Showing posts with label En vrac/Miscellaneous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label En vrac/Miscellaneous. Show all posts

Sunday 7 July 2019

Golems in the closet


For some time now I have been preoccupied by and writing on the ordeals and atrocities women face, ranging from the banal which should never have become banal, to the downright inhuman. I wrote several pieces on marital rape, on the various trauma men inflict women, consciously or not, throughout their life. With this new series, Golems, I deliberately chose to always open each poem with the same line, and to always narrate the story from a male point of view not to highlight the fact that each issues tackled is the same or of the same importance, but that's it's a generic, standard masculine reaction.

Above all, I wanted to show how these behaviours, and most people's reaction to them, are normalised. Frequently people don't bat an eye when a women is raped by her husband. I've heard some men say that “a wife raped by her husband” is antinomic. Notice the 'some men'. Of course it's a minority which tends to exert its need to be vocal, but many men won't know the difference, and think consent once given is thereby always granted. I'm not saying a husband should ask his wife's permission to have sex every time he feels horny, but I'm saying that if his wife says 'no' then that 'no' shouldn't be debated, debatable. Same goes for unmarried couples, sex buddies, one night stands, whatever.

In my previous pieces women weren't the only focus though, as their fate is almost always entwined with that of their children. In these new instances I have tried to focus on women to shine a single light on their plight so we realise that their basic rights are regularly denied, that they always have to fight against something. We men have it easy, as we made the laws long ago, when our grip on women was even stronger than it is now.

We need more accurate, more targetted, more up-to-date, fairer laws addressing these issues, but in order to root out the problem we also need a different type of education. We perpetuate the stereotypes we are inculcated and it seeps through everything, it even infects our language, especially in French and languages which differentiate gender by using the male pronoun and nouns most of the time. We condition boys and girls alike, and funnel them into a frame of reference and a format which go against the notions of equality and of justice. We take it for granted that as our parents were this and that, we necessarily have to be this and that. Lots of balderdash to me.

I'm a man who was raised with these precepts. I do not remember any specific occasion, but I must have been guilty, early in my twenties, of importuning a girl when drunk, of making her feel uncomfortable, therefore abusing the position of power I didn't know I had. I am clean out of it, been so for more than a decade and a half. As a teacher, I participate in and witness slow but steady changes in mentalities, a slight shift of the paradigm, but it's much too slow to be effective. We need to address this frontally, we need to go nationwide, without taboo, and believe me: there won't be any nut-kicking (for most of us).

To wrap up this already-too-long post, I'll just say that the title to the series stands for all the various monsters we can encounter in mythologies and legends, and is very meaningful to me. I'm not going to break down each poem, or give an overarching analysis of the series, but of course they each do have a particular signification, as have many elements within the poems, their structure, their patterns. I do hope you “enjoyed” reading them, that you found them engaging enough, that they gave you food for thought.

For more comfort, you can access the series right here (start at the bottom).

Take care,

Rodolphe
 

Friday 28 June 2019

Free Fall


I was doing research for a poem some time ago, reading a few articles on birds of prey, when I was reminded of the hawk's incredible mating behaviour. First it's interesting to know that male and female hawks tend to be monogamous, staying with the same partner their whole life. Then they'll build their nest before the mating season begins, occasionally improving it later on during the season. Once this is done, they will engage in the mating proper.

They will circle around one another, rise up in the air at the same time, higher and higher up until the male eventually flies much higher up and lunges at the female. Both will then fly back up to that same height, and then resume their courtship with the same pattern. They will repeat this circular dance until the male finally dives and latches onto the female to mate, free-falling down to the ground. It lasts just a handful of seconds.

Hawks like the red-tailed can dive after a prey to speeds of up to 120 miles per hour (193km/h), so even though they won't reach speeds like these when mating, and even though they will be so very high up that it's not a danger, they will nonetheless free-fall, quite fast at that. It's not too hard for us to imagine what it feels like to trust someone enough to let everything go. We will all profess that we have done this at least once in our lives. And oh, of course, hawks do not endanger themselves free-falling, so like us it's a measured danger we take every time we make love with our partner.

If only we were only talking about measured danger. It's very tempting to draw parallels between hawks and us: they tend to be monogamous and to have only one lifelong partner, to build their nest before having offspring, and making improvements to it during the course of raising their chicks. Somehow, somewhat like us in that idealised, old world version of our world.

Both hawks surrender their natural instinct to fly in order to mate. They cannot reproduce if they are not in free fall. What natural capacity do we surrender when we make love? It's not a question of spatiality for us, as we do not abandon our capacity to walk or move. It's more to do with being naked and defenceless. It's about closing our eyes, lying on or near that special someone. About sleeping soundly with them. It's about surrendering our faculty to think straight, to rationalise. That's our free fall.

Our measured danger, once we have chosen a partner with whom we've built a nest, is to put our trust in them by handing a part, or parts, of our judgement so we both appreciate the distance between the apex of the spiralling up and ground zero. We trust our guts in that free fall towards the unknown, latched onto someone who like us is hurtling down – who lets themselves hurtle down with us – with only the safe knowledge that we're in this together.

And perhaps, occasionally, that poetic feeling, when hugging someone this close to our heart of hearts, of a hauntingly real, timeless free fall.
 

Thursday 27 June 2019

Camus, Scott, Camus, Sales. Yet another misquote.


Today I read this quote:

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend; they shall never be broken."

Attributed to, among all, Albert Camus. I had to chuckle at this.

After a quick search, it appears this quote appeared in an episode of One Tree Hill, in this form:

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend; they shall never be broken. But I wonder if there’s no breaking then there’s no healing, and if there’s no healing then there’s no learning. And if there’s no learning then there’s no struggle. But the struggle is a part of life. So must all hearts be broken?"

I dug deeper and found the French version:
"Heureux les coeurs qui peuvent plier car ils ne seront jamais brisés. Sont-ils si heureux que ça. Un coeur qui ne se brise pas ne peut pas guérir si on ne connait ni l'épreuve ni la guérisson on n'apprend rien et si l'on n'apprend rien on ne change pas. Mais les épreuves et les changements font partie de la vie. Tous les coeurs devraient-ils être brisés ?" 

It's funny how the Goodreads website attributes the French version to Albert Camus, but the English version first to Camus, but also to One Tree Hill (in the tags). Alternatively, I found many French websites referencing the series and quote together, and not linking it to Camus. There's more to it, but let me digress for a minute.

I know how many of you just don't care about the provenance of quote as long as it inspires and uplifts you. I've had this debate repeatedly here on this blog, during my literature classes at university and just about everywhere where books are involved. I get the 'being inspired' part, I really do. Otherwise quotes wouldn't be my post frequently used tag on the blog. But come on, you have to be intellectually honest, and whenever possible check who actually wrote the quote. Imagine you are a writer, and you come up with such a beautiful text that you share it with people. Then someone extracts a passage which they find absolutely amazing and share it with more people. You're happy, right? Your text and its message spread out like so many beautiful dandelion seeds in the summer breeze. Yet over time your quote gets misattributed to somebody more famous, because you're not famous, you're not even known. You'd be mad, and I'd say rightly so.

Back to our murky business. The person who came up with this is actually known, so please stop attributing it to Camus. He never wrote this and -- I could debate with specialists -- he never would have. It strikes me as too overtly biblical in tone, the which Camus wouldn't have done. This website probably nailed the source -- and the reason for the confusion -- for the quote. You can click on the link, but here's the entry:

"Blessed are the hearts that can bend; they shall never be broken."
Saint Francis de Sales.

Source/Notes: Variant translation: "Blessed are the hearts which bend, they never break." - The Beauties of Saint Francis de Sales, selected and translated from the writings of John Peter Camus (1829), p. 49. This quote is sometimes misattributed to Albert Camus.

I took the liberty to underline the names. We can see easily figure out why, after so many years, possible careless handling of names and a sloppy memory, the two people have been confused, as one fell into oblivion and the other remained up there in the pantheon of writers. And in our case it's even worse as John Peter Camus was only the translator, the real writer was Saint Francis de Sales (hence the biblical overtones). So it isn't just one person who fell into oblivion, but two.

I'll finish this rather long post (for what it's worth) by saying that of course Albert Camus isn't reaping any benefit from this. No pecuniary recompense is going to the Camus estate. My point is that more diversity in literature is always welcome, because people have a tendency to put literature into a small box in which only a handful of writers gave us a handful of memorable quotes and the rest is easily forgettable. As if, by the same token, a quote was more inspiring because Shakespeare or Camus had written than if it were a complete stranger. That's nonsense. There's power in all of us to say something true, timeless, unforgettable. Instagram and Reddit are rife with great, and as yet anonymous, talents. So look up, look around, and look sharp.
 
Variant translation: "Blessed are the hearts which bend, they never break" - The beauties of st. Francis de Sales, selected and translated from the writings of John Peter Camus (1829), p. 49. This quote is sometimes misattributed to Albert Camus.
Read more at https://izquotes.com/author/saint-francis-de-sales
Source/Notes:
Variant translation: "Blessed are the hearts which bend, they never break" - The beauties of st. Francis de Sales, selected and translated from the writings of John Peter Camus (1829), p. 49. This quote is sometimes misattributed to Albert Camus.

Read more at https://izquotes.com/author/saint-francis-de-sales
Source/Notes:
Variant translation: "Blessed are the hearts which bend, they never break" - The beauties of st. Francis de Sales, selected and translated from the writings of John Peter Camus (1829), p. 49. This quote is sometimes misattributed to Albert Camus.

Read more at https://izquotes.com/author/saint-francis-de-sales
Source/Notes:
Variant translation: "Blessed are the hearts which bend, they never break" - The beauties of st. Francis de Sales, selected and translated from the writings of John Peter Camus (1829), p. 49. This quote is sometimes misattributed to Albert Camus.

Read more at https://izquotes.com/author/saint-francis-de-sales

Nemesis Ex Machina


Its fiery, devilish eyes delved into mine. Not a flicker of fear, not even a frisson of war-frenzy. When out of the blue the beast landed on the window sill, time trembled on its talons and stood still. I was astonished out of my wits and beheld the behemoth, majestic, arrogant. It seemed impervious to the heat outside, caparisoned in feathers of steely pride. I was speared through by those yellow, beady eyes which decreed I was so insignificant I didn't exist. It lay there motionless, yet defiant.

The tension was so nerve-racking I could picture the howling of the wind, tumbleweeds rolling between us, and a dog barking in the distance. Time had been brought to a halt in an instant. And even though I didn't know for what purpose the colossal fiend had chosen my abode to reveal itself, but there was no doubt there was no way out of that confrontation. Warmongering was rustling its tenebrous plumage. I had to repulse the hordes of darkness.

I defied the stygian stench emanating from the demon and walked closer to the window, barring it entrance and affirming my determination to defend myself and my world it had come to destroy. Fuelled by willpower and survival instinct, I mustered a courage skaldic poets would have been proud to praise. I endeavoured to scare the brute off, executing ferocious dances of war, chanting imprecations and anathemas, cursing its offspring for generations upon generations. My arms and legs were as if possessed by the very god of war, but it seemed I only was in the grip of dread. The feral culver stood impassibly, gazing like a stoic stone idol of old.

I was left with no other choice. I had to take up arms. I quickly glanced around and there lay at my feet my camera's tripod. I raised it high above my head and with the loudest and most Viking scream I ever bellowed, and because the bugger didn't want to budge, I shoved the winged monstrosity off the edge. It nebulously flew across the street onto the opposite rooftop, and then turned around to face me, again. It had turned its appearance back to that of a normal pigeon but there, unfazed, it professed its archnemesisness. It told me in that ancient wordless language of warfare that the fight was only suspended, and that from now on I would have to watch the skies in fear.

But I have embraced my vikingness. I am ready.
 

Monday 17 June 2019

All our sunsets


A few days ago, a friend of mine asked me if I remembered the most beautiful sunset I had ever seen, because she had just seen the one she thought would stay with her for the rest of her days, high up in a mountain range. My first instinct was not to ask her to send a picture, but to describe it for me. Interestingly, she hadn't taken any picture of that particular sunset anyway, just as I didn't take any of mine. And today serendipity had it that another friend sent me a picture of the sky from her house, not at sunset but the sun clearly sunk behind the clouds, illumining them from below. The trees and the rooftops already dark. Several different types of clouds clog the sky. I could picture it for you, or include the picture, but that's not my point.

I've always been interested in those moments when we choose not to immortalise them with a picture, but rather with our senses. I didn't write “eyes”, but “senses”, and I think the crux of the matter is precisely here. Those moments are infinitely more profound when we deliberately choose to live them through, and fix them in our memories, however flimsy and transient this repository might prove over time. We forget, we correct, we transform, but perhaps not as much as we think.

This is some sort of a wager against time which we do when we record the greatest sunset we'll ever get to capture with our senses. We choose what gets to stay with us, and rather than a still picture which will be marvellous and will invariably make people think of their greatest sunset, we can describe what it was for us, why it was the greatest, and how the reds, the oranges and the yellows were like a shimmering explosion of colours in the entire sky, as if the world had come to an end and this apocalypse was mesmerising. It was the most amazing spectacle and we felt something inside us being moved to tears, or serenity. Perhaps it even changed us, who knows. It will be marvellous to tell, wonderful to share and will invariably remind our friends of their greatest sunset, or sky, or moonscape.

A snapshot of what we saw may be a more potent trigger for our brains, but those long minutes, perhaps hours, we spent watching this sunset have changed us much more than a picture can ever tell. Because ultimately what my two friends wanted me to see is how happy or serene or nostalgic they were. The sunset, the sky, appealed to something within them, they struck a chord which reverberated and filled them with an overwhelming feeling. And we bonded even more over a sunset we could never see with our own eyes, but we sure felt that sunset running along our spine.

Sure, we can't share a mental sunset with our friends, can we. We have no physical proof of its existence, haven't we. Or perhaps I just did. Its effect on us is what we choose to narrate, because it was inscribed in time. This sunset happened at a particular moment in our life and we soaked up as much as our senses would allow us. The chill in the air, the hotness of the sun-beaten stones, the light breeze of the incoming tide, the sounds of seagulls, perhaps music coming muffled from a party nearby, or perhaps the warmth of the tea in our cold hands. All of these contributed to making this the grandest, most memorable sunset of our lives...till the next came, or not

I was about to wrap up this post when I thought of something. In some weird way, these sunsets are like last words. I was reminded recently of how it's important to always say something meaningful when we part with our friends, and family. We love them, we had a great time, we'll definitely call them soon, thanks so much for coming. I don't remember what my mom's last words were to me, but there's no doubt it was something trivial. Instead, I have the luxury of getting to choose what I remember of her, I deliberately chose which sunset is the greatest for me because I have the clearest of memories of that particular moment, which no amount of pictures could even come close to brush. This sunset, which no one will ever witness, sure vibrates with people when I tell them the story. This sunset, as with all our sunsets, deserve to be immortalised, because at one point who knows, we may want to share them.
 

Saturday 15 June 2019

Last Letter to my Students on the Eve of their Final Exam


Dear all,

In a few days you will start the final race for what will essentially be your last days as "pupils". You will then become "students", and then "adults". You know me well enough to know I don't mark the distinction. We are all learners, after all, every step of the way, and you are in many regards adults already.

You all know that this race isn't a race against the others, but against yourself. You will have to find the mental strength, and for some of you the moral fortitude, to affront each exam. I have no doubt that every single one of you -- and I mean every, single, one of you -- has what it takes to get your diploma.

You realise that it will be easier for some of you than for others, but as I wrote earlier, this is a race against yourself: you will have to fight through your own insecurities, your own personal problems, your own doubts, and perhaps other people's doubts. Yet if I could make you see yourselves as I do, you'd sit every exam with pride in your hearts, with that sort of confidence which commands respect. You would walk with your head held high, uncaring of others, with your eyes fixed on the horizon where your goals are.

I have to be honest with you: all of you command my respect. I find truly admirable that you have come this far down the road. Some of you have had really hard lives. Some of you have issues which even adults wouldn't want to have because they wouldn't know how to deal with them. And yet you do. You have found the force within yourselves to keep on walking, against wind and tides; you have found the strength of character to move on against those who spat on the path you were treading and judged you, against your own family sometimes who didn't trust you, against situations in which you felt trapped. It is true that some of you have had to put one knee on the ground, but none of you has faltered, all of you got back up and went forward -- the most obvious proof being that you are here, now.

I have shown you, in class, that a momentary show of weakness is nothing, nothing in the face of who you will become. We are all Frodo setting out of the Shire, unsure of which way to go, conscious that every step of that way will be fraught with danger. Frodo knew what the object of his quest was, that no one before him had attempted what he had set out to do, and many had warned him against the vanity, the foolishness of such a quest. In the end, he had only a few of his friends at his side to confront the darkness.

He discovered that the darkness outside was nothing compared to that within him. Fighting his own demons was probably the hardest part of his mission. But he knew that he could count on Sam. And here I am, being a Sam for you, talking to you in the ruins of Osgiliath, with Mount Doom in plain sight across the ashen plateau of Gorgoroth. Here I am telling you that hope is not a foolish prospect, that the year it took Frodo to walk up there is the same year it took to arrive where you are now, that you can do it.

Many of us teachers have been Sams for you Frodos. We have carried you this far up the volcano, but the rest of the way into the Crack of Doom you will have to walk on your own, confident that we have done everything in our power to help and guide you, to assure you that your quest isn't futile, your efforts not vain, your weaknesses not really weaknesses after all.

That your quest shall be a success depends on you, and you alone. As a very wise lady said: "If you cannot find a way, no one will". Adversity is just a strong gust of wind which may disorient us, which may slap us so hard that we fall to the ground. Yet you will do what you have always done: get back up on your feet.

You know it is the last part of this journey. It was a rich, eventful year, which marks the end of an era which you will remember, years from now, with fondness perhaps, smiling as you realise how far you have come. Perhaps you will remember your old, daft teacher telling you about Frodo and Sam with a tear in his eye and you will wonder if your adventures will be put into songs. Well, let me tell you something: it isn't because you cannot hear the music that the lyrics aren't playing. You are writing one of these songs as we speak. Another one will soon begin after this one is sung. Remember: this is how Arda and Middle-earth were created, with a song.

So here we are, at the end of some things and at the beginning of others. I do hope you are as serene and confident as possible, ready to give it all and be done with this damned exam.

Thank you for this wonderful year. You have taught me many things; you have shown me the best, and sometimes the worst, in you; you have all grown up a bit, but above all you have been yourselves. I am happy and proud to have been part of the journey, yet it is time for me to wave goodbye from the threshold to my classroom and wish you the best possible future, the greatest possible happiness.

Take very good care of yourselves.

With fondness,

Your English Teacher

Monday 20 May 2019

This be the end


"But hatred gripped his heart tightly, making him tremble from head to toe. He would have liked to fight, one last time. To have the enemy within his reach, to see a blood that wasn't his. He looked away from the myriad droplets around him and went back to contemplating his gaping wound. It was being sucked inside his chest. In turn, he was sucked in. He saw only vast plains bleached by waving floors of blazing daisies, under a bare sun and the silvery reflections of a river in the distance, edged with reeds and dragonflies – yes, thousands of dragonflies dancing in the green wind of the grass, their wings rustling furiously, deafening, whirling around the tips of his fingers; he felt the hair on the nape of his neck bristle; the sun was duplicated to infinity, dazzling, repeated in thousands more suns in the iridescent prisms of their finely metallic and diaphanous, ridged elytra, and each of the thousands of suns on each of the thousands of facets burst with such blinding rage and such opaline wrath on the coruscating plains lying before him that he was forced to shield his face with his hand, and to close his eyes."
 

Wednesday 1 May 2019

On The Right To Listen and The Duty To Say Dumb Stuff


One of the most common rights we see in constitutions around the globe is the freedom of speech. The right to speak your mind. It is both our boon and our bane: we get to listen to the protectors of the environment and tolerance as well as the promoters of hatred and bigotry. Of course, it neither entails that everything said is intelligent, nor does it absolve anyone from saying anything stupid – not even remotely. Speaking one's mind offers the delicate and dangerous opportunity to glimpse inside said mind.

Following Milton's 1644 Aeropagitica and Paine's Age of Reason (1794-1807), I think it is possible to argue for the right to listen, as denying someone the right to speak denies the audience the right to listen. In fact, I'll argue further that the obligation to have someone say something stupid should be a corollary stipulated in the many constitutions which protect the freedom of speech.

Define stupid, I hear? Stupid as in: rejecting established laws of the physical world, rejecting accepted scientific facts, asserting evidence which baffle common sense, exhibiting great insensitivity towards those who suffer, anything which may cause harm to oneself or to others. Examples? Sure. God miraculously saving a cross whilst letting the roof of Notre Dame Cathedral burn. And a few years ago the face of Jesus appearing on a toast while he doesn't bat an eye at his priests abusing hundreds of thousands of children. I have a treasure trove of those.

I can already hear some grumbling at the back. Well, it's your right to be offended, certainly. The right to be offended is valid at all times, but I'm afraid it does not constitute an argument, especially one which should cut any argument short. Must I remind people that “[w]hat is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (In more recent years known as Hitchens's razor, but the occurrence of the concept dates back to at least the 19th Century).

Carlo Cipolla (1922-2000), an Italian economic historian, wrote an essay called The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976). Here are his five fundamental laws of stupidity (also available here):
  1. Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  2. The probability that a certain person will be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
  4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
  5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Let's assume that we are all part of non-stupid people, just for the sake of not developing any of those points further, them being self-evident, and dozens of examples having popped up in our heads.

I understand that the fewer stoopid people there are the better we should fare as a society, yet I contend that stupidity has its uses and its benefits - as long as we stick to the rulebook so we can still perceive the stupid character in what's being said. Yet I don't believe that someone thinking differently from me should be grounds for silencing said person, stupid people above all.

In a nutshell, my argument runs thus: I'd rather go on hearing the likes of Donald Trump and his ilk spew stupid things over and over again because it keeps my standards on their toes, and also because when somebody asserts something stupid as confidently as the president of the first economic power in the world, everyone's bound to stop and listen. The fact that many people, even from his own political side of the spectrum, recognise the content as moronic is for me a sign of a healthy society.

Of course I'm disregarding rule #1: I know there are more stupid people in circulation...I'm a teacher, and I've seen/am still seeing my daily share of stupidity. But I believe in the power of education, that it will prevail on the very, very long run. Even though stupid will always exist. Even though mistakes shall still be made. It takes an ex-stupid person to recognise a stupid person, as we've all believed, at some point, in a stupid theory. Perhaps we still do, in the dark of night when no one is watching.

No more of this, let's take a concrete example. This scientist claims she has discovered the cause for homosexuality, and a cure, and I believe that it would be wrong to discard the article altogether and put it on the garbage heap of nonsense. I think it's worth devoting a few minutes to read this woman's case. Why? For the sake of listening to her line of argument. Because only by listening to what they say can we rebuke and redress, only by understanding where their logic falters can we hope to root out this stupid thought and plant a seed of knowledge. If that's even possible. Stupidity goes too deep sometimes. I'm not certain this 'academic' has a basic understanding of human biology, and perhaps her religion's bias is blinding her, who knows, but I'm certain that if she were to understand and change her mind it could only come from a heavy dose of reason.

Yet reason and intelligence can sometimes be counter-productive. Intelligent arguments usually are fraught with jargon and become boring, while stupid arguments usually sound funny and stick to our twisted brains. The outrageous is taken away from its content by the funny, and only the punchline remains (thanks Augustine for the input!). The problem is that those with the loudest voices usually aren't the ones with the best logic, the best arguments, and the most sensible approach. There is a deep truth in: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.” W. B. Yeats, The Second Coming (1920). Stupid is catchy, smart slips the mind.

Sometimes, when one gets a lot of ideas in the hope that one good idea will come out, it also means that there's a handful of stupid ideas wedged in the thought process. Discarded, to boot, but they were nonetheless necessary to explore every possible options. Think about Donald Trump tweeting: “So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!” (10:39 AM - 15 Apr 2019 – my emphasis). The fact that he wrote “perhaps” and “could” indicates that he thought of that as a possible alternative to put out the fire. The fact that many immediately recognised this as a stupid strategy warmed my heart (pun intended...too soon?), because it meant that the vast majority of people understand the basic laws of physics...whilst the president of the country which publishes the most scientific and technical articles doesn't.

Stupid comments, stupid actions, stupid arguments make us think, even sometimes doubt. Think about the conscientious objector who doesn't want to fight in a war whom everyone believes to be rightful. Think about the teacher who tells you that the Earth is 4,000 years old. Think about the theoretical physicist who tells you that you and your computer, the ground, the centre of the Earth are being traversed, as we speak, by trillions upon trillions of neutrinos. You probably wouldn't believe one, perhaps two, because you would like to have evidence in order to believe. Had you not doubt, at some point, you wouldn't be so certain of all the things you're certain about.

At one point in our history we thought we were at the centre of our universe, we thought gravity didn't exist and that the sun revolved around us. Some of us were labelled 'stupid' because they doubted what was commonly accepted as knowledge, and challenged mainstream interpretations because the evidence they had painstakingly gathered pointed in another direction. One last quote to highlight my point: “Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt.” Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938).

Here's Hitchens touching upon a very similar issue.

Thursday 11 April 2019

Windworse


"Bad weather always looks worse through a window."

Tom Lehrer (b. 1928), mathematician, singer, songwriter, pianist.

There's a few good things to unpack from this quote. At first you may think he's only referring to the feeling of security one has when the storm, whether literal or metaphorical, hits the fan. But you could also see it has: "You can still go out, it's not as bad as you think it is...and we all have to weather storms."

Alternitavely, you could say that the window (which is a form of lens) distorts the bad weather outside (the real world) and remaining snugly into your comfort zone gives you a false sense of security.

Or you could see it as an invitation to come dance in the rain :)

To round it all up, Lehrer is the one who said: "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." So darn funny and true, and still relevant today.

Here's the Wikiquote to have a good laugh, he definitely was the quotable type :)

Wednesday 10 April 2019

Square Point²


Today, I stumbled upon this quote: "There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking."
Theodore Rubin, psychiatrist and writer (1923-2019).


While I do not know the context for this quote, I do know its origin. It's from Henri Poincaré's La Science et l'Hypothèse (1901): "Douter de tout ou tout croire, ce sont deux solutions également commodes, qui l'une et l'autre nous dispensent de réfléchir." Translated to "To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." It's often be re-quoted (adapted) but I feel that taken out of its context it doesn't say quite the same thing. Here's a bit of context:

"Quand on a un peu plus réfléchi, on a aperçu la place tenue par l’hypothèse ; on a vu que le mathématicien ne saurait s’en passer et que l’expérimentateur ne s’en passe pas davantage. Et alors, on s’est demandé si toutes ces constructions étaient bien solides et on a cru qu’un souffle allait les abattre. Être sceptique de cette façon, c’est encore être superficiel. Douter de tout ou tout croire, ce sont deux solutions également commodes, qui l’une et l’autre nous dispensent de réfléchir

Au lieu de prononcer une condamnation sommaire, nous devons donc examiner avec soin le rôle de l’hypothèse ; nous reconnaîtrons alors, non seulement qu’il est nécessaire, mais que le plus souvent il est légitime. Nous verrons aussi qu’il y a plusieurs sortes d’hypothèses, que les unes sont vérifiables et qu’une fois confirmées par l’expérience, elles deviennent des vérités fécondes ; que les autres, sans pouvoir nous induire en erreur, peuvent nous être utiles en fixant notre pensée, que d’autres enfin ne sont des hypothèses qu’en apparence et se réduisent à des définitions ou à des conventions déguisées."


Here's the English version:
"But upon more mature reflection the position held by hypothesis was seen; it was recognised that it is as necessary to the experimenter as it is to the mathematician. And then the doubt arose if all these constructions are built on solid foundations. The conclusion was drawn that a breath would bring them to the ground. This sceptical attitude does not escape the charge of superficiality. To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection

Instead of a summary condemnation we should examine with the utmost care the rôle of hypothesis; we shall then recognise not only that it is necessary, but that in most cases it is legitimate. We shall also see that there are several kinds of hypotheses; that some are verifiable, and when once confirmed by experiment become truths of great fertility; that others may be useful to us in fixing our ideas; and finally, that others are hypotheses only in appearance, and reduce to definitions or to conventions in disguise."
Here's the Wikisource to both texts (there's a link for the English translation on the left-hand side).


One could be tempted to disagree with Monsieur Poincaré, but he meant "to doubt" in the French way "douter de" almost means "to discard", to set aside as not being relevant, not being true or believable. He valued the importance of the hypothesis, which is a way of clearing the factual doubts which you may have regarding one postulate. But one could still be doubting this as a scientist shouldn't discard a doubt because he doesn't believe in it. Doubts should remain in the realm of facts, not in the realm of personal judgement or appreciation. Another important element in this regard is "This sceptical attitude does not escape the charge of superficiality" (which in my opinion is over-translated, as the idea is simply "To be skeptical in this way is to be superficial still"). To be skeptical for the sake of doubting isn't a scientific way to process an argument. In this sense, doubting isn't the right way forward, yet in the way he initally phrased it, and which is relatively absent when the quote is detached from its context, doubting something scientifically, putting the idea to the test to clear or confirm doubts, is positive, and scientific.

I don't think that explaining the 'believing' aspect of the quote is necessary, yet one could see the relevance of juxtaposing the two ideas: believing everything is bad in itself, as you don't question and can be blinded by personal agendas, or the spite of some disohnest people. Doubting everything is equally bad...if you continue doubting even after being given solid arguments to make your own idea. If you doubt positively, it can lead you to a wider frame of mind, to greater acceptance. Doubting doesn't dispense with the necessity of reflection, it entails it.

Doubt for doubt's sake, meh.
Belief for belief's sake, meh.

I hope I cleared the doubt that you didn't know was there :)

Saturday 30 March 2019

One thing lead to another


A few days ago, I stumbled upon this quote from Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964):

"Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it."

I didn't remember reading this, or in this form, in her short stories, so I looked it up. I found it in a letter O’Connor wrote in 1955 to a friend (letter available here):

“The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally. A higher paradox confounds emotion as well as reason and there are long periods in the lives of all of us, and of the saints, when the truth as revealed by faith is hideous, emotionally disturbing, downright repulsive. Witness the dark night of the soul in individual saints. Right now the whole world seems to be going through a dark night of the soul.”

The phrase, repeated twice, is ominous. The world seems to be toiling under the same dark night of the soul. I recognised it to be inspired by a poem by St John of the Cross*, even though it is not written verbatim. I'm too tired today to go deeper, so I'll leave you with the quote, the letter, the poem to outlast the night.

Flannery died at the same age I am today. All nights are dark, by definition, but not all of them are dark. Perhaps it is the same with souls, after all.



*Dark Night of the Soul
By St. John of the Cross
Translated by A.Z. Foreman


Once in the dark of night,
Inflamed with love and yearning, I arose
(O coming of delight!)
And went, as no one knows,
When all my house lay long in deep repose

All in the dark went right,
Down secret steps, disguised in other clothes,
(O coming of delight!)
In dark when no one knows,
When all my house lay long in deep repose.

And in the luck of night
In secret places where no other spied
I went without my sight
Without a light to guide
Except the heart that lit me from inside.

It guided me and shone
Surer than noonday sunlight over me,
And led me to the one
Whom only I could see
Deep in a place where only we could be.

O guiding dark of night!
O dark of night more darling than the dawn!
O night that can unite
A lover and loved one,
Lover and loved one moved in unison.

And on my flowering breast
Which I had kept for him and him alone
He slept as I caressed
And loved him for my own,
Breathing an air from redolent cedars blown.


And from the castle wall
The wind came down to winnow through his hair
Bidding his fingers fall,
Searing my throat with air
And all my senses were suspended there.


I stayed there to forget.
There on my lover, face to face, I lay.
All ended, and I let
My cares all fall away
Forgotten in the lilies on that day.

Here is the source for the poem.
 

Saturday 23 March 2019

Shakespeare's Ward


A few years ago, I wrote this article about this infamous "quote" from Shakespeare:

"I always feel happy. You know why? Because I don't expect anything from anyone; expectations always hurt. Life is short, so love your life. Be happy and keep smiling. Just live for yourself and always remember: Before you speak... Listen. Before you write... Think. Before you spend... Earn. Before you pray... Forgive. Before you hurt... Feel. Before you hate... Love. Before you quit... Try. Before you die... Live." 

At the time I debunked it as NOT-Shakespeare but left it at that. But a few days later I came across it on Reddit...I had to unearth the notebook in which I had written down a similar poem by William Arthur Ward which goes: 

"Before you speak, listen.
Before you write, think.
Before you spend, earn.
Before you invest, investigate.
Before you criticize, wait.
Before you pray, forgive.
Before you quit, try.
Before you retire, save.
Before you die, give."

I had noted it down for future reference and also in order to track its source. I had never taken the time to do this, so today I did. NO-EFFING-WHERE! Zilch, nada, rien, nought. Couldn't find the original source for the poem to save my life. Does anyone know? That's a question for Quora, since Reddit people took the bait.

Not quite the same poem. Lines 3 and 4 are missing from the Shax ref. Two lines are inserted in the Shax ref after "pray, forgive". Penultimate line is skipped, last line is altered (give/live). The Ward poem (I'll call it that for the time being) definitely has rhyming patterns: listen/earn; investigate/wait; forgive/give (even save). We do hear echoes in the pairs: speak/think; invest/investigate; wait, pray, save. I'm not a Ward specialist, but that's arguably a better disposition, phrasing, tone, structure, than the Shakesparean "equivalent". Less schmaltz, more pragmatically inspirational.

Ironically enough, when you google "William Arthur Ward", one first look won't yield the quote: you need a second, more careful look to find it. Not exactly buried, yet not in plain sight. My guts tell me we haven't seen the last of this affair [insert smiley of your choosing]. 

All in all, I'm still amazed that this quote still roams the outskirts of the Internet. 

Edit: I published this post, and then had an epiphany and found this Snopes article, for all intents and purposes. 

Sunday 10 February 2019

Ten years the same, ten years different


Every ten years each of us becomes Theseus' ship, or a ship of sorts. Allow me to clarify what I mean by this. Legend has it that the famous ship sailed by the hero Theseus was kept in a dry dock, prefiguring what we do with some museum pieces, for all to behold the vessel that had enabled so many feats of prowess. Plutarch wrote in this piece (nicely translated by John Dryden) that as some of the ship's planks started to rot they were replaced, and that year after year all of the original planks had been replaced so that it was logical for some to contend the very existence of Theseus' ship. If no original piece remains, it can't be the same ship, can it?

To cut a very long story short, the issue has been debated up until now, and is likely to remain so for a long time. It didn't help that Thomas Hobbes introduced a spin-off to the story (in De Corpore, 1655): the Athenians who replaced the rotten planks didn't have the heart to throw them away, but kept them in a dry place for future generations to manage. Imagine now that these future generations repaired the rotten planks and reassembled the ship to its original form. Which one would be the “real” ship of Theseus?

You might have seen me coming by now: it's sort of the same thing with us. It is now common knowledge that many, many cells in our body have a life span, that they die and are replaced in a continuous cycle. In just a few days our intestines will have renewed themselves completely. Taste buds in ten to fifteen days. It takes two weeks to a month for our body to renew its skin cells entirely. Same for our lungs. Liver cells renew in a few months (four or so). Every three to six years not a single hair on our head is the same. Bones take a decade to regenerate, while studies show that the stem cells in the heart are replaced over the course of twenty years or so.

So...are we still the same? If our entire body is completely renewed in the course of ten years, we can't really be the same “us”, can we? A person aged eighty will have shed its body eight times over, like a spider shedding its casing so it can grow. Those who are keen to question the ontological paradox cannot ignore that this comes with some caveats: only the cornea in your eyes renews its cells, the rest of the eye is the “same” age as you are. The brain doesn't renew anything during its lifespan – which therefore corresponds to your lifetime. So it must be something else.

Heraclitus proposes to answer this by taking the analogy of the river: if you step in a river one day, and you step in the same river many years later, neither the river nor yourself will be the same. The drops of water will have been long gone into the sea, and you will have experienced events which will have changed you. The key here is experience: life events change our frame of mind, our perspective and outlook on life, death and other matters. In a way, we're never ourselves entirely and fully as we constantly change.

So...no self, ever? As per usual, it's a tad more complex: our identities may change and shift over time, our bodies may not entirely be the same as our cells renew themselves, as we acquire scars. Epigenesis postulates that even though the DNA sequence is the same in every cell, our genome changes over time, epigenetic markers bearing witness to the thrives and throes of any individual's life. (Long aside here: epigenesis is a fascinating subject, I can't recommend enough that you research it for yourself...and initially I didn't want to give any pointer as I didn't want to influence anyone on this particularly hot topic, but as it's a vast and complex issue I could recommend reading this article, perhaps this one too which is less technical, and researching Lamarck, Weissmann, and Lyssenko.) In a nutshell, all the environmental changes around you which influence in one way or another your way of living, or your diet, or the need to be warm or look for colder climes etc. will leave a chemical mark in your genome, to be passed on – or not – to future generations.

Hang on, so now you're telling us that every ten years we're different all over? Well, no. Schrödinger and Heisenberg would probably frown at this, and each for different reasons, but it is theoretically possible for an object to be in two states, or for this object's state to be indeterminable, at the same time. The ship could be in two locations at the same time because if A = B and B = C then A= C, or nowhere at the same time because the ship doesn't matter, as A ≠ B and B ≠ C then A ≠ C (ergo, there is no ship). The key question here is: is reality dependent on the observer, or is it true at any time and place, regardless of whether or not people measure and attribute meaning to the thing observed? If you change every single member of your favourite football team, is it still the same team you're supporting year in and year out? That's because we attribute more internal “meaning” than what science tells us there initially is (actually science tells us that there can be no internal meaning as there might be no external meaning).

Chomsky would probably agree that our definition of “the same” is screwed because our outlook is skewed. The two ships, our bodies (rather, the different aspects of our body over time), are qualitatively identical, not numerically so. He would also gloss that we, poor human beings with limited senses and perception, externalise some of what we believe to be ontologically true onto the physical world. Our gut feeling (aka intuition) tells us this or that ought to be true but cognitively speaking we're mistaken. Same goes with Theseus' ship exemplifying our double standards. Imagine the ship in a museum: the whole ship is labelled “Original Ship of Theseus”, parts are labelled “Original bed”, “Original linen”, “Original rudder”. Some planks have been replaced: still the same ship. Most planks have been replaced: same ship. All of them: same ship. Rudder need be replaced: well, not original rudder any more...fake news! Changed linen: change the label! Do parts compose the whole? Is the whole whole even if it's no longer whole?

Perhaps the conundrum should be put differently, within a tighter set of boundaries. Being or remaining the same or different remains a valid line of questioning if we pluralise our approaches and don't consider one set of variables to be the only one worth examining. For our brains will tell us different things at different times. It might tell us that the original ship is waiting to be reassembled, and we will have to use the same elements, down to the same nails. But even if we use the same techniques as back then, would your brain tell you it's (finally!) the real ship of Theseus? How could we know? What if Theseus' crew had to change parts of the “original” ship while on board? Do we have to redefine 'original' even after every repair? Do we have to question and redefine our selves every ten years? Every other month? Is identity an ever-shifting concept, never to be grasped? What is right: our senses, our intuition, natural sciences, philosophy, quantum theory?

I'll leave you with one such theory: would it be utterly nonsensical to figure ourselves one object at a particular point of space and time, and then agree that this is “me” or “Theseus' ship”, and then agree further that this “me” is also “me” at a different point in space and time, and that these “mes” are just multiple covariants of “me”? Part and parcel of the same equation? A set of coordinates doesn't mean anything per se, and differentials can only acquire meaning if the frame of reference remains within the bounds of what we designate as 'reality'.

The answer, if there needs to be any, follows the same differential path: it shifts according to the tools with which its components are examined, and possibly lies in more than one frame of reference.

Friday 17 August 2018

Just a dream


Voici un rêve fait il y a quelques semaines. Cela m'a pris du temps de le traduire (eh, je suis en vacances ^^)
This is a dream I had a few weeks back. It took me a while to get a translation (hey, I'm on holiday ^^)

*****
Je suis au milieu d’un grand square dans une ville médiévale (qui ressemble beaucoup à Minas Tirith), un groupe de personne, dont mon grand-père et moi-même faisons partie, décide d’enlever l’écorce d’une souche gigantesque qui est très vieille et pourrie. L’écorce est lisse et gluante, couverte de lichen, noire et imposante. Elle vient par gros morceaux lorsqu’on la retire, aisément. Certains dont je fais partie lançons les morceaux d’écorce au loin vers une sorte de ruines qui sont traversées de part en part par des racines. Nous découvrons des formes dans le reste de la souche qui est d’un blanc ivoire, bien moins imposante en taille même si elle arrive au niveau de ma tête. Ces formes se matérialisent soudain en pots, comme des conserves, dans lesquels on devine un visage humain lorsqu’on s’approche plus près. Encore plus près et l’on aperçoit des paupières closes, puis encore plus près les paupières semblent s’ouvrir pour finalement découvrir des yeux qui vous suivent. Tout le monde est impressionné lorsque je mentionne ce fait, voire inquiet que ces visages qu’on dirait fait de bois soient de la sorcellerie, mais nous voyons vite que c’est simplement un effet d’optique.

Nous restons un moment ainsi à jouer de cet effet avec le grand-père qui trouve cela fascinant, puis il est annoncé une course à pied à travers la ville. Le grand-père n’est plus là et je décide de participer même si une présence féminine, forte et proche et parlant anglais, dont le visage m’échappe me fait remarquer d’une voix insistante, quasi plaintive, que je suis chaussé de claquettes, que cela risque donc d’être dangereux.

Je contemple la ville des hauteurs où nous sommes, elle est magnifique. On la sent vieille, comme si elle avait jaillit de la montagne sur laquelle elle s’accote. Je vois le soleil au loin et des vols d’oiseaux sauvages dans les rais de lumières du soleil qui ne tardera pas à se coucher. Je n’hésite pas et m’élance avec un groupe dans les rues pavées de pierres blanches et polies par l’usage, des touffes d’herbes parsemant, parfois en grandes quantités, les allées vénérables. Il y a beaucoup de côtes et de descentes, comme des collines. Je vais très vite parce que je connais une technique de course que j’ai déjà utilisé dans d’autres rêves : me mettant à quatre pattes comme un loup, j’utilise mes doigts et mes orteils pour agripper le sol et ainsi me propulser avec force vers l’avant avec mes quatre membres.

Ma vitesse est ahurissante et la même sensation de liberté que j’ai toujours lorsque je cours ainsi m’étreint, mais ne connaissant pas le chemin de la course je me retrouve à hésiter à une fourche, puis à une autre. Je vois des statues, des portes et des rues. Des maisons tout le long. Des gens parfois mais la vitesse brouille les détails. Je m’aperçois qu’à une autre fourche le passage le plus à gauche est sans issue, finissant sur une ruelle débouchant sur une habitation, la porte en est fermée. L’autre fourche monte et s’en va loin dans la ville mais je doute que cette rue soit la bonne. Il y a bien un autre chemin tout-à-fait sur la droite mais l’herbe y est plus drue encore et il se faufile entre les maisons à colombages.

La voix féminine me conseille de revenir en arrière là où j’ai vu des statues. J’y reviens rapidement, la course battant son plein. J’entends des cris d’encouragements mais les sons sont distants et étouffés. Le chemin que la voix m’indique est similaire à celui rencontré plus avant : c’est une ruelle sur la gauche longeant des habitations et se terminant assez loin par une porte fermée. Je regarde autour de moi et m’aperçois que je suis sur une sorte de place, une grille massive fermant une immense porte de pierre blanche, plus blanche que les pavés. Il y a une autre rue qui elle remonte sur la droite, là où je sais devoir aller car la fin de la course est en haut de la ville.

Je m’élance alors à une vitesse encore plus ahurissante, je sens mes muscles donner leur puissance maximale, surtout dans les jambes, et mes mains agrippent puissamment le sol entre les pavés — je sens l’herbe avec précision dans mes paumes — et je suis serein car je sais que le secret de ma course m’a permis dans bien des rêves de me sortir de situations périlleuses. Je cours et les détails des maisons et des gens sont plus brouillés encore, mais je sais être sur la bonne voie.

Je finis par arriver sur une place ouverte, avec peu de maisons et une grande église. C’est visiblement le sommet mais la ville est tellement gigantesque que son sommet est tout aussi vaste. Je sais que ce n’est pas la fin de la course mais c’est ici que la mienne se termine. Je suis seul et je n’entends que le bruit du vent et des oiseaux. Une fois entré dans l’église j’y découvre une activité trépidante dans un lieu gigantesque : beaucoup de gens s’affairent, portent des caisses de légumes et de poissons, comme sur un marché florissant. Il se prépare quelque chose mais je ne me souviens plus quoi. L’intérieur de l’église est sombre et illuminé à la fois, et même si la lumière semble être plus présente, les tons ocres et noires y dominent cependant. Des rais de lumière pâle traversent les hauteurs vertigineuses de la nef.

La voix féminine se matérialise à mes côtés. Elle est grande et élancée. Je ne me souviens pas de son visage mais je sais ne l’avoir jamais vu. La douceur de ses gestes m’étreint la gorge. Sa peau est d’une blancheur d’albâtre. Je me souviens l’avoir trouvée belle dans sa longue robe rouge. Elle me prend par la main et me fait visiter les lieux. Sa voix est assez grave mais reste féminine. Elle parle toujours en anglais.

A partir de ce moment je ne me souviens que de bribes. Je me souviens que nous avons une formidable aventure durant laquelle nous sommes dans une forêt sombre, puis dans des ruines de pierres semblables à celles rencontrées plus tôt dans la ville et nous y combattons des monstres, mais la femme qui se révèle magicienne est rassurante et forte. Je me bats à l’épée – katana ou sabre elfique – la lame est courbe. Elle est légèrement blessée au cou mais ce n’est rien. Elle porte un collier de grosses pierres rondes et rouges qu’elle peut aussi porter comme une tiare.

A un moment donné nous sommes sur le perron de l’église et elle me parle, m’explique quelque chose. Je sais que c'est important. Je suis attiré par elle, et je sens qu’elle m’aime. Il y a un survol en apesanteur de la ville. J’ai beau fermer les yeux et être certain du fait que la fin est importante, je n’arrive pas à m’en souvenir. Je sais également qu’il y a eu un passage important dans l’église, un peu avant l’aventure. Même après avoir essayé de m’assoupir, je ne me souviens pas de plus.



*****
I'm in the middle of a large square in a medieval town (which looks a lot like Minas Tirith), a group of people, of which my grandfather and I are part, decides to remove the bark ofs a gigantic stump which is very old and rotten. The bark is smooth and sticky, covered with lichen, black and imposing. It comes in large pieces when removed, they easily come off. Some people, of which I am part, throw the pieces of bark in the distance, towards some kind of ruins which are traversed by roots. We discover shapes in the rest of the stump which is an ivory white, much less impressive in size even if it is level with my head. These forms suddenly materialize in jars, like preserves, in which we guess a human face when we come closer. If you come closer you can see closed eyelids, then even closer the eyelids seem to open to finally discover eyes which follow you. Everyone is impressed when I mention this fact, even worried that these faces which look like they're made out of wood are witchcraft, but we quickly see that it is simply an optical effect.

We thus remain a moment to play with this effect with my grandfather who finds it fascinating, then a race through the city is announced. My grandfather is no longer there and I decide to participate even if a strong, English-speaking female presence, quite close to me, whose face escapes me, makes me realise in an insistent, almost plaintive voice that I am wearing flip-flops, so it may be dangerous.

I contemplate the city from the heights, it is beautiful. It feels old, as if it had sprung from the mountain on which it sits. I see the soon-setting sun in the distance and flights of wild birds in the rays of sunlight. I do not hesitate and start the race, along with a group of people, in the streets paved with white stones and polished by use, tufts of grass sprouting in-between the cobblestones –sometimes in large quantities – along the venerable paths. There are many hills and slopes, like hills. I run very fast because I know a running technique that I have already used in other dreams: on all fours like a wolf, I use my fingers and my toes to grab the ground and thus propel myself forward with great force on my four limbs.

My speed is staggering and I feel the same sensation of freedom that I always have when I run this way, but not knowing where to go I soon find myself hesitating at one fork, then at another. I see statues, doors and streets. Houses all along. People sometimes but the speed blurs the contours. I realize at another fork that the leftmost passage is a dead end, ending on an alley leading to a house, which door is closed. The other fork goes up and away in the city but I doubt that this street is the right one. There is another road quite to the right, but the grass is even thicker and it sneaks between the half-timbered houses.

The female voice advises me to go back to where I saw the statues. I'm heading back, the race is in full swing. I hear cries of encouragement but the sounds are distant and muffled. The path that the voice indicates is similar to the one I saw before: it is an alley on the left lining the houses and ending quite far by a closed door. I look around and realize that I am on some sort of square, a massive gate closed by a huge white stone door, whiter than the paving stones. There is another street that goes up to the right, where I know I have to go because the end of the race is at the top of the city.

I proceed to run at an even more breathtaking speed, i can feel my muscles give their maximum power, especially in the legs, and my hands grip the ground strongly between the cobblestones – I feel the grass acutely in my palms – and I am serene because I know that my secret way of running allowed me, in many dreams, to get out of perilous situations. I run and the details of the houses and people are more blurred, but I know I'm on the right track.

I end up on an open square, few houses and one large church sith there. It is obviously the summit but the city is so huge that its summit is just as vast. I know it's not the end of the race but it's here that mine ends. I am alone and I only hear the sound of the wind, and birds. Once inside the church I discover a hectic activity in a gigantic place: many people are busy, they carry crates of vegetables and fish, as if we were in a flourishing market. Somethig is brewing, but I do not remember what. The interior of the church is dark and illuminated at the same time, and although the light seems to be more present, the ocher and black tones dominate there somehow. Rays of pale light cross the dizzying heights of the nave.

The female voice materializes by my side. She is tall and slender. I do not remember his face but I know I have never seen it. I feel a knot in my throat when I see the sweetness of her gestures. Her skin is of an alabaster white. I remember finding her beautiful in her long red dress. She takes me by the hand and shows me around. Her voice is deep, but remains feminine. She still speaks to me in English.

From that moment on I remember snippets only. I remember that we have a great adventure during which we are in a dark forest, then in ruins of stones similar to those met earlier in the city, and we are fighting monsters; the woman who reveals herself to be a magician is reassuring and strong. I fight with a sword – katana or elven sword – the blade is curved. Her neck is slightly injured but she says it is nothing for her. She wears a necklace of large round and red stones, which she can also wear as a tiara.

At one point we are on the steps of the church and she speaks to me, explains something to me. I know it's of import. I am attracted to her, and I feel that she loves me. Then a bird's eye view, weightless, of the city. I can close my eyes and remain certain that the end is important, but I can not remember. I also know that there was an important passage in the church, right before the adventure. Even after trying to doze off, I do not remember anything more.
 

Wednesday 30 May 2018

De la convenance de la lenteur dans le développement de la dépression à la porte de l'éternité


Il n'est pas infréquent pour les dépressifs de constater que les abîmes varient en profondeur d'un individu à l'autre, que les noirceurs se teintent par rapport à celles des autres. Alors que chacun mesure le fond du gouffre du seuil de son propre désespoir ; peu importe de fait la profondeur, car nous sommes toutes et tous dans les mêmes abîmes.

C'est ainsi que nous jaugeons la remontée à la qualité de la lumière au réveil, exactement comme un plongeur qui remonterait des profondeurs océaniques par paliers de décompression. La luminosité changeant au fur de l'ascension, on perçoit l'eau autrement alors qu'elle n'est intrinsèquement pas différente.

Il y a nos abysses, et puis il y a celles des autres, ceux qui vont mal mais en fait qui vont bien. Elles sont relatives au regard qu'on leur porte. Certaines aident à aller mieux – elles soutiennent – alors que d'autres génèrent plus de profondeur encore. Ces abysses-là sont de celles qui reformulent l'idée du suicide en un principe qui réchauffe le corps, qui apaise l'âme ; qui font qu'on contemple l'idée sans pleurer, sereinement. Passer à l'acte n'a alors plus d'importance parce qu'une partie de nous est déjà morte.

Parce qu'on a plongé plus profondément, ce qui fait l'air si beau et si précieux, en bas, dans les tréfonds où l'âme est plus sombre que les ténèbres, nous tue. Les mots d'amitié, les mots d'amour, les gestes de compassion. Tout précipite plus bas encore. La descente est vive, au début, rués que nous sommes par la lumière...et au fur que les ténèbres se font, puis s'épaississent, puis deviennent denses comme de la mélasse, on ralentit sans être freiné, on se laisse happer plus bas.

On se sent retomber quand on sent les réveils plus laborieux, le sommeil nous éluder plus longtemps, quand on ressent la fatigue du corps rejoindre celle de l'esprit. Quand la sieste s'impose et qu'elle restaure plus que le sommeil nocturne. Quand l'air n'y suffit plus et que la nourriture n'apaise plus la faim.

On souffre beaucoup, énormément, sans pour autant pouvoir nommer le mal qui nous assaille. On décèle la douleur à un endroit, puis elle se faufile ailleurs, inflitre chaque recoin. Puis elle devient diffuse, s'étale avec le temps comme une dette qu'on devrait rembourser toutes les nuits jusqu'à la dernière de notre existence.

Les mots de réconfort, à cet instant, revigorent quelque peu, puis ils finissent sur le bas-côté, vidés de leur substance comme un marathonien aurait vidé d'un trait une bouteille d'eau. Ces mots-là sont derrière nous, et dans un sens on ne voit pas qu'on a avancé, ne serait-ce que de quelques pas. On ne voit pas le chemin parcouru parce que l'abîme courbe l'échine, force à regarder les pieds, nous murmurant à l'oreille que l'horizon est trop terrible à contempler, que nous perdrions espoir à même y jeter un œil, qu'il est beau parce qu'il est loin.

La beauté est insupportable de perfection, car nous rêvons peut-être de voir le monde brûler, peut-être même voulons-nous biffer de traits rageurs ces portraits d'hommes et de femmes dont la beauté, l'effroyable beauté, nous fait venir les larmes aux yeux. Peut-être voulons-nous mettre en pièce tous les enregistrements de ces chansons qui nous touchent tellement qu'on les croirait écrites pour nous. La beauté, on s'en affranchit après un temps, mais pas parce qu'elle reste en surface, non...parce qu'on la retrouvera plus tard. Quand on aura appris à s'en détacher, on aura appris à l'aimer. La beauté qu'on admire nous prend trop d'énergie ; celle qu'on accepte devient une part de nous-même, elle fonctionne à-travers nous. La laideur semble avoir plus d'attraits, mais on comprend vite qu'on parle de la même chose. La beauté n'est pas encore l'abîme, mes amis.

Ces heures qui n'en finissent de s'étirer en d'interminables pensées n'en sont pas non plus. Ces journées qu'on fractionne en mugs de thé, en tasses de café, en verre de vin, en siestes, en épisodes de séries, en films...ces journées-là sont comptabilisables, ces heures-là peuvent être décomptées. Elles seront oubliées, noyées dans la masse, et remémorées comme un tout dans un tout, parce que chacune de ces journées aura et n'aura pas été identique aux précédentes et aux suivantes. L'attente, elle, n'aura rien perdu de sa qualité. Ceci n'est qu'un palier dans la descente.

On regarde l'obscurité parce qu'un film s'y joue, tout autour de nous, avec des scènes de milliers de moments, vécus ou imaginés, rêvés ou vus sur un écran. Ce film, nous y jouons, nous y avons parfois le premier rôle. Nous y mourons souvent et ces fins nous comblent, nous rassasient. Nous sauvons le monde parfois, nous le détruisons d'autres. Nous en contrôlons chacun des aspects, et il nous apparaît souvent plus bénévolent que le monde réel. Plus précis. On supporte la réalité uniquement parce que nos sens nous y astreignent. Il arrive cependant à l'imaginaire d'arriver à tromper nos sens pour mieux nous imprégner de ce film, pour y goûter chacune des secondes, pour repousser la réalité de quelques minutes encore afin de la rendre plus supportable dans l'anesthésie. Le fond, le fond de l'abîme est proche, mes amis.

Il nous arrive de penser à Dieu, à l'après, que nous y croyons ou pas. On réfute son existence mais nous lui parlons. Et quand nous nous rendons compte qu'en fait ce n'est pas à lui que nous nous adressons, alors le fond du gouffre est à portée de main. L'atteindre demande un dernier coup de reins, un dernier sacrifice que la logique impose : l'acceptation que nous sommes seuls. Alors notre présence demande de mesurer l'impact de notre absence : qu'avons-nous fait, qu'aurions-nous pu faire, que pouvons-nous faire. Constat, regret, champ des possibles. On regarde les chaises vides de notre existence. Passer de présent à absent devient non pas une évidence, mais un choix : si, en tout état de cause nous ne pouvons plus rien faire, si – honnêtement – nous nous rendons compte que nos buts ont été atteints ou sont inatteignables, que nous ne pouvons nous satisfaire de moins alors il devient de notre responsabilité de passer le flambeau, métaphoriquement ou non.

C'est ainsi que, se retrouvant à la porte de l'éternité de dieu, celle de l'homme s'ouvre à nous...une éternité silencieuse certes, mais une qu'on soupçonne plus tranquille, plus affranchie des actions, des choix, des hamartia qui jalonnent notre vie. Car il est bien là, le fin fond du tonneau. On y tombe en apesanteur, doucement, les derniers rais de lumière par-dessus nous ayant disparu tout de bon, les poumons comme en compression parce qu'on ne sait combien de temps nous aurons à retenir notre souffle.

Au mitan des ténèbres nos mains par-devant nous cherchent la ligne de décompression, celle qui indique la direction de la surface car oui – il n'y a plus de repère en bas. Plus rien ne fait sens, les sens sont abolis autant par le manque que par l'excès : le temps s'arrête et défile à la vitesse de la lumière ; l'ouïe s'annule par impression et suppression ; nous voyons trop d'obscurité et il n'y a plus rien à voir ; la proprioceptivité se bloque : ou nous savons où nos membres sont et cela n'a aucun sens, ou ne savons pas et le sens nous élude tout aussi bien ; la faim n'est plus parce qu'elle est suprême ; tous les mécanismes somesthésiques se mettent hors tension par répression et surpression, et nous ne sommes plus rien.

Pourtant nous redevenons tout parce que nous redevenons un. Soudainement la main agrippe le bout : il est temps de rester tout en remontant. De remonter dans l'immobilité la plus totale.

On réapprend alors à ne pas se servir du même mug pendant trois jours parce que maintenant, on en a d'autres, parce que maintenant on n'a plus à rationner l'eau pour faire la vaisselle. On ne réutilise plus le même sachet de thé trois fois, on ne s'en sert plus pour se réchauffer la paume des mains. On se surprend à allumer le chauffage parce qu'on n'a plus peur des factures. On ôte ses sous-vêtements thermiques, son pull, sa deuxième paire de chaussettes et ses gants parce qu'il ne fait plus 12 degrés dans l'appartement. On replie le sac de couchage et on range la paire de rideaux étendue sur le lit. On ne se précipite plus sur la bouilloire pour profiter de sa chaleur.

On sait que le corps peut tenir avec deux pains au chocolat, vingt centilitres de jus d'orange et un bol de soupe de tomates par jour. Et de l'eau, beaucoup d'eau. On sait qu'il tient parce que l'esprit ne flanche pas, mais on améliore le quotidien, doucement parce que le corps n'a plus l'habitude. Comme des paliers de décompression. On retrouve des goûts oubliés, des textures qui relèvent de la madeleine de Proust. Les impressions reviennent en picotant au bout des doigts. Et on se rend à l'évidence du regard délivré des paupières que quelque chose en nous ne doit pas être cédé aux vers de la tombe, qu'une éternité s'ouvre au devant de nous. On se renaît poète, alors qu'on l'a toujours été.

Les émotions s'affranchissent de la suppression des jours aux ciels de plomb, et on réalise que nos mots ne sont pas si vains, que le dialogue se fait avec ceux qui ne sont pas encore nés, même si la distance reste une barrière nécessaire à la bonne entente : tout contact avec le poète reste dangereux. La mélancolie, la dépression, la folie guettent. Alors on officie lorsque les autres dorment, une main griffonnant le papier et l'autre par-devant nous au cas où l'on vienne trop près, nous les sentinelles veillant au grain et la tâche brûlant au creux du ventre, celle qu'on ne peut laisser à nul autre tant elle demande de sacrifices et de garder vigile. Ceci est notre combat.

La nourriture retrouve un goût qu'elle n'a jamais eu parce qu'il faut bien se rendre à l'évidence : nous ne sommes plus le même, les abîmes sont remontées avec nous. Nous sommes remontés à la surface parce que les ténèbres nous y ont autorisés, nous ballastant d'obscurité au passage de l'octroi parce qu'il nous faut être lents. C'est cette même lenteur à descendre qui garantit la qualité de la remontée, la lenteur de l'obscurité à se faire la même que celle de la lumière à revenir. Sans lenteur, il n'y a aucune tristesse qui vaille, aucun bonheur qui ne tienne.

Et nous sommes ainsi ce vieil homme qui n'a plus rien à voir, les poings sur les yeux et les traces de colle attestant de l'absence volontaire de miroir, seul à son deuil, la tristesse nue n'étant pas sur nous mais en nous. La réalité est comme la peinture, plus sur les bords du pinceau qui l'écrase qu'en son plein sillage où l'imaginaire réside. Et ce feu qui ne projette aucune ombre, qui n'illumine aucune ténèbre, ne réchauffe pas non plus ce corps bleu de froid, bleu d'effroi au seuil de la mort – il nous permet cependant de l'admirer du seuil de l'éternité, parce que c'est là, et de là, que nous sommes : un sommet qui est un abysse qui est un sommet. 

Habits

I am a man of habits I got to this conclusion because I flash-realised that I am hoping that someone, someday will see the patterns the rou...