2009.07.01 July Morning Erotophilosophia

-(just another) erotophilosophia-

Moto (sic!): love is more retarded than blind

again at little hours,
when the stream neurons devours

I am the blind who finds himself
In cages of deep locked damnations
Putting true love on a dusty forgot shelf
By never thought abominations.

I am too deaf for caring,
I mute the cares that start from their very root,
It's just that I cannot recall
how to care.

The blind who doesn't see the ocean from the tides,
Who seeks emotion when emotion hides,
Who sought black widows when widows cannibalize,
Who'll never ever learn their dirty prides.

I must be too me,
When I look at ye,
I must be too decayed,
A moth ever hitting the glass
Through which he knows he ain't gonna pass.

The moth just felt the glass oh so intense,
That when he hit the glass he thought he'd get a recompense,
He never learns the voltage could be harming to the wing
He'll always masochistically swing
For the volupty on love's string.

I'm overburdened with homework poetry
Cause, after all, I'm still alive!
And absolution is not a way to be,
It has to follow a decay

I got the license for the feelings firewall
Remember:'God told me I don’t deserve a licensed feelings firewall because I'm too young and I've got to learn from them'?
__________
Or not? Ain't I lying to myself? OK, that's really the end... of this chapter. When will the thrill be over? I hope this not be an original way of saying something typical.

Again, the stream. I guess the thrill is gone... for now

The thrill is gone. The creeps are in their bed.

The final question(s) for you: don't you need a philosophy of love? And haven't you felt at times the vicinity of love and death, when you feel in the same amount that the beloved one needs your love and death at the same time?

2009.07.23 My Brain on the World: Science, Religion, Culture, Art Or What Romania Borrowed Worst from the West and East

2009.07.23 My Brain on the World*: Science, Religion, Culture, Art
Or What Romania Borrowed Worst from the West and East

I can neither ignore, nor agree, or disagree to how our parents and grandparents were indoctrinated with beliefs and appearances of the Romanian socialism ¹; a few have a nostalgia on their impossible communion with the Church, but the thinkings of the most of them became pseudo-pragmatic to sceptical ones: something like I know religion isn't going to bring me my daily bread. Art or books won't either do... OR: I am a Christian, I believe in God, except I don't go to church, but how come Virgin Mary had a child without a Man to... be there in the equation? Then with a kind of pretended satisfaction: Oh, but I liked Russian novels a lot; and Eminescu, and Sadoveanu. We also studied more intensively at school ("Pe vremea noastra... se facea carte.") a.s.o. Isn't it natural to leave books when there are computers, if we don't mention the already old-fashion TV? How would a developing child quit a beautifully coloured PC game or cartoon - which are more at hand for him - and head to the bookshelf? When I say natural, I'm not at all pretending this is the normal way to raise a child, but on the contrary this is simply the logical phenomenon for some generations since the 90's. It is excusable for a child, but not for the parents too. Now I'm not in the mood for child psychology; what I'm trying to reach is that before our so-called 1989 Revolution people simply had less activities (even though the TV programme was exaggeratedly little ²), and in that era of pseudo- scientific progress we really had a more imposing series of intellectual personalities - oppressed as they were, but with greater contribution; though this very oppression led, as suffering leads, to great artistic works. I don't happen to know - to be sincere - what the great figures/ models there were (except, perhaps, the cult of the dictators); I guess it's terror that shaped people's fates, an anti-mechanism through which people formerly differentiated by capitalism had afterward been sharing poverty. I made this calque inspired by one of W. Churchill's great quotes: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." I invoked this socialism argument because at that times religion was in a big conflict with science. (Yes, it sounds childish; more precisely, it was the so called scientific development of our country that was supposed to nullify people's beliefs and belief's symbols because they were supposed to only follow the dictator.) The indoctrinator scientist puppets were writing brochures or books like Science and Atheism. This tells all about what they hated most: the believers (and also intellectuals). You could call me Captain Obvious, but these ideas are very expressively described in the essays from Despre lucrurile cu adevarat importante (On Really Important Issues), by Alexandru Paleologu, essays that I really liked in the past few days. The author explains for instance how a society that loses its faith is most likely to be ruled by a tyrant; and it's not about exaggerated belief led to fanaticism. Some of those essays describe how Romanian post-'89 society still suffers a handicap after over half a century with titles such as The Triumph of Oligophreny. A reflection of our current culture status can be reflected in some quotes like this:

Favorite Books
nu prea am pt ca toate care le citesc imi plac (~ I don't have so many 'cause all I read I like~ I'm not able to perfectly translate that, but it's a relative pronoun disagreement)

The book also gave me an interest in finding more information about our last king, Mihai I of Romania, one of the imposing figures that national propaganda made Romanians forget of. And that is all for now about Romanians' fake and blind transition from religion towards exact sciences. And this was the Religion - Science conflict.

Now, I start describing the conflict Science - Art.
Lately, I started creating a repulsion towards those who embrace only exact / experimental / realistic or however-you-like-to-call-them sciences; I must refer to one of my past notes: Those who are set on ground (from the sciences sphere i.e.) tend to transpose their selves into a virtual dimension, for instance in a utopia, in an imagined future. They might sometimes try to get even higher, with the help of addictions and may become junkies. Though, the higher they tend to get, the lower they sink.
Those who live in the clouds (from the humanistic sphere i.e.) tend to return to Earth, to reality. They might sometimes quit addictions, quit being junkies. It is them who, despite trying to settle with their roots deeper into the ground, they might rise on peaks never imagined before... Maybe. And this also springs from Paleologu's op. cit. that had an impact on me, making this discrepancy between realistic and humanistic people more obvious for me. He quoted stereotypes of the 90's like "With philology you couldn't get a job nowadays, the most important is electronics/ mathematics etc. (<In ziua de azi> e nevoie de electronisti. Nu mai faci nimic cu filologia.)" Partially true. He hated that "in ziua de azi" (=nowadays). After the 2000's, I guess, this became "Informatics (which means IT or computer science) is the future. You won't earn your money from philology/art etc". Also partially true.

Regarding philologists, artists or other similar people, the truth is you have to be really, but really good, if not a genius; if you are a mediocre artist, you are just another clown between clowns. You'll shake your tricks in vain if the audience throws with mud at you. Like one of my notable friends said: when you're a musician, you have to release a good song. After that, if you don't want to remain in the shadow, you have to release something remarkably better. I believe the audience needs the "clowns" too. Unless you are a national talent, the saying with the starvation warning will remain an axiom. And that is how that "partially" could be defined. Maybe I'm over-pleading for philologists, because I feel like being in front of a culture tribunal.

Regarding another branch of art, writing, I lately created a sort of repulsion towards poems too. Yes, you could freely call me ignorant, but it's a temporary belief; I think I'll be in a belief change for all of my life. The repulsion is explained in something like this: I think poetry makes ideas and feelings hide behind the stanzas and lyrics and words. During creation, the poet loses a noticeable quantity of what he/she had wanted to express.

During those times I would also hear people saying "That who knows two or three foreign languages will easily find something for a living". Oh, but I like hearing that; because I liked English; French started being more familiar to me, people would warmly then recommend me an ambassador, diplomat - or something like this - job. The truth is it only remained an enthusiasm.

These days I also personally know educated people from the realistic sphere (I don't want to sound like speaking about aliens) who present a paradox, I could say. They also belong to the majority that asks "So... Why did you choose the Faculty of Philology? You'll definitely become a teacher, am I right?" And again this same obsessive imperative, which sounds like a nightmare.

The conflict Homo universalis - Specialization states: "You must have cultura generala³" or "What will you do when someone asks you what the capital of West Samoa is?" In my first school there was a quote "It is far better to know something about everything than to know all about one thing." On the Internet I found that it is of Blaise Pascal: "Puisqu'on ne peut être universel en sachant tout ce qui se peut sur tout, il faut savoir peu de tout. Car il est bien plus beau de savoir quelque chose de tout que de savoir tout d'une chose; cette universalité est la plus belle. Si on pouvait avoir les deux, encore mieux" It intrigues me: what is this Romanian "cultura generala" that parents and mediocre/average teachers praise so much? The truth is I would like to be an expert in music, linguistics, literature, religion, philosophy, all together, but I'll never be able to. Though, I would agree to the last part: avoir les deux = to be universal and also specialist. "What if you meet someone in the street, and he/she asks you for how long Stefan cel Mare reigned?" First of all, I know his reigning years, because my first school is named after him and in the center of my native city we have his statue. Second, why should someone feel concerned about such a virtual situation?

The conflict Culture - Money or How to be a fool with diploma just for making money. "You must learn in school and graduate a faculty in order to do something for a living" our dear parents would advise us. But not for the sake of culture, but for money. Because some of them repent they didn't achieve goals like these.


____________________________________________________
*The title traces me to a short text that I had to translate in my second semester for an English language course, with an ignorant professor. It sounded like My Brain on God I guess.
1. I couldn't call it communism, as this is an utopia that was supposed to emmerge in West Europe.
2. about two hours containing: news on the Romanian Communist Party's achievements, propaganda for the dictators, and then eventually some bit of entertainment. Then, in weekends, I guess, extra hours of entertainment and a pretty good documentary, http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleenciclopedia.
3. I won't translate it because it is too rooted in Romanian culture.