lover? Should I merge my two blogs? What is convalescence?).

Thanks for reading!

(thistlemilk)11358067_1434686386838338_1185576769_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