I Was Within And Without. Simultaneously Enchanted And Repelled By The Inexhaustible Variety Of Life.

My Literal Heart

I envy one particular quality in sportsmen: their heart. I said this to quite a few people I know. It's ringing pretty well and it's actually true.

Today I was playing soccer with my friends. I'm a defender, I always am. We've been playing for about an hour and I failed to tackle the opponent, who had the ball. He shot but our goalie implemented a brilliant save. In the moment of the save, something happened in me. In my literal heart. It felt as though my chest was too small for it and all the blood in the world wouldn't be enough, flowing in my body. With my heart pounding madly, I stopped on the field. I wanted to catch my breath, I thought this sensation would pass but it seemed to be increasing. The one thing in my head was: I'm gonna die right now. I began coughing, fighting for air and I could stay on my feet but I could hardly move, let alone sprint from end of the field to the other. I walked off and sat down and looked at the ground, which was supposed to be green but it was gray. The players, the walls, the trees--really everything was gray. I drank and rested and the world's colors slowly crawled back. My heart was a lot more peaceful. I lay down to the ground and looked up at the sky. It was blue all right but I saw countless little dots, rushing nowhere but with great speed.

While down there, I contemplated my miserable state. Why do I have to be like this?! I didn't know whether it was something serious or something that just frightened me because it hasn't happened before. But I thought it was truly the most unfair thing in existence. Not because I'm a totally righteous person or I deserve to live. The reason for this was that I thought I haven't done my share. Not just the things that can make me happy in life but the part that I haven't walked to the end of the paths of my missions. I haven't done everything for the girl I love; I haven't put myself to service of the church; I haven't published anything; and countless other things. It would have been a very bitter death but I didn't die. My heart eventually calmed down, I'm much better now. Momentarily, rather ironically, I envy the very literal hearts of sportsmen the most.

I've been wondering what meaning this event may convey--if any... Maybe not many things just this: my life is not in my hands but in God's hands. And this, also, is very literally perceived. And I'm thankful that I'm alive and thankful for everything.

Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.

Elwood P. Dowd (Harvey)

I am the midnight of a soul I’m the other side of the wall The fissure between the tops Ever-hunted blood-red fox I am the glimpse of a thought I’m the wave broken by rocks A mystery of nothing Trapped, caught by snares whilst hunting I am the smoke of a burnt-out candle The smell of night The sight of blinds I am the broken glass’ torn-down handle The weight of light The might of fright But dawn follows the night I’ll enjoy an eagle’s flight And I already know Why I wait tomorrow

(via bernatk)

I got that same feel now, more than a year after writing this, though nothing's the same really ... #revival

...you say that it’s a confession of weakness for a scientist not to write.

Fitzgerald - Tender is the Night

The Oscars & La La Land

Many passionate people were worried this year that Damian Chazelle’s La La Land would steal the award of Best Picture from the daring project, titled Moonlight. To their great avail, it did not happen but I was rather confused by the arguments they presented as ground for Moonlight to win. Surprisingly it never came up that it would be simply a quality film, worthy in its own right to win. The main reason was its theme. 

While I myself am decidedly left-leaning, for me the Academy Awards are about excellence in film. Yet, I see a multitude of people, sharing my convictions, being completely biased toward or against certain artistic creations based on said convictions. For example, a loud outlet of ideas and opinions, Vox, made a video, which highlighted that the current voting system of the Oscars favors the films that have the highest general esteem, as opposed to other ones, which may be polarizing but have the most individual votes. While either way would be legitimate and fine, the preferential voting system might be a bit more precisely geared toward rightly selecting victors. The basic concept is key: we are looking for the best film of the year. If we get a polarizing winner, there will be a powerful minority--even more, since we’re not having a choice of 2 pieces but of multiple, so probably a majority that opposes the winning movie. Thus this system of selection can prove completely erroneous, since the largest minority deems a movie good, while the majority may say it is actually a product of poor filmmaking.

Now I am happy for Moonlight to have won the award but it has to be absolutely clear what its victory means: it is the best picture of the year from an artistic-commercial standpoint. As trivial as it sounds, most advocates of this film called it worthy and important for political, or human rights reasons. It seems progressive to award movies with politically progressive themes but Moonlight’s excellence cannot lie in the skin color of its actors. It can win awards for that but not by the Academy but by organizations or political agents.

In fact I posit a film’s political merits are unimportant details, when it comes to the Oscars. And if for many more decades we wouldn’t see black crews getting the award for best picture, it wouldn’t matter from the perspective of the legitimacy of the Academy or the prestige of the prize. It would and should mean that there are no good enough films made about this subject matter. Moonlight was this year’s best picture, according to the Academy, for its cinematic merits. Even so, were the case different, had they won because of the theme of the lives of people of color, their achievement would be nullified--their Oscar would become meaningless. 

In my opinion La La Land was a rightful contender. The fact that it dealt with life in Hollywood was not a red flag of being Oscar bait. The truth of the matter is, most mainstream directors are actually passionate about the industry and the place, they wake up with it on their minds and go to bed with it--it permeates their everyday, they get their joy from it, even their bread from it.

Damian Chazelle is well-known for his love of films akin to his own creation, so its his genuine love-child. It, in a way, goes against Hollywood shallowness by depleting the idea of easy living presented by classic musicals and generic rom-coms in a witty, satirical way. It is an achievement. But that is just one facet of the movie, designed for people who breathe that in daily. On a deeper level there is a very unique, yet old idea explained to us in great fashion: the dreams and passions define people’s personalities. 

Its truth can be argued but it hit a chord with many a viewers. The general expectation toward any musical is that it should be light and alleviating from the pains of the real world. In La La Land we get just the opposite: we have to face our internal conflicts and routine compromises that corrupt us and make our lives mediocre. Of course, there is a great narrative balance: we get something to learn and we get a little escapade. The profound idea and conflict is our lesson and the shimmering sets, combined with the ghastly beauty of the music is our break from reality.

La La Land reverberates the old American way of grand gestures and grandiose ambitions. It slowly died out from the everydays in the ‘60s but they are surfacing again in the works of this writer-director. 

Finally, I cannot end without praising La La Land’s ending. There are almost as many interpretations as there were audience members. One can easily find convincing and intelligent opinions, which certainly seem to coincide with the creator’s vision. However, returning to the underlying concept of the film I think the strongest side of it is how it shows the characters’ humanity, idealized but torn down to the ruins. 

The most obvious thought about the final sequence is that “it should have been” their story. At the end of the movie we have a lot of sympathy toward the protagonists and we are greatly saddened by the failure of their relationship. However, we should try to step outside from our perspectives, after all, that is what immersion is all about... From the characters’ point of view we find the same summary of “it should have been”, but it means more than from the mouth of someone sitting in a movie theater. It means “I have erred, I should have done it differently.” I think this is a great addition to the already intriguing basic concept. 

The main characters have cultivated their dreams and passions and thus their personalities have become the amazing thing they always wanted--it is inspirational, yet not unrealistic. It is actually a viable route in life to develop ourselves in fields we are passionate about, people do not lose their fortunes because of their dreams or passions but because of external hardships or internal flaws. But this inspiring journey is contrasted with a personal failure. Love is undeniably an important part of life--it is argued against only by the cynics. On the forefront of human happiness we find both personal growth and love. These both determine our happiness and it is not a zero sum game, where we must choose one of the two. But it is true that we can be successful at one and lose tragically on the other.

The Hobbit - Smaug's Philosophy

Peter Jackson's Desolation of Smaug (2013) had a great impact on me for numerous reasons. When I was introduced to Tolkien's tale, I was in high school and I found a number of morals of the story, that I could revisit now. This time, however, I have come across a thing in Smaug's reasoning, that was brand new to me.

When Bilbo and Smaug have their conversation, the dragon speaks scornfully of Thorin's attempt to reconquer the mountain. He says, that the dwarf if misled, if he believes, that his ancestors' kingdom can be restored. The dragon also argues, that no one has right to Erebor but him.

We, the sons and daughters of modern democracies, which mostly promote both liberal and communitarian values, automatically think, that of course the Lonely Mountain rightfully belongs to Thorin. He is heir to the throne and the land was taken by force by a--so to speak--tyrant. The dwarf's reasoning seems legitimate and just. Smaug's evil and Thorin is virtuous, this is very clear.

But we must bring this conflict to further consideration to understand it in depth. What we actually see is how two philosophies confront each other. Smaug explains this almost explicitly to Bilbo. The dragon argues, that the dwarves have a narrative identity, which gives them ground to make their claims, on the contrary, Smaug says, he has just as much justification. His main argument is probably, that he is stronger, and justice exists only between equal parties but since they are inequal in strength, the more powerful does as he/she sees fit and the weaker obviously can't resist, ergo must undergo whatever the other decides. Smaug's second, maybe less conspicuous argument is, that his narrative identity also gives him ground to be ruler of Erebor: he conquered this land--probably by different means but with the same outcome--just as the race of the dwarves once did and now it belongs to him.

This predicament reminds me of the famous Melian Dialogue, which is in Thucydides' History. In that, the Athenian empire asked the island of Melos to surrender to them and pay tribute but they refused and appealed to Athen's sense of morals: mercy and the respect of neutrality. It is, of course, not an identical case, but what is very similar: the Athenians argued, that there's no true moral argument, that could be made in this case. They said: "For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretenses—either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us—and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Spartans, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". Smaug reasoned very much like the Athenians did. He thought it foolish to bring up questions about a code of honor or virtue because none of them can be more morally approved, than the other, since every land comes to be ruled by being conquered. The dragon kept arguing, that he has the right to do as he does by possessing the power that he does.

Naturally, Thorin's claim still seems more justified. Our approval can be traced back to two possible roots, both sufficiently sublime to give us peace about our point of view.

The first possible explanation is, that Thorin aimed to cultivate the land and the neighbor peoples. He wanted to restore a state of prosperity to the benefit of all.

The second possibility is, that Thorin's allegiance was to the side of good or the side of light, as opposed to Smaug's, which was to Sauron and the side of darkness. In this case the dwarf king was trying to reach a divine goal: to overcome evil with good.

Of course both explanations have their shortcomings, mostly because of Thorin's weaknesses, that are often in the nature of morals, but all in all, he is something like a "good guy".

Smaug's reasoning in IR and political philosophy in general is called a realist approach. It's like Machiavelli's "power is power" way of thinking. I believe our disapproval of the dragon's line of argument shows our natural tendency to believe in more than just causality. We have a moral code implanted in our souls. We can, of course, fight it in favor of profit or the "greater good" or whatnot but it's undeniably there. This tendency is a beacon of hope for me. It gives me faith and not just in humanity or a set of ideals, no. It gives me hope, that overall there is good, which transcends our desperate, miserable and depressing world. It gives me hope, that there is God, in whom I can lay my trust.

In any case you mustn’t confuse a single failure with a final defeat.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, Tender is the Night (via honeyforthehomeless)

Discipline is Hard but Weakness is not my Game

I’ve been feeling waves of regression washing over me recently but at the same time I’ve been leaning forward. My ambitions, exuberant and overwhelming, have been leading me. And, again, I’m arrested in a state of complete antinomy: I’m satisfied and dissatisfied, hopeful and disillusioned--I feel these over the same things.

Leaping toward the shimmering notion of how I think I ought to be is what I’m trying to do, yet there’s this unbearable inertia in my life. If I say I want to write, I find I should throw away people, or care considerably less. In my constant struggle for creating something noteworthy I encounter discouragement. Well, on the heartfelt occasions. Of course I get the you’re great and the it’ll be fine but what are those supposed to mean? Not even the ones closest to me think of my writing as a tangible thing with tangible effects. For my environment it’s no more than a dream I’m sometimes having. Certainly romantic but not to be pursued to the damage of even the smallest thing.

I often wonder if the world’s as small as some people see it. Do I need a small job in order to this and that? Well, I refuse the necessity of it and always have. The start of a career or a seed-like job is a different case but I’m regularly pressured toward being practical the ordinary way and I see that as derogatory. I do encourage some folks to master base skills and unromantic professions and I am not against the concept of these, only I feel they get the wrong animal with me. I can’t do all that other people can but I have a strong conviction that I can excel, even create new frontiers, where our race seldom goes: the abstract, the grand and often vain projects that frighten so many. I crave those paths but I get the feeling that with it I frighten those, who love me.

Yet, after all, on a few days I too wake up with doubt. I despise doubt and loathe it, along with cowardice and ignorance but, much like the next person, I’m susceptible to all of those. Sometimes I read back what I’ve written and I’m disappointed. Then, of course, I get down to the part of grinding and go over it once again, until I can accept it but the next day it’s exactly the same amount of disappointment over yesterday’s promising new words. The temptation is unceasing, the beating inside me is counter-driving my soul, into disbelief and the will to abandon my work. But then it’s the universal beating of all ages and if anyone ever amounted to greatness, it’s no more than walking without letting herself be broken. We don’t need anyone for that--to break us. We are very efficient at giving terrible advice to ourselves, although it’s true that the world around us lavishes it at us without limit.

Similarly, in my emotions I’m conflicted. There are things that I want and there are people I want. My desires are sharply defined, there’s no need there, but I regret to want them. There’s no smart way around this though. Truthfully I don’t even know the objects of my desires thoroughly, yet if I were made to choose I would throw away all I have to have those. I think it would be painful but it wouldn’t take me more than a moment of having to contain whatever is trying to get out through our throats, when we feel profound loss, then I’d be immersed in the crisp breeze. I am certain I have the capacity to be like that only I know it’s wrong. It’s immoral and unwise, yet the demands of the soul of a man, who’s otherwise consciously fighting to reach his other desires, called ambitions, are hard to put away.

My desires resist and pull me. Whichever is to be attained is painful, and the ones that I denounce, will not leave me. Everything’s hard--said the poet.

“The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. The wind blows to the south, and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1,5-9