Some Things We Do Are As Reasonable As Dropping Salt To Our Eyes.

Metaphorically resonant…

Writer's note

It's been a long day. I've been called in to 2 job interviews, for which I'm happy beyond words but, other than that, oh boy, have I had a swell time?

I'll begin with something that's very close to me: literary work. Ever since I learnt how to write I've had a grand vision of my future. It's been my dream to be a great writer and I've always lived in this illusion that I'm good at it. But today I was rejected by a medium-sized company. No, not my professional application-- I wanted to be a volunteer. It's a quarterly magazine. So they said that they had my test writings checked by professionals and they found them inadequate in regards of grammar and authenticity.

The other thing is, well, literature, too. Remember when I said I've had this dream to be a great writer? Yeah, it pretty much fills every second minute of my waking hours. So here's the other story: Yesterday I recieved an answer to a query I sent to a seemingly fitting agent. She wrote that she feels honored (of course), that I contacted her, however, my work is not really for her. She (of course) encouraged me to keep on trying because she did not reject my book because of its general lack of genuineness but because of her own lack of enthusiasm about it. Yeah, it sucks. I know what you're thinking: Well what does one (1) agent matter anyway? Keep on trying, she said that too. So yes. Thank you. I've been trying. I've been trying for over a year with a total absence of fruition in any respect. I've re-written and polished my work but what does it matter now?

I've never said I'm a writer. Never to anyone. I've always believed humility is crucial and so I've never mentioned myself as a writer or artist. I didn't keep my writing a secret but I sure as rain was modest about it. Still, what I feel right now is this: I'm a complete wreck as a writer. Yeah, I'm a wreck that's for granted but why do I think I'm a writer. I never said I was and I've been constantly forcing myself not to consider myself as that. But in despair and disappointment my thoughts betray me. I'm just a sore loser and a presumptuous fool.

I'm not going to apologize for all the dismal things I've written because they aren't dismal. They're meant to teach you something. Well, who am I trying to lie to? They're meant to teach me something. Something I know and yet pretend to never have heard of. In all honesty I have a lot to learn and I've got to let go of big-faced concepts about myself. I'll be small. I'll remain small and I'll accept being that. I'm too young to be big and it takes some time to get rid of one's youth.

Noah vs Christians

My political philosophy professor once said that philosophical texts argue against something. I originally intended to critique Darren Aronofsky's Noah but I've been overwhelmed by the many unjust (well, in some cases) reviews. So what I'm writing right now will not be a crystal-clear stand-alone critique but it will be also an argument against others.

I will begin with the harshest criticism that I've heard so far: It is a falsification of he biblical Noah story. It was actually a bit of a surprise to me because I am a christian myself and it never occured to me. What must be observed is that it is a dramatization, which means making something into a drama. A drama is a piece of art, like a painting or an opera. If the crucifixion is painted, does it falsify the Bible by the characters not looking exactly the same as they actually looked? No. If Noah is a dramatization, one must look at it as an independent artistic feat, which in no way attempts to replace, say, the teachings of the Bible. Someone said to me that those, who don't have a basic knowledge or understanding of the Noah story, will watch Aronofsky's work and think that it's the Bible. Well, it's problematic. I can't imagine this becoming a thing. This isn't a hundred percent true, of course, so there might be people, who would fall under the impression that it is a true depiction and it is, of course, acceptable to advertise that it actually isn't but nothing further comes from this, like saying that it is actively against the Bible. In the other hand, this person did not consider how the christians, who think like him, will miss the actual merits of the film, while strongly concentrating on their preconcieved fears.

There was also the idea that the Bible's Noah was a missionary and he tried to actually save everyone from dying, instead of deliberately keeping them out of the ark. They argued that it is written in the New Testament that God patiently waited for the people who were otherwise condemned to death (1 Peter 3:20); and that Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). It is a misunderstanding to think that these things go against the movie. They certainly aren't in focus because Aronofsky had other things he wanted to communicate. But the film's depiction of God isn't essentially untrue to this. Christianity's chief principle is that life on earth is not the complete life but instead, we have an eternal perspective. The Bible's truth is also about more than the truth that a flood will come: it is about God and his love for humanity. If we marry these two together we will see that Noah's missionary work was to save the souls of the poeple of his time, much rather than convincing them that they will be killed by water if they persist that they keep out from his ark. So, this aspect of the Noah story isn't represented, however, if people turned to God, gave up their wicked ways and were truly converted, even Aronofsky's Noah wouldn't have kept them out of the ark, even so, the whole deluge would probably have been cancelled.

Another criticism that I've heard was not unique to christians, even secular voices said this: In the movie, people are subordinate to nature. Noah seems to think the same and the bad guy, Tubalcain, says, what seems to be the modern approach, and it looks a bit like judgment of modern people because of how much they neglect their environment. To me it was much more like Noah had this inner conflict whether or not God wants mankind to continue existing but he never even entertained the thought that hierarchically the animals and plants would be superior to mankind. The animals seemed to have preserved the right to live through not being corrupted, on the contrary it doesn't equal being more valuable. What gives ground to this view is that Noah understands that he has a responsibility toward the nature. He should serve the animals but not be their servant or slave, much rather being a true master through caring and valuing them. Sadly, this is such an alien or radical concept that people tend to feel offended by it and feel that they are treated inferior to animals.

I heard something else, what really seemed baseless to me: Female characters are depicted in the light of the modern feminist culture, instead of what was present at that age. This argument was a real surprise because the first thing I said, while leaving the cinema was that in this movie the female characters were pretty traditional. Others argued that the way Noah's wife "told him off" would have been unimaginable at that time, since if the man says they cut down the wife's children, the wife will have her own thoughts, disagreeing with the man's decision but they will keep silent and watch he man deliver his will. Well, the first consideration we ought to make is: how long ago did Noah live? Very long ago but who can tell exactly? Nobody can. But someone said to me that the same system existed as in Abraham's time, since Noah's family was which started civilization again and so culture originates from them and Abraham lived in an early culture. This is poor reasoning because theologians may know quite a lot about a certain part of history but since every civilization comes from Noah and his descendants, so do older ones, like China. Abraham lived about 4000 years ago, whereas China started its career approximately 5000 years ago (these aren't accurate numbers, I'm only trying to give a sense about which one is the older). So to have the right to say that this or that was traditional in Noah's time requires thorough understanding of all of the ancient cultures, which the creators of this argument lack (I lack it about equally as much). We might think that hierarchical traditions precede egalitarian ones, while in China there have been egalitarian communities a lot earlier than the philosophy would have been borne with John Rawls in the 20th century. Of course, there has always been a hierarchical tradition in ancient China, too, my point is only that certain social systems seem to appear after a certain chronology preceding it and it's just misleading. Having made these precautions, I will proceed to my last argument against this line of reasoning. As Noah's wife even tells Noah, she stuck with him through everything, even through the annihilation of everyone on earth. She did as he has said and she helped him through hell without really ever going against him in words or in actions. So she never told Noah off. But when she says that she will abandon him, it is not that she stands up and starts a new family, or casts Noah out. She actually pledges her allegiance to Shem and his new family, so the authority that Noah used to have as the patriarch, is being withdrawn by the family, which' trust formerly constituted it.

There was a secular argument, which really confused me. Someone said that Aronofsky usually makes his characters suffer from a sort of obsession in his films and Noah's obsession is obeying God's orders. While I understand what this argument is about, I still find it overall confusing. Nobody can have this obsession because God gives wisdom and shows the way on which to walk in every field of life, ergo whoever is obsessed with God is obsessed with everything and that is not an obsession. In Noah's particular case he is exclusively focusing on what mission God has given him. He builds up the ark, he gives up human life on earth but eventually walks back on his decision. This can seem like having an obsession, then finally getting rid of it, still, I believe it is a wrong inerpretation. First, we see what happens, when Noah follows his vision: everything goes well and everything is justified by God, he always receives what is necessary for continuing. Then, at one point, Noah is going out to find wives for his sons and then he sees the true wickedness of humanity and that is what implants the idea that all the people should die on earth, including his own family. But this isn't God's message, it is Noah's own idea because he is afraid of the bad that's inside of everyone's heart. In the Bible we get to see that Noah's a righteous person and his heart is clean but it is, once more, a dramatization, and he finds himself equally evil. And though it is true that there was evil in Noah and all his family, he was still saved. Why Noah is trying to get an end to humanity is that he himself judges his own race, just like God has done formerly. We see the consequences of Noah's judgment, not the Lord's in it. Well, the Bible is not going into details of this sort but there never seems to be the same thing, so this is Aronofsky's addition. It is an ineresting thought and worth meditating on but I think it's quite clear that Noah was not really obsessed but actually conflicted.

The part where I "argue against" ends here. I will go on, though without opposing ideas this time.

What I found very profound was Tubalcain's inner conflict. He knew about the existence of the Creator but he lost contact with him, he has probably never had it. From the story of Pentecost we have learned that the Holy Spirit was sent to be the mediator between God and mankind only after that event and so having connection with God has been very different before. Tubalcain's in-film problems probably originate from the fact that apart from Noah, nobody had that connection, but since Tubalcain and his contemporaries were not long after Eden, where Adam and Eve had a daily and personal connection with God, they somehow craved it. There is a certain ambivalence in this because even though he has an honest desire to reconnect with the Creator he still is evil and he wouldn't think for a second of following God. Tubalcain thinks of the Almighty as equal but men aren't equal with God. He refuses the proud and accepts the humble. Noah is humble and it doesn't mean he would be weak or stupid, since he is the only righteous person in the whole world, which is quite an achievement. But returning to Tubalcain, I find it ingenius that Aronofsky made this attempt to explore the depths of feeling neglected or denied by God.

The last thing that I'd like to mention is the montage of murders: Showing people of different ages killing each other by different means, the people being only dark silhouttes before the red background. Aronofsky was truly creative with this one but there's more to it than the mere spectacle. First of all, it is in the contex of Noah's tale of the creation of the world, so Noah is reasoning with it against the continuation of the existence of men. But as we see that killing is present through all the ages, not exclusively in the ones that preceded Noah, is alarming. Even in the Bible, it is written after the deluge ended that the heart of humans is filled with evil. The very reason why the total population of earth has been annihilated ultimately persists. This is actually why the story of Noah matters so much: the crimes, for which once everyone was killed, are still present, yet we live. This doesn't make much sense in itself. Not at all, unless you read the whole Bible and you read about Jesus, who died for us. This is a brilliant thing, something that only God could think of. 

What is Brendan Eich?

Nearly everyone has heard of how Brendan Eich, Mozilla's former CEO, stepped down because of a scandal around his contribution to an organization that sought to ban gay marriage. Conservatives and liberals have been engaging in heated debates on this matter and this post isn't to determine who's right or who's wrong. What it is meant to discover is the phenomenon itself.

The interpretations I've encountered are:

#1: Opposing liberals meant that Eich made a strategically wrong step. Admitting to failure, he decided to step down.

#2: His personal standpoint went against the very mission of Mozilla, which was not creating profit but spreading openness, freedom and such with a diverse community.

These arguments. however, don't directly lead to the actual consequences. The reasons why these are misleading, inaccurate arguments are:

#1: Even though in politics and everyday life we all try to bring our own views to victory, a liberal couldn't oppose Eich. A liberal answer to his donation would have been nothing but total respect. That is because such a reply would be in favor of diversity, although all-inclusive includes the ones, who don't agree even with inclusiveness. There are many forms of liberalism but none of them would scold Eich's contribution to that organization. In summary, he couldn't oppose liberalism in a way that would lead liberalism away.

#2: Brendan Eich made his contribution as an independent individual, back in 2008. Now he spoke against everything that could oppose the gay society. He realized that holding up such views would definitely infringe Mozilla's mission. Still, his altered position promoted diversity. One could say that he is responsible for the collectivity of his actions but he actually faced this past act of his, trying to make it fit to the company's mission. Opposing Eich would actually mean failing this mission because at least toward him they close their imaginary gates and would exclude him.

What I'm trying to articulate is that there cannot be any idealistic reason to support his stepping down. On what grounds do many support it then?

(Before making my thesis, I want to note, once more that I'm not saying Eich was right or wrong when donating to the anti-gay organization, neither the same about his stepping down. Now back to the point...)

What this case tells us is that though people sympathize with liberalism or communitarianism or anything else, most of them don't actually belong to them. Eich's opposition (the kind, which doesn't only have a different view but instead is actively against him/agrees with his resignation) doesn't consist of liberals or any other group of idealists, instead of people, who may sympathize with them but they themselves are essentially different.

Carl Schmitt wrote that the main function of politics is to distinguish between friend and enemy. Schmitt wasn't a liberal--more importantly he wasn't an idealist but a realist.

Eich's opposition makes an enemy out of him. They called on Mozilla users to uninstall their browser and stop using their products. They took up a fight against him with smart methods, ones, which were enough to make the continuation of his being a CEO impossible. 

It's not a question whether or not Eich was right but whether or not he is a friend to us. Not a liberal community opposed him but rather a realist one that, at best, only serves a liberal community. They can sympathize with liberals but they can't be them.

The reason why I thought this whole matter important to see is that it's not the age of idealism any more. Of course I can't deal an absolute in regards of this because the political sphere is very mixed and while there are realists in it, we can just as easily name another huge group of idealists. My ultimate point is that this presently emerging trend is, contrary to popular statements, not liberalism, or any other form of idealism but realism instead, where one can't rely on rights or morals, only on the inclinations of those, possessing power.

A brief look-back to my book

I'm still working on the little extension thingies for my book. It's been over a year and a month, that I started writing it.

One night I had the weirdest dream, probably of my entire (rather short) existence, about these kids being tricked and trapped in Underworld... I remember, I was in the middle of another "novel" (which by the way I still have not finished :P), and I was just browsing among self-publishing companies. I randomly filled out a registration for one site, as to see what it would cost me to publish myactualwork. I don't know for what reason, but I clicked children's books category, and then things just got crazy in my head...

Nothing real was set in motion but the next day I was called by this publishing company. A very nice woman was politely asking me about mybook. It blew my mind. I felt like I was arealwriter. For no apparent reason I started telling about my dream, insted of the project I was making. What I said was to no extent collected or organised but it didn't bother me much, I was just speaking. Dreaming of getting published...

In one week I wrote like twenty-five, thirty pages. I was extremely thrilled. But, then my joy was soon overcome byreason. I was (and still am (for a hopefully short period of time)) monetarily dependent on my parents. The cheapest publishing package was about 2000 pounds if I remember correctly... Anyways, they said, that a book is not a good investment. So they gave me exactly 0.00 pounds to follow my dreams...

I never give up. I didn't give up then, either... In the coming two months I finished my book, had it revised by a published author, who became a very good friend of mine on the way... After that I sent my manuscript to another friend of mine, who resides in Michigan, U.S.. He used to be a professor of genetics and his knowledge is literally unprecedented. Though I hardly agree with him on anything... So he revised it, as well. He said, it's not really good but he sees some potential... This is kind of like the greatest compliment I've ever heard from him, so it was extremely delightful to me, despite its actual indifference :P

My endurance was always fueled by my beautiful Special Girl (I never know how to call her because girlfriendis kind of awkward and she's not my wife yet, so I'd feel uncomfortable with calling her my Half). She is the greatest artist I've seen, or heard, or known about. The inspiration and motivation she gave me are like this once-in-a-lifetime thing, which we always hear abot but can never truly depict... She never let me give in, or turn blue...

And now, after a year, I'm here. Still trying to make it better. But in this one year, I've learned, that I'm ready to leave my parents' house. For good. I'll write. I'll marry my girlfriend (according to my parents) before time. These are my plans and I know, that I shouldn't be crossing the bridge yet, but there's this thing, called faith. I know this is my path because I was instructed this way, by my Heavenly Instructor... I don't fear the shadows of my future, or even my present because I know, that nothing can go so wrong, as to prevent me from becoming the man, that I'm born to become.

When am I ready?

We work very hard for things we want and for others that we don't. But it's about all right. However, mostly our efforts turn out to be fruitless. Why is this? Why isn't my book published yet? Why am I not married?

Most often we question the methods and the degree of our commitment but other times simply accept failure. None of this and at the same time all of this is right. How can that be?

Firstly, we can never work too hard. There's always a bit more we could do. Yes, even when we feel we've done our best. It is constantly possible to push a little harder, to get somewhat better. And there are times, when our work needs polishing. It's extremely hard to admit, when what we think we've worked for with all our might, cries out for being corrected. It's truly damn difficult to say, that it isn't that good after all.

Secondly, we easily get obsessed with a wide range of variety of things, from what we ought to keep ourselves far. And then it's inevitable, that we lay down our weapons and armours, and whisper lowly: I give up. Then we become free to do what can work for us.

But no matter what we do and how we do it. Sometimes we are destined to achieve success at certain fields, still, we struggle and yet get nowhere. That's because we might not be quite ready. The Oracle tells Neo in the Matrix: Sorry, kid. You got the gift, but it looks like you're waiting for something. And sometimes, very rarely, it looks like we're all waiting for something, just don't know what. We think we'll know when we see it. But it's not something we can see or something that's basically external. No. Just like in Neo's case, we've got to start believing. Faith is the last barrier, that separates us from entering the promise land.

We are one tonight, and I'm singing it out! We are on tonight, And we are dreaming out loud...

Jon Foreman

You: I'd say it's complicated but then...

An impressive study by my favourite artist :)

I made that this afternoon :)