Finals finished two weeks ago and with that came a week of vacation. Originally I was hoping to reach the other side of the English Channel, but as things worked out I ended up staying in Florence. Luckily enough for me it’s still beautiful after almost a year and a half of walking its streets, hearing its accents, and eating its food. The Italian families have been great: one usually on Thursday nights and the other on Friday nights. Food, conversation and company are more than the menu can ever handle.
During the week of vacation I lackadaisically would wake up late, make something to eat, play the guitar, and head out as soon as I could. This was usually anywhere from noon to 2pm, and if you haven’t already figured out my days went quick, but the week went slow. The past two years February has been the longest month of the year for me, last year I was still in February in August, and still in August in October. Needless to say I think time has a harder time trying to understand me than vice-versa.
I finally worked out things at the university after running around the city like a tourist. I’m taking a course in Egyptology, which to my understanding is the study of the study of Egypt. In other words: archaeology, religion, art, and history, but our contemporary understandings of those concepts, not the Egyptian ones, if they had any (we’ll never know for sure). We mostly spend our class discussions going back in time and trying to figure out why the hell we can say what we say about what we are saying. If it’s confusing for you try to read that sentence in Italian.
The class meets three days a week: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday from 11-13 in the Lettere and Filosofia department of the University of Florence, which is about a ten minute walk from my apartment near Piazza Santissima Annunziata. The U of F has a lot of departments located all around the city all with their own separate schedules. Classes start at different times at different locations, no one knows the whole story, and no one is willing to help those who wander around praying that they are in the right part of the city. The department of Lettere and Filosofia, for instance, has 4-5 different buildings where they have their classes. It’s hilarious, as even the Italians haven’t gotten a clue as to what is going on.
A typical 6 CFU class is 30 hours, and if it meets for 6 hours a week then the class is over in 5-6 weeks. Which means 6 CSU units in 5 weeks, if I pass the exam. Presence in class is optional, and testing starts at the end of May (even if the class ends around April). There is no homework, no midterm; just a final exam that everyone takes at different times depending on when we sign up for them. The final exam is oral, in front of the professor as well as other professors of the department. There are no predetermined questions; you simply just have to talk about what you learned.
I’m excited. Plato says that this “truth” is found in dialogue, so why not talk about the stuff we learn instead of writing it down on a secular piece of paper, continuously telling ourselves that that is how we learn. Just think of time before pencils, where you could only sit and listen, using memory techniques and then being able to articulate yourself by using your mouth and not your hand. I really can’t wait to take the test and understand if I know how to learn.
This is the way Italian universities work, and I can really appreciate the institutions and their way of doing things. It seems barbaric and unorganized, but it goes without saying that Europeans (especially Italians) are some of the most highly educated people in the entire world. School is hard, and when people fail they don’t lower their standards, grade on a curve, or give points for “class participation” or “extra credit.” I feel like most of the time schools in the states are more worried about the grades then the knowledge, and so the latter tends to escape us. Last year when we were in class the teacher asked us why we never studied, and we told her that we didn’t have to, that as long as we went through the motions we would be able to get a good grade, eventually getting a piece of paper that told us we were smart. We would then use that piece of paper to get a job and do things that had nothing to do with that piece of paper. She asks, “Doesn’t anything remain after the course?”
No. The answer is no. And that’s ok, because as long as we know the material for those 12-18 weeks, more like the 60 minutes during the test, then we don’t have to remember it every again. It will never come up, most courses that is, and so we do away with it, not really ever learning anything in the first place.
We don’t have to, and that doesn’t have to be right nor wrong, just the way that it can be. It’s up to us to individually while working in a group understand and learn, and unfortunately this has nothing to do with tests and grades. Learning really can’t be qualitatively valued, unless of course all the material is controlled and censored, the object of teaching therefore not being the provocation of though but the rigorous memorization of facts, and knowledge in this case wouldn’t be judged on the capacity to think and react but rather on the ability to remember things without letting them permutate and transform into personal ideas.
After the first module is over (5-6 weeks) I can opt to sit in on the second: hieroglyphic grammar. And once April comes my Esthetics class should finally kick in to gear, and I’ve been reading up: it’s intense. I’m also taking Roman History: The Empire at Cal State since I like the teacher. The first day we talked about the farce of the Empire, how historians created it, how it didn’t exist in the eyes of the Romans, and how it’s super similar to the Star Wars Trilogy. The Republic, the Empire, the Emperor, etc.
I started my internship this week: Thursday and Friday morning at the Regione Toscana – Giunta Regionale in via di Novoli, about an hour walk from my apartment in the outer north-west part of the city. It’s not a bad walk, streets looking more modern and people looking more and more Italian. As for right now I help in correcting grammar when it comes to emails and communication, since the project that they are working on now (involving a lot of useless business jargon and repetitive statements) has all documentation in English. They gave me an office and a laptop, I’m there 6-8 hours a week and it’s worth 3 units: not too shabby at all.
Me and some Italian friends went to Q-Zar on Tuesday night in a little town about a half hour drive from the center. It was fun: we ran around and shot each other for an hour, our team (green) winning 937 to 420.
I’ve been busy, a good busy, and with the days getting warmer and my beard getting longer I’m not sure what’s going to happen, which is a whole lot funner than planning out how I am going to think, feel, and react to future unknown situations.
I hope you don’t mind the light philosophy; more and more ideas have been in my head, and I also have some good ones for a few short stories that I would like to write, let alone movie upon movie idea that one day could land itself on youtube. Stay tuned.
Ciao,
Anthony
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
More Plato
I. Government
“What is a government, but more importantly, why is it needed?”
“Is it not the foundation of all societies? Are we not born with needs, these needs therefore being satisfied through the use of a government?”
“As far as this can be true I am sure of only the common definition, its ability to be understood, and the farces that arise from its misinterpretation. We begin first with the what, the why coming at a later time. A government is commonly just a group of people trying to survive. Time permitting we will be able to further develop concepts of people, groups, and survival, but for now we must assume that they are relevant and real.”
“What, then, would history be?”
“History in this case would be the study of governments with respect to time, groups of people that look to survive for as long as they can. We cannot forget that impermanence, although prominent, is still dependent on time as well as impermanent in itself.”
“Time, in this case, being a measure of knowledge.”
“Precisely, knowledge that we create at the instant we create time. We divide it up logically to show the consistent forms of change, looking ever so closely for the truth that Plato talked about. This truth was transformed into the idea of logic, by Aristotle, and today permutations of various dialogues (such as science and religion) still aim to touch upon the very truth of their day.”
“To understand the present would be to understand the past: this is what we mean by truth?”
“By truth we might mean reality, an ever-changing phenomenon that is concurrent with our own ideas and values. These ideas are used to construct these higher profound theories, that eventually become accepted as truth, as there lies little else to do with them. Truth, further, can be thought up as the convergence of all things, in this case one thing: the universe. However we must be careful when assuming that the universe is a distant and unknowable object. We are as much in the center of it as it is in the center of us, and therefore cannot differentiate the universe from humanity. We are one in the same, continually trying to understand ourselves by separating each other from these concepts. Only then are we able to see them from another side, releasing ourselves from the cave and adding substance to our own shadows.”
“Government, in this sense, would just be one of the many ways to find truth? Knowledge, education, the very reason of existence would be to discover the root of it all, the root from which everything grows, thus realizing that we are all connected, that the logic that breaks us up is not meant for destruction, but rather for understanding. This understanding, however, must become itself through the use of a hierarchy. In other words, the breaking down of this concept as well as its build up would be the definition of this process.”
“Yes, but we must not forget that it might still be possible to go from universe to truth without breaking down subjects and studying them separately.”
“Of course, there is no reason to limit our senses. Why then, would we exact these governments?”
“To secure not our freedom, but our safety. The common good, the bulk of this group, is the reason why governments exist. This does not come without a cost, however, as we must give up some freedoms in nature in order to ensure the safety and well-being of others.”
“What would we give, and what would it be?”
“The common term is popular sovereignty, and Cesare Beccaria tells us that it can be defined as the smallest bit of freedom that each person inherently holds. The collection of all these pieces form this popular sovereignty, this right to rule, and is used as the reason and means to govern. This taste of freedom is not given voluntarily; neither is it taken. It is more clearly understood, as a person cannot be accepted in a government unless he or she believes in its ways.”
“This government, therefore, would have to give also in itself in order to function. How would it do this?”
“There are many theories and practices in place, but the greatest of these was given to us by Aristotle in his Politics. He states that there are three main forms of government; three main forms of power used to govern; three fundamental ways to divide up popular sovereignty. This first of this occurs when one person shares with only him or herself, a Monarchy. The second is when a small group within the society shares it amongst themselves, an Aristocracy. The third and final is when the entire population has all the power, a Democracy. He argues that if there is no checks and balances system in place, this is to say: if power and this freedom-turned-government are not regulated, ultimate harm will be done, chaos being born again out of the order created by humankind. This is shown by the three degenerations of each respective form of government. A Monarchy, given all the power to rule, would eventually turn in to a Tyranny. The given society would then naturally turn to an Aristocracy, and over time as this small group held all the power they too would become corrupt; an Oligarchy. The civilization’s final choice would be to give the power back to all its citizens, thus forming a Democracy. However, as we have seen with the rest, this would theoretically turn into a Despotism: complete Anarchy.”
“Yes, if everyone was returned the freedom given up there would be no government.”
“Exactly.”
II. Respublica
“How will we solve this problem? We must put a system in place to regulate and govern government itself, to keep it from becoming corrupt. We would need checks and balances, to ensure that the safety of the common good is still the highest and most important scope.”
“We call this form of government a republic, in which all three forms are used at the same time. Fluctuating power continues to govern itself, allowing for no branch to become more powerful than another. If this were to happen, says our Aristotle, the other two forms would gather their power and use it to defuse that which was leaning towards evil. This is not to say that a Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy cannot survive on their own. As we have seen in the course of history many different sects of derivatives of these types have been known to prosper for large amounts of time. However the kings of the past are no longer as prominent, and the most popular form of government as well as the most efficient would be the republic. This is notwithstanding the fact that it can be argued against.”
“This idea we have seen with the Romans, and it could be argued that both the French and American revolutions have roots in Aristotle’s teachings, as well as the practice of the Roman Republic that existed in between its two monarchies.”
“We can use history to further understand this concept of time, namely that it repeats, acting more like a circle or spiral than a solid straight line. And we see this strongest in the comparison of the past with itself, remembering that our ultimate goal is truth. This is but only one way that we go about dividing the universe and using our own concepts to distinguish the right from the wrong, another of Aristotle’s works. We should, however, continue down the road of making connections, namely those of the French, American, and Roman ideals.”
“I agree.”
III. French failure
“What shall we make of Desmoulins, Montesquieu, and Rousseau with respect to the French Revolution?”
“We can make a strong argument that their ideas were inspired by those of the Romans; that their revolution, government, and quick road towards anarchy and thus back to monarchy echo both Aristotle and Roman history. Up until that time the French had been governed by a King. The population, with the development of time, history, knowledge and its by-product: thinking, decided that an internal revolution was needed in order to overthrow the old government and form a new one. This new government was to look after the common good and be a republic, with well-outlined powers and balances of that power. A written constitution would be needed to outline these ideas and ensure that no one could manipulate them without the consent of all parties included.”
“What made this government fall in only ten short years?”
“After the victorious revolution of 1789 many constitutions were tried. Consciously more were written, as they were not able to perfectly outline the means by which the French society was going to govern itself as well as how it was going to be successful in doing it. However, there was a more important and fundamental mistake that befell the French population.”
“Would it include the inability of its citizens to accept and respect the aims of the common good?”
“Exactly. The French Revolution was able to change the role of its government from a King to a republic. We have already discussed what a republic is and how it functions and why it functions or should function. But the most important event is the acceptance of the population of itself, that the society is going to provide for the security and well being of its citizens, and this can only be done by conviction. However it was not realized fully, and due to this fact the French, tired of fighting with themselves, did what the Romans did: they bowed to an Emperor in hopes of regaining their security and livelihood. Are you starting to see how history, the study of time, has a way of using itself for understanding?”
“Indeed, the truth is clear.”
IV. American success
“What, therefore, did the American republic do in order to establish a consistent and polished government?”
“In short words: they found a way to eliminate the general population from holding any real power. They called this concept ‘representation’ and their reasons were this: the public does not know what is best for the common good (themselves) and so they need to elect officials that will be able to decide what is best for them. This is similar to how we differentiate ourselves from fundamental unknown (as well as known) concepts so that we can see the whole picture and be able to make an outline. Once this grouping and ranking of knowledge is set then and only then are we able to enter it. ‘Much like how the hiker cannot see the mountain unless he is far away from it, standing in the middle of the field. Only then can he appreciate its beauty and learn how to conquer it.’ This manipulation of our surroundings can best be described as the necessity of language.”
“This again would outline the principle that if the power is in the hands of one form of government created by that same population, that it would lead back into the chaos from which it was born.”
“Yes, destroying itself with itself.
VI. Entomology
“We can see now how definition and entomology has aided in the understanding of past traditions. The Roman Consul, the monarchical facet of its republic, has turned into the American President. The Roman Senate, being of aristocratic domain, has kept its name. The Roman Popular Assemblies have however been modified by this idea of representation, giving the democratic part of a republic the same name but with a different function: The American House of Representatives.”
“Aside from the change of Direct Democracy (formally simply Democracy) to Representative Democracy, the Roman model has proven true, aiding in the success of American government.”
VII. Conclusions
“As we have seen the scope of a government is to provide for the common good by using the individual freedoms borrowed from citizens. This idea is but just one used at attaining the essence of our beings: truth. It cannot be found in words, rather between them, through the use of dialogue, a word that I am sure will change or transform its meaning to include more creations and adaptations of the universe. We must not forget of the control of these concepts that we have, as well as our ability to be blinded by our own individual truths that we project outside of ourselves. The truth that we discuss is of everyone, and in a way can be a common good. This interconnectivity must continue to be appreciated for as long as we can understand it. If we can create and build we must comprehend destruction, using both to help ourselves learn more about each other. At the end it should be noted that both these ideas, although they seem opposite, are one in the same.”
There seems to be a common theme in the papers that I have been writing, so I hope you don't mind me sharing another one. I guess one of these days I'm actually going to have to tell you all what I do on a regular basis. But as for now its ideas on government. Feedback would be nice!
-Anthony
“What is a government, but more importantly, why is it needed?”
“Is it not the foundation of all societies? Are we not born with needs, these needs therefore being satisfied through the use of a government?”
“As far as this can be true I am sure of only the common definition, its ability to be understood, and the farces that arise from its misinterpretation. We begin first with the what, the why coming at a later time. A government is commonly just a group of people trying to survive. Time permitting we will be able to further develop concepts of people, groups, and survival, but for now we must assume that they are relevant and real.”
“What, then, would history be?”
“History in this case would be the study of governments with respect to time, groups of people that look to survive for as long as they can. We cannot forget that impermanence, although prominent, is still dependent on time as well as impermanent in itself.”
“Time, in this case, being a measure of knowledge.”
“Precisely, knowledge that we create at the instant we create time. We divide it up logically to show the consistent forms of change, looking ever so closely for the truth that Plato talked about. This truth was transformed into the idea of logic, by Aristotle, and today permutations of various dialogues (such as science and religion) still aim to touch upon the very truth of their day.”
“To understand the present would be to understand the past: this is what we mean by truth?”
“By truth we might mean reality, an ever-changing phenomenon that is concurrent with our own ideas and values. These ideas are used to construct these higher profound theories, that eventually become accepted as truth, as there lies little else to do with them. Truth, further, can be thought up as the convergence of all things, in this case one thing: the universe. However we must be careful when assuming that the universe is a distant and unknowable object. We are as much in the center of it as it is in the center of us, and therefore cannot differentiate the universe from humanity. We are one in the same, continually trying to understand ourselves by separating each other from these concepts. Only then are we able to see them from another side, releasing ourselves from the cave and adding substance to our own shadows.”
“Government, in this sense, would just be one of the many ways to find truth? Knowledge, education, the very reason of existence would be to discover the root of it all, the root from which everything grows, thus realizing that we are all connected, that the logic that breaks us up is not meant for destruction, but rather for understanding. This understanding, however, must become itself through the use of a hierarchy. In other words, the breaking down of this concept as well as its build up would be the definition of this process.”
“Yes, but we must not forget that it might still be possible to go from universe to truth without breaking down subjects and studying them separately.”
“Of course, there is no reason to limit our senses. Why then, would we exact these governments?”
“To secure not our freedom, but our safety. The common good, the bulk of this group, is the reason why governments exist. This does not come without a cost, however, as we must give up some freedoms in nature in order to ensure the safety and well-being of others.”
“What would we give, and what would it be?”
“The common term is popular sovereignty, and Cesare Beccaria tells us that it can be defined as the smallest bit of freedom that each person inherently holds. The collection of all these pieces form this popular sovereignty, this right to rule, and is used as the reason and means to govern. This taste of freedom is not given voluntarily; neither is it taken. It is more clearly understood, as a person cannot be accepted in a government unless he or she believes in its ways.”
“This government, therefore, would have to give also in itself in order to function. How would it do this?”
“There are many theories and practices in place, but the greatest of these was given to us by Aristotle in his Politics. He states that there are three main forms of government; three main forms of power used to govern; three fundamental ways to divide up popular sovereignty. This first of this occurs when one person shares with only him or herself, a Monarchy. The second is when a small group within the society shares it amongst themselves, an Aristocracy. The third and final is when the entire population has all the power, a Democracy. He argues that if there is no checks and balances system in place, this is to say: if power and this freedom-turned-government are not regulated, ultimate harm will be done, chaos being born again out of the order created by humankind. This is shown by the three degenerations of each respective form of government. A Monarchy, given all the power to rule, would eventually turn in to a Tyranny. The given society would then naturally turn to an Aristocracy, and over time as this small group held all the power they too would become corrupt; an Oligarchy. The civilization’s final choice would be to give the power back to all its citizens, thus forming a Democracy. However, as we have seen with the rest, this would theoretically turn into a Despotism: complete Anarchy.”
“Yes, if everyone was returned the freedom given up there would be no government.”
“Exactly.”
II. Respublica
“How will we solve this problem? We must put a system in place to regulate and govern government itself, to keep it from becoming corrupt. We would need checks and balances, to ensure that the safety of the common good is still the highest and most important scope.”
“We call this form of government a republic, in which all three forms are used at the same time. Fluctuating power continues to govern itself, allowing for no branch to become more powerful than another. If this were to happen, says our Aristotle, the other two forms would gather their power and use it to defuse that which was leaning towards evil. This is not to say that a Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy cannot survive on their own. As we have seen in the course of history many different sects of derivatives of these types have been known to prosper for large amounts of time. However the kings of the past are no longer as prominent, and the most popular form of government as well as the most efficient would be the republic. This is notwithstanding the fact that it can be argued against.”
“This idea we have seen with the Romans, and it could be argued that both the French and American revolutions have roots in Aristotle’s teachings, as well as the practice of the Roman Republic that existed in between its two monarchies.”
“We can use history to further understand this concept of time, namely that it repeats, acting more like a circle or spiral than a solid straight line. And we see this strongest in the comparison of the past with itself, remembering that our ultimate goal is truth. This is but only one way that we go about dividing the universe and using our own concepts to distinguish the right from the wrong, another of Aristotle’s works. We should, however, continue down the road of making connections, namely those of the French, American, and Roman ideals.”
“I agree.”
III. French failure
“What shall we make of Desmoulins, Montesquieu, and Rousseau with respect to the French Revolution?”
“We can make a strong argument that their ideas were inspired by those of the Romans; that their revolution, government, and quick road towards anarchy and thus back to monarchy echo both Aristotle and Roman history. Up until that time the French had been governed by a King. The population, with the development of time, history, knowledge and its by-product: thinking, decided that an internal revolution was needed in order to overthrow the old government and form a new one. This new government was to look after the common good and be a republic, with well-outlined powers and balances of that power. A written constitution would be needed to outline these ideas and ensure that no one could manipulate them without the consent of all parties included.”
“What made this government fall in only ten short years?”
“After the victorious revolution of 1789 many constitutions were tried. Consciously more were written, as they were not able to perfectly outline the means by which the French society was going to govern itself as well as how it was going to be successful in doing it. However, there was a more important and fundamental mistake that befell the French population.”
“Would it include the inability of its citizens to accept and respect the aims of the common good?”
“Exactly. The French Revolution was able to change the role of its government from a King to a republic. We have already discussed what a republic is and how it functions and why it functions or should function. But the most important event is the acceptance of the population of itself, that the society is going to provide for the security and well being of its citizens, and this can only be done by conviction. However it was not realized fully, and due to this fact the French, tired of fighting with themselves, did what the Romans did: they bowed to an Emperor in hopes of regaining their security and livelihood. Are you starting to see how history, the study of time, has a way of using itself for understanding?”
“Indeed, the truth is clear.”
IV. American success
“What, therefore, did the American republic do in order to establish a consistent and polished government?”
“In short words: they found a way to eliminate the general population from holding any real power. They called this concept ‘representation’ and their reasons were this: the public does not know what is best for the common good (themselves) and so they need to elect officials that will be able to decide what is best for them. This is similar to how we differentiate ourselves from fundamental unknown (as well as known) concepts so that we can see the whole picture and be able to make an outline. Once this grouping and ranking of knowledge is set then and only then are we able to enter it. ‘Much like how the hiker cannot see the mountain unless he is far away from it, standing in the middle of the field. Only then can he appreciate its beauty and learn how to conquer it.’ This manipulation of our surroundings can best be described as the necessity of language.”
“This again would outline the principle that if the power is in the hands of one form of government created by that same population, that it would lead back into the chaos from which it was born.”
“Yes, destroying itself with itself.
VI. Entomology
“We can see now how definition and entomology has aided in the understanding of past traditions. The Roman Consul, the monarchical facet of its republic, has turned into the American President. The Roman Senate, being of aristocratic domain, has kept its name. The Roman Popular Assemblies have however been modified by this idea of representation, giving the democratic part of a republic the same name but with a different function: The American House of Representatives.”
“Aside from the change of Direct Democracy (formally simply Democracy) to Representative Democracy, the Roman model has proven true, aiding in the success of American government.”
VII. Conclusions
“As we have seen the scope of a government is to provide for the common good by using the individual freedoms borrowed from citizens. This idea is but just one used at attaining the essence of our beings: truth. It cannot be found in words, rather between them, through the use of dialogue, a word that I am sure will change or transform its meaning to include more creations and adaptations of the universe. We must not forget of the control of these concepts that we have, as well as our ability to be blinded by our own individual truths that we project outside of ourselves. The truth that we discuss is of everyone, and in a way can be a common good. This interconnectivity must continue to be appreciated for as long as we can understand it. If we can create and build we must comprehend destruction, using both to help ourselves learn more about each other. At the end it should be noted that both these ideas, although they seem opposite, are one in the same.”
There seems to be a common theme in the papers that I have been writing, so I hope you don't mind me sharing another one. I guess one of these days I'm actually going to have to tell you all what I do on a regular basis. But as for now its ideas on government. Feedback would be nice!
-Anthony
Friday, February 6, 2009
better to be the poor servant of a poor master
Imagine a cave. Inside this cave there are prisoners. These prisoners are chained by their limbs and cannot move. They cannot move their heads, and therefore can only look forward. Their heads face the wall of the cave. Now imagine on the opposite side of this cave there is a fire burning. Imagine that in between this fire and the wall where the prisoners are looking is a raised walkway. People, things, animals would walk over this walkway, and their shadows would be projected on the wall. The prisoners, therefore, would never see the object, but only its shadow. They would give names to these shadows, and the prisoner that knew the most names and that would be able to predict what would come next would be the king. The sounds, too, would be attached to the various shadows that the prisoners saw. This would be their reality, only seeing the shadow of the object and never the object itself.
Now imagine one day a prisoner is able to escape from the cave into the world of light. At first he would be blinded by its source, and would not want to comprehend the real world around him. He would be much more comfortable returning to the cave, back to the reality he thought he had. But, after a while, he would assimilate. He would understand the source of the light, the beauty of the truth, and he would be happy. He would see the stars and the sun, and know from where every shadow was born.
Now imagine that this prisoner, who no longer is such, returns to the cave. His friends would not recognize his shadow since they had never seen it. He would tell his old friends about the shadows, the real objects behind them, and the source of how they are formed. His fellow prisoners, however, would not want to hear this, as it would take them from the known and accepted reality. They have had this reality their entire lives. It is the only one they know and understand.
Having seen the world of light, the freeman would have a hard time adjusting back to the darkness and recognizing all of the shadows. He would not be called intelligent nor efficient, and the more he tried to convince the other prisoners about the farce of their realities the more they would want him killed. But this would not make the world of the light any less real.
In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave the prisoners represent humankind. The cave is the only knowledge and reality that they know, and the freedman is the philosopher. He understands that there is another world, that the fixed and governed one does not hold the great truth. It will be difficult for him to return to the cave and function in the prisoners’ society once he has seen the light, as they would not be willing to liberate themselves from what they considered true. The philosopher, for the betterment of humankind, should understand both the world inside the cave as well as the one outside.
Truth, according to Plato, was not something that could be taught directly. Guides could help, but the ultimate understanding would have to be the result of the individual liberating him or herself from the cave. This “transference” of knowledge did not exist to him, and was rather a trap than a conscious effort toward truth. That is to say that the memorization of facts does not constitute knowledge, and that truth does not lie in these facts. Truth, rather, is in the form of ideas, ideas that continually change and that can be altered or manipulated to change. The only way to find and understand this truth, says Plato, is through dialogue:
“Now I would like to discuss this concept of truth, what it is, what it can be, if it has to be, and why this must be true. How we use this truth and how we manipulate it are of great importance. Truth, to me, is the purest form of thought, and in some circumstances the purest form of purity. Purity, to my understanding is as close one can get to nothing. The concept of nothing, in this sense, would not be the void of all things, nor would it mean emptiness, and as with all definitions would neither be an end nor a beginning, but rather the source for it all, just as the sun is the source for all shadows, even when it is night.”
“But night, by definition, is the time of day without the sun, a time of rest, and the process therefore will begin the following day, right?”
“In the respect of secularization, yes. If we wanted to divide up the universe into subjects we would first have to define the universe as being a hub of subjects. These subjects we would have to develop further, giving them knowledge and importance. In this case the knowledge and importance are fully dependent on ourselves, and not of the universe, because we have now made it ours. The concept might have been able and might still be able to be understood without language, but we would never be able to say it, to speak it, to hear it. We need to know, to understand, and so we give things names. At the exact moment that an unknown becomes a known, it goes into the past. It does this by being understood, by making a connection with the past, as no fact can be created from nothing, nor can the universe, our understanding of it.”
“Although this might make sense, I have a hard time differentiating what I think is real and what actually is real. Are they one in the same?”
“Exactly. Our realities are built around what we see as true, as unchanging, as real. But this reality is always in flux, always changing, and the ideas that we do not want to let go of, that we cannot let change, become our downfall. We, fortunately or unfortunately, believe most of what we see, and if we do not we must create a knowledge for it, in order to understand and move on to the next. We compile all this information and call it “knowledge” or “intelligence,” concepts that we create and therefore have power over. We manipulate both in order to exact our own wills, and the main tool for this is education.”
“Education, in this sense, would be more of the strict memorization and processing of information created by humankind rather than the purest path towards truth? If this were so, what would learning be? Can we do anything that does not have to concern language? Can we exist? Can we even discuss truth?”
“To discuss truth would be to assume that it existed, which would be to assume that an idea of it located itself in someone’s mind. This would therefore be true, and the assumption would be correct if we accepted our assumptions as genuine. Existence, I still have yet to find, cannot exist without language. The concept that we put in to words is the way that we understand it, just like the shadows on the cave. Whether or not we realize what the subjects of the objects are will be difficult to ever know.”
“Will we know when we have left the cave?”
“We will know when things have changed, when we do not accept ideas that we might have accepted, when we use our minds to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas, and only when we return to the cave of darkness will we fully be aware of our transformation.”
“So we must understand both the light and the dark in order to be sure we are on the right path for truth?”
“Yes, this duality and understanding of the balance apparent is needed to understand. Understanding one concept without its contradiction will only end in bloodshed, in the misuse of information, and in the controlling of truth, of language, and of knowledge. Education, in this sense, would be mistaken for all three. Instead it should be this guide that helps us follow the path of truth, rather than be the one that deters us, kidnapping our own thoughts and turning them into a circle that never ends. Questions like the ones you have asked will never be able to be answered fully, as the ideas will continue to change. They do not keep us on the path of truth, but rather deter our own thoughts, keeping ourselves busy. To answer these would however be a practice of the way in which to leave the cave, but to never return would be just as useless.
“I cannot follow your thoughts, as I continue to question myself, my reality, and my truth.”
“And that is where you are wrong, as with the independence of the individual comes the fraternity of humankind, one concept that we break into pieces, further continuing the farce of knowledge and of education, ensuring ourselves that the only thing we must do is understand, and we do that with knowledge and education. Do you see how the circle will never end?”
“I do, but what not is life if not a circle? And once it concludes it is over, but how can there be an end if there is no beginning?”
At this point the listener has realized why as people we must have a beginning and an end, for it might be the only way to conceptualize the concepts of the universe. One of these, time, has been created therefore by us, broken down and manipulated in order to squeeze as much knowledge and information as possible from it. Life, another product of the universe, has the same characteristics.
It is not as important to answer questions as it is to ask them. For in asking we understand the answers: those that cannot be put in to words.
Are we once again prisoners in the cave?
-Anthony
P.S.: I wrote this for my final mythology paper, focusing on truth in plato's allegory of the cave, and wanted to share it with all of you. The old text (written about 380 B.C.) can be found on the internet (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html) or in book 7 of The Republic. Ciao!
Now imagine one day a prisoner is able to escape from the cave into the world of light. At first he would be blinded by its source, and would not want to comprehend the real world around him. He would be much more comfortable returning to the cave, back to the reality he thought he had. But, after a while, he would assimilate. He would understand the source of the light, the beauty of the truth, and he would be happy. He would see the stars and the sun, and know from where every shadow was born.
Now imagine that this prisoner, who no longer is such, returns to the cave. His friends would not recognize his shadow since they had never seen it. He would tell his old friends about the shadows, the real objects behind them, and the source of how they are formed. His fellow prisoners, however, would not want to hear this, as it would take them from the known and accepted reality. They have had this reality their entire lives. It is the only one they know and understand.
Having seen the world of light, the freeman would have a hard time adjusting back to the darkness and recognizing all of the shadows. He would not be called intelligent nor efficient, and the more he tried to convince the other prisoners about the farce of their realities the more they would want him killed. But this would not make the world of the light any less real.
In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave the prisoners represent humankind. The cave is the only knowledge and reality that they know, and the freedman is the philosopher. He understands that there is another world, that the fixed and governed one does not hold the great truth. It will be difficult for him to return to the cave and function in the prisoners’ society once he has seen the light, as they would not be willing to liberate themselves from what they considered true. The philosopher, for the betterment of humankind, should understand both the world inside the cave as well as the one outside.
Truth, according to Plato, was not something that could be taught directly. Guides could help, but the ultimate understanding would have to be the result of the individual liberating him or herself from the cave. This “transference” of knowledge did not exist to him, and was rather a trap than a conscious effort toward truth. That is to say that the memorization of facts does not constitute knowledge, and that truth does not lie in these facts. Truth, rather, is in the form of ideas, ideas that continually change and that can be altered or manipulated to change. The only way to find and understand this truth, says Plato, is through dialogue:
“Now I would like to discuss this concept of truth, what it is, what it can be, if it has to be, and why this must be true. How we use this truth and how we manipulate it are of great importance. Truth, to me, is the purest form of thought, and in some circumstances the purest form of purity. Purity, to my understanding is as close one can get to nothing. The concept of nothing, in this sense, would not be the void of all things, nor would it mean emptiness, and as with all definitions would neither be an end nor a beginning, but rather the source for it all, just as the sun is the source for all shadows, even when it is night.”
“But night, by definition, is the time of day without the sun, a time of rest, and the process therefore will begin the following day, right?”
“In the respect of secularization, yes. If we wanted to divide up the universe into subjects we would first have to define the universe as being a hub of subjects. These subjects we would have to develop further, giving them knowledge and importance. In this case the knowledge and importance are fully dependent on ourselves, and not of the universe, because we have now made it ours. The concept might have been able and might still be able to be understood without language, but we would never be able to say it, to speak it, to hear it. We need to know, to understand, and so we give things names. At the exact moment that an unknown becomes a known, it goes into the past. It does this by being understood, by making a connection with the past, as no fact can be created from nothing, nor can the universe, our understanding of it.”
“Although this might make sense, I have a hard time differentiating what I think is real and what actually is real. Are they one in the same?”
“Exactly. Our realities are built around what we see as true, as unchanging, as real. But this reality is always in flux, always changing, and the ideas that we do not want to let go of, that we cannot let change, become our downfall. We, fortunately or unfortunately, believe most of what we see, and if we do not we must create a knowledge for it, in order to understand and move on to the next. We compile all this information and call it “knowledge” or “intelligence,” concepts that we create and therefore have power over. We manipulate both in order to exact our own wills, and the main tool for this is education.”
“Education, in this sense, would be more of the strict memorization and processing of information created by humankind rather than the purest path towards truth? If this were so, what would learning be? Can we do anything that does not have to concern language? Can we exist? Can we even discuss truth?”
“To discuss truth would be to assume that it existed, which would be to assume that an idea of it located itself in someone’s mind. This would therefore be true, and the assumption would be correct if we accepted our assumptions as genuine. Existence, I still have yet to find, cannot exist without language. The concept that we put in to words is the way that we understand it, just like the shadows on the cave. Whether or not we realize what the subjects of the objects are will be difficult to ever know.”
“Will we know when we have left the cave?”
“We will know when things have changed, when we do not accept ideas that we might have accepted, when we use our minds to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas, and only when we return to the cave of darkness will we fully be aware of our transformation.”
“So we must understand both the light and the dark in order to be sure we are on the right path for truth?”
“Yes, this duality and understanding of the balance apparent is needed to understand. Understanding one concept without its contradiction will only end in bloodshed, in the misuse of information, and in the controlling of truth, of language, and of knowledge. Education, in this sense, would be mistaken for all three. Instead it should be this guide that helps us follow the path of truth, rather than be the one that deters us, kidnapping our own thoughts and turning them into a circle that never ends. Questions like the ones you have asked will never be able to be answered fully, as the ideas will continue to change. They do not keep us on the path of truth, but rather deter our own thoughts, keeping ourselves busy. To answer these would however be a practice of the way in which to leave the cave, but to never return would be just as useless.
“I cannot follow your thoughts, as I continue to question myself, my reality, and my truth.”
“And that is where you are wrong, as with the independence of the individual comes the fraternity of humankind, one concept that we break into pieces, further continuing the farce of knowledge and of education, ensuring ourselves that the only thing we must do is understand, and we do that with knowledge and education. Do you see how the circle will never end?”
“I do, but what not is life if not a circle? And once it concludes it is over, but how can there be an end if there is no beginning?”
At this point the listener has realized why as people we must have a beginning and an end, for it might be the only way to conceptualize the concepts of the universe. One of these, time, has been created therefore by us, broken down and manipulated in order to squeeze as much knowledge and information as possible from it. Life, another product of the universe, has the same characteristics.
It is not as important to answer questions as it is to ask them. For in asking we understand the answers: those that cannot be put in to words.
Are we once again prisoners in the cave?
-Anthony
P.S.: I wrote this for my final mythology paper, focusing on truth in plato's allegory of the cave, and wanted to share it with all of you. The old text (written about 380 B.C.) can be found on the internet (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html) or in book 7 of The Republic. Ciao!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
god's on vacation
“Are you lost, sir?”
“Yes. I was trying to exit from that end of the church but it’s blocked off.”
“It’s beautiful isn’t it? Are you from Padova?”
“No, I’m from San Francisco in California, the United States. I study in Florence and right now we are on a field trip.”
“Florence, I know where that is.”
“Where are you from?”
“Trieste, but I live here now. What do you study?”
“Art history, but right now a little bit of everything. I really like philosophy and think I want to study that next.”
“You made a mistake. Where is philosophy going to take you? You know what you should study? Languages. With China becoming the strongest world power, it’s going to be needed. You need to earn a living, and language is where you need to be.”
“Yes, language does interest me, but right now I really have no idea what I want to do.”
“How old are you, sir?”
“23.”
“Oh, you’ve got time, but you need to start soon: the more languages the better. Look at the world we have today, without language you have no other means to do anything if things begin to get worse, which they continue to do.”
“You’re right.”
“You know the four basic questions of philosophy, the ones that people have been trying to answer for the last 3,000 years: Who are we? Where do we come from? What are we doing? Why do we do it? These four questions that never lead anywhere, just a continuous circle. Take a look at this, you see what it says?”
“It says that life is the continuation of the wonder of existing.”
This was the conversation I had with a very nice old man inside Saint Anthony’s basilica. I had just finished using the bathroom and was walking around the courtyards, looking for the exit that eventually was blocked off. He stopped me and asked me if I was lost, and I said yes. I think that that question and answer have a more profound meaning that locates itself a little bit under the surface. He told me more of his life; we talked about politics, both Italian and American. I don’t need to get in to too many details. Then as we were walking out he started reading an old stone tablet, first the Greek and then the Latin, all this while he was telling me words in French mixed with his beautiful Italian language. He had to have learned it in school, since the city of Trieste is located at the southern border of Italy and Slovenia. Five languages that I could count in the short half an hour that we spent together.
I don’t remember his name, and for a few minutes it bothered me. He has an identity, and is alive just as anybody else, maybe even a little more, and at this point his name doesn’t really matter. It’s the experience and insight that we talked about standing in the courtyard of one of the most beautiful churches I have ever seen. And I’m not even religious.
The next day me and a few good friends decided to skip out on the Villas and head off to Venice to play around and hopefully get thrown out of a museum or two. The weather couldn’t have been more beautiful, and we spent just about the entire day walking around and laughing. Come to think of it, every time someone asks us what we did the only thing that comes to mind is walking and talking. Nothing too spectacular, but I guess that makes it more amazing.
We also formed a band called “god’s on vacation.” There are four of us, and all you have to do to join is fart in a church. I believe farting in church is one of the most rewarding experiences that anyone can ever do, and all I have to say to those non-believers is this: Jesus was a man, most if not all of us agree on that. Which means he pooped, he had boogers, and most of all he farted. Jesus farted, and so farting in church is being like Jesus, a man, rather, a person. Any questions?
Oh yea while walking around we tired to make as many “street” euphemisms that we could, obviously switching “street” with “canal,” since Venice doesn’t have any streets, just canals. I have to give credit to Mitch Hedberg for the inspiration and all the first two on the list that follows:
We’ve got to get the kids off the canals
I got canal smarts bitch!
That’s going to hurt your canal-cred
Is that thing canal-legal?
It’s the end of the canal for you bud
Let’s get this show on the canal
Hit the canal jack
Canal-head
Please pull your gondola to the side of the canal
Do you want to see some illegal canal racing?
Country canals, take me home, to the place, I belong
It’s a long canal ahead
I’m from the canals!
We were raised on the canals!
Do you want to end up on the canals like everybody else?
Go play on the free-canals
On the canal again
Canal-musicians
Canal-vendors, etc.
The last day of our trip we visited Vicenza and its sweet old theater and then Mantova and even got to see the “Pharmacy” where “Romeo” bought the supposed “Poison.” I didn’t ditch the group as much as last year but still managed to enjoy myself thanks to the beautiful Italian culture that still can be found amongst its cities.
In our Italian Politics class last week we were talking about the “American Dream,” what it was, what it meant, and the teacher brought up a very interesting point/question. He wondered how the youth of today (us) felt about our future, if we were given any hope for change, or if we were just told to keep our mouths shut and get a job. For the most part we agreed that we were told to study, to listen, and to learn, without ever questioning the means or the reasoning behind it. This “American Dream” and I put it in quotation marks for many a reason (one being that it never existed, similar to a marketing ploy aimed at convincing people to come over here and work like slaves (i.e. the Italian/Irish immigrants on the NYC subway and the Chinese on the transcontinental railroad), and the other being to work and keep quiet, because who likes a shit-disturber?). I’ll have to get back to that in a second.
The second article up for discussion was the war in Iraq vs. the war in Vietnam. He brought to our attention the fact that more people have died in the current war than they did in the Vietnam war, but for some reason the mass of people couldn’t care less. Yes, there are some newspapers that tell the story, but for the most part the mass media concerns us with britney spear’s kids and what color the homeland security monkeys have designated for the day. Strikes still seem to happen, but there definitely isn’t this unity in the so-called “united” states. One reason could be for all the toys we have (ipods, the internet, big cars, and 80 hour a week jobs), which seems logical. If our attention is kept in material things that we make important then we’ll never really open our eyes and see the world, at least not the whole world. This rise of individuality I guess has its perks if you are well off and don’t need to worry, but for the other 99% of the world population it’s not that easy. People need people to survive, at least that’s what Plato said, and Aristotle made sure to say that there are people that oppress and people that get oppressed, and that is how the hierarchy keeps to its own needs to survive. I don’t know if I agree with either of them, but it’s obviously a great topic to talk about, if we can ever turn off our ipods and stop telling our kids to sit and listen to the farces that come out of our mouths everyday.
This honor idea, I was talking to a good friend in Venezia, and it occurred to me that a very “honorable” life would be to be born, go to school, graduate, work for 50-60 years, retire, sit around the house, and then die. That, to us at least, is honor. We can all just stop right now, go back to work, and shut up, and in the end we fortunately have this great “excuse” for not doing what we believed in, for sitting still and being oppressed, and we call that honor. Honor, the American Dream, means to not question everything because we supposedly have everything we need. But once you scratch the surface you find that most of the fundamental values in society go away completely (honor, love, history, knowledge, order, majority rule, etc.). And I hope that we have understood at least the tip of the iceberg in the past few months.
Honor, however, has another meaning, and that comes with the Jesus’ and the Socrates’ and the people that go against everything we thought was true for a better life, assuming that progress means betterment and that betterment is related to the “common good.” That leaves us in a state of shock, because we don’t know what to do. We have a system in place to survive, and we are drilled that it’s perfect, that government is needed, and that democracy…whoops.
Democracy, majority rules, the people have the power. Wrong, at least for us. It’s never been about democracy, because our system of government is a republic. And a republic is a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy put together, under the assumption that if one facet of government has unlimited power that it will eventually degenerate, ultimately ending up in anarchy and then right back to a monarchy (which happened in 1799 with the French Republic and Napoleon).
In other words, the Roman consul is the American president, which by definition is our king. The Roman senate is our senate, which fulfills the government of a small group of people. And here’s the kicker. We don’t have a democracy, we have representatives. The fundamental assumption associated with the reasoning from taking the government out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of people to think for the people? We don’t know what’s good for us, and we don’t have the capacity to think for the whole, so we have to elect someone to think and act for us, so that we can worry more about our jobs and our kids and our new TV and the paycheck that’s coming on Friday so we can buy more junk.
god I love the american dream
Just to add a little more fuel to the fire, marinate on this: George Washington, the first president of the United States under the constitution of 1787 (there were about 8 presidents before him under the Articles of Confederation that we borrowed from the Iroquois) fought for the british army. He was a red coat. You know what that makes him?
A TERRORIST!!!
And while we’re on the subject, that would make our precious jesus a terrorist too. Don’t you just hate logic?
-Anthony
“Yes. I was trying to exit from that end of the church but it’s blocked off.”
“It’s beautiful isn’t it? Are you from Padova?”
“No, I’m from San Francisco in California, the United States. I study in Florence and right now we are on a field trip.”
“Florence, I know where that is.”
“Where are you from?”
“Trieste, but I live here now. What do you study?”
“Art history, but right now a little bit of everything. I really like philosophy and think I want to study that next.”
“You made a mistake. Where is philosophy going to take you? You know what you should study? Languages. With China becoming the strongest world power, it’s going to be needed. You need to earn a living, and language is where you need to be.”
“Yes, language does interest me, but right now I really have no idea what I want to do.”
“How old are you, sir?”
“23.”
“Oh, you’ve got time, but you need to start soon: the more languages the better. Look at the world we have today, without language you have no other means to do anything if things begin to get worse, which they continue to do.”
“You’re right.”
“You know the four basic questions of philosophy, the ones that people have been trying to answer for the last 3,000 years: Who are we? Where do we come from? What are we doing? Why do we do it? These four questions that never lead anywhere, just a continuous circle. Take a look at this, you see what it says?”
“It says that life is the continuation of the wonder of existing.”
This was the conversation I had with a very nice old man inside Saint Anthony’s basilica. I had just finished using the bathroom and was walking around the courtyards, looking for the exit that eventually was blocked off. He stopped me and asked me if I was lost, and I said yes. I think that that question and answer have a more profound meaning that locates itself a little bit under the surface. He told me more of his life; we talked about politics, both Italian and American. I don’t need to get in to too many details. Then as we were walking out he started reading an old stone tablet, first the Greek and then the Latin, all this while he was telling me words in French mixed with his beautiful Italian language. He had to have learned it in school, since the city of Trieste is located at the southern border of Italy and Slovenia. Five languages that I could count in the short half an hour that we spent together.
I don’t remember his name, and for a few minutes it bothered me. He has an identity, and is alive just as anybody else, maybe even a little more, and at this point his name doesn’t really matter. It’s the experience and insight that we talked about standing in the courtyard of one of the most beautiful churches I have ever seen. And I’m not even religious.
The next day me and a few good friends decided to skip out on the Villas and head off to Venice to play around and hopefully get thrown out of a museum or two. The weather couldn’t have been more beautiful, and we spent just about the entire day walking around and laughing. Come to think of it, every time someone asks us what we did the only thing that comes to mind is walking and talking. Nothing too spectacular, but I guess that makes it more amazing.
We also formed a band called “god’s on vacation.” There are four of us, and all you have to do to join is fart in a church. I believe farting in church is one of the most rewarding experiences that anyone can ever do, and all I have to say to those non-believers is this: Jesus was a man, most if not all of us agree on that. Which means he pooped, he had boogers, and most of all he farted. Jesus farted, and so farting in church is being like Jesus, a man, rather, a person. Any questions?
Oh yea while walking around we tired to make as many “street” euphemisms that we could, obviously switching “street” with “canal,” since Venice doesn’t have any streets, just canals. I have to give credit to Mitch Hedberg for the inspiration and all the first two on the list that follows:
We’ve got to get the kids off the canals
I got canal smarts bitch!
That’s going to hurt your canal-cred
Is that thing canal-legal?
It’s the end of the canal for you bud
Let’s get this show on the canal
Hit the canal jack
Canal-head
Please pull your gondola to the side of the canal
Do you want to see some illegal canal racing?
Country canals, take me home, to the place, I belong
It’s a long canal ahead
I’m from the canals!
We were raised on the canals!
Do you want to end up on the canals like everybody else?
Go play on the free-canals
On the canal again
Canal-musicians
Canal-vendors, etc.
The last day of our trip we visited Vicenza and its sweet old theater and then Mantova and even got to see the “Pharmacy” where “Romeo” bought the supposed “Poison.” I didn’t ditch the group as much as last year but still managed to enjoy myself thanks to the beautiful Italian culture that still can be found amongst its cities.
In our Italian Politics class last week we were talking about the “American Dream,” what it was, what it meant, and the teacher brought up a very interesting point/question. He wondered how the youth of today (us) felt about our future, if we were given any hope for change, or if we were just told to keep our mouths shut and get a job. For the most part we agreed that we were told to study, to listen, and to learn, without ever questioning the means or the reasoning behind it. This “American Dream” and I put it in quotation marks for many a reason (one being that it never existed, similar to a marketing ploy aimed at convincing people to come over here and work like slaves (i.e. the Italian/Irish immigrants on the NYC subway and the Chinese on the transcontinental railroad), and the other being to work and keep quiet, because who likes a shit-disturber?). I’ll have to get back to that in a second.
The second article up for discussion was the war in Iraq vs. the war in Vietnam. He brought to our attention the fact that more people have died in the current war than they did in the Vietnam war, but for some reason the mass of people couldn’t care less. Yes, there are some newspapers that tell the story, but for the most part the mass media concerns us with britney spear’s kids and what color the homeland security monkeys have designated for the day. Strikes still seem to happen, but there definitely isn’t this unity in the so-called “united” states. One reason could be for all the toys we have (ipods, the internet, big cars, and 80 hour a week jobs), which seems logical. If our attention is kept in material things that we make important then we’ll never really open our eyes and see the world, at least not the whole world. This rise of individuality I guess has its perks if you are well off and don’t need to worry, but for the other 99% of the world population it’s not that easy. People need people to survive, at least that’s what Plato said, and Aristotle made sure to say that there are people that oppress and people that get oppressed, and that is how the hierarchy keeps to its own needs to survive. I don’t know if I agree with either of them, but it’s obviously a great topic to talk about, if we can ever turn off our ipods and stop telling our kids to sit and listen to the farces that come out of our mouths everyday.
This honor idea, I was talking to a good friend in Venezia, and it occurred to me that a very “honorable” life would be to be born, go to school, graduate, work for 50-60 years, retire, sit around the house, and then die. That, to us at least, is honor. We can all just stop right now, go back to work, and shut up, and in the end we fortunately have this great “excuse” for not doing what we believed in, for sitting still and being oppressed, and we call that honor. Honor, the American Dream, means to not question everything because we supposedly have everything we need. But once you scratch the surface you find that most of the fundamental values in society go away completely (honor, love, history, knowledge, order, majority rule, etc.). And I hope that we have understood at least the tip of the iceberg in the past few months.
Honor, however, has another meaning, and that comes with the Jesus’ and the Socrates’ and the people that go against everything we thought was true for a better life, assuming that progress means betterment and that betterment is related to the “common good.” That leaves us in a state of shock, because we don’t know what to do. We have a system in place to survive, and we are drilled that it’s perfect, that government is needed, and that democracy…whoops.
Democracy, majority rules, the people have the power. Wrong, at least for us. It’s never been about democracy, because our system of government is a republic. And a republic is a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy put together, under the assumption that if one facet of government has unlimited power that it will eventually degenerate, ultimately ending up in anarchy and then right back to a monarchy (which happened in 1799 with the French Republic and Napoleon).
In other words, the Roman consul is the American president, which by definition is our king. The Roman senate is our senate, which fulfills the government of a small group of people. And here’s the kicker. We don’t have a democracy, we have representatives. The fundamental assumption associated with the reasoning from taking the government out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of people to think for the people? We don’t know what’s good for us, and we don’t have the capacity to think for the whole, so we have to elect someone to think and act for us, so that we can worry more about our jobs and our kids and our new TV and the paycheck that’s coming on Friday so we can buy more junk.
god I love the american dream
Just to add a little more fuel to the fire, marinate on this: George Washington, the first president of the United States under the constitution of 1787 (there were about 8 presidents before him under the Articles of Confederation that we borrowed from the Iroquois) fought for the british army. He was a red coat. You know what that makes him?
A TERRORIST!!!
And while we’re on the subject, that would make our precious jesus a terrorist too. Don’t you just hate logic?
-Anthony
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
When I'm 64
"People are strange when you’re a stranger."
Two weeks. Two weeks, and no matter how many times I listen to it on my ipod when I walk to school (a good 8 minutes, so 4 times all the way through), play it on the guitar at home, sing it in the shower, or write it down during class I cannot for the life of me get that song out of my head. I still like it, and maybe that’s the problem.
So we went to Paris, me and Jenny, and I wished I spoke French. Apparently studying it for 3 years in high school wasn’t enough. Does anything really stick in high school? I’m beginning to feel that those years are just a waste.
But I digress. It’s such a sexy language, and for this I am unsure where all this hatred has come from. Growing up I would hear about those toad-suckers who never won a war, pompous snobs who pretend that you are invisible if you don’t speak the language perfectly. Horrible hosts that only want the world for themselves, thinking that they are the most powerful country in the world, thinking they can have whatever they want and everything they do is right, no matter what it is. Don’t be worried friends. I’m still talking about France, not about the United States. It is a close assessment, however.
Needless to say we were surprised to find that not only was the city beautiful and spectacular but the people were incredibly nice for their stereotype. But since they’re stereotype is frog-leg eating snobs I guess a “bless you” to a sneeze would make them look like the pope. Speaking of popes I had a dream about him the other night. We both slept in late and when I woke up he was sitting next to me. The undertaker in the right room was angry, since it was already 10:27am. And so he went to the left room and wrote in the log that the church (my room) wasn’t properly opened with the pope’s blessing. Talk about a page turner.
I have to say that I wrote the first part of this email, the preceding part, more than a week ago. For the strangest reason I got writer's block, and was almost forcing my fingers to type, telling them that they had to, but neither my brain nor my hands had any more strength. I think it had something to do with going on vacation (from a vacation), relaxing and running around without worry, and then having to go back to school and get back in a "schedule." How that word makes me shake even when I write it.
To me a schedule is what we do when we aren't thinking. That is to say, when we get in to a routine we don't need to think anymore because everything we do is known. We become more like machines than we do anything else, and I think our souls hurt a little bit for it. Maybe that's why we have to sleep in so much on the weekends, and why we don't want to talk about work unless someone really wants to hear about it. Do we not want it to become our life? And for those who love work, is there any difference?
I know that in a given society, in the western world that is, (remember folks we're not the cream of the crop nor are we the only group of humans out there, capitalism isn't the ONLY form of economy, and republic isn't the ONLY form of government (even though it makes it much easier to believe everything we hear if we assume so)) a job is needed in order to live, that is, in the given society. Civilizations are born out of the simple fact that we need things to survive, and the best way to help each other is to work one job for your whole life, that way you can be really good at it (what Plato says) and eternally have to depend on others to do everything else (what I say). It's a tough bargain, and since we therefore need people in order to survive, in order to ensure our well-being (what Thomas Paine says) we need government.
Is there a way around this fact?
I'm not sure, but earlier today when I was listening to a boring and monotonous lecture I started thinking about government and the why, the reasoning behind it. Self-importance has to have something with it, because if the government found a solution that would ensure people wouldn't be dependent on it then the government wouldn't exist, but the government is put there to make sure we survive, and they never try to fulfill any personal agendas, right? "Of the people, for the people, by the people," and we only had to change our constitution 17 times after that!
It's interesting, a monarchy and a republic, and the differences that they think they have, the pros and cons that our republican governments tell us to think. I have to write a paper and do a presentation on the connection between the roman republic and that of the american and french revolutions. The first concept that jumps out is that of history.
What exactly is it?
Is it the study of the past? It can't be completely, because we are studying it in the present. But what are we studying in the past? We are studying the present, the past, and the ultimate future in the past (which sounds like the last email, so I'll cut it short). So we study all three, but from our own brains and our own eyes, and we use scholarly opinion as fact, since they continue to do the same.
So basically history is what we think happened, and since everyone is titled to their opinion we'll never really know for sure. Does that make any sense?
Another concept that bugs the hell out of me when it comes to history is the selfishness of it. We study humans, but only those in power, who wrote stuff down; the winners, that is. The american indians didn't write as many things down as the americans, so we don't teach their history, or at least we don't understand it because they are not as self-important and individualistic like we are. But shouldn't we be worried about individuals since we are a republic? Is it really that interesting to study the diffusion and reincarnation of various clubs and their colors and their members?
And this history that we make up has a way of valuing certain things over others, making some things more reputable than they should be, while leaving many things out i.e. the dark ages vs. the renaissance, roman history vs. italian history (at that time), and hitler during wwII vs. FDR during wwII. Ever heard of Japanese internment camps? Or the forced removal of Americans by their own government for no reason? But FDR was in a wheelchair, and he was a good man, so we don't hold him to horrible standards like we do hitler. Internment is short for concentration, don't let yourself be told otherwise. We did the same thing, but history talks about one and rarely mentions the other. At this point in my life I wonder about the why more than the how.
To make up for it: good old Ronald the actor said "sorry" and handed out checks.
Paris, in short, was huge, and roman. Day 1 we spent 5 hours at the Louvre after hanging out with Notre-Dame, then walked to the Eiffel Tower, then returned to the Louvre for another 2 hours before we made our way back to our hostel. Day 2 we walked all the way to the tower but on the other side of the river, and ran into some awesome looking buildings and parks. Day 3 we trekked all the way to the Arch after spectacularly finding Napoleon's piazza. Day 4 was filled with goodbyes and walking up the tower. The pictures are all up on the website (http://picasaweb.google.com/Jerseynumber53), and they tell a story that I could never possibly put in to words.
I hope I lightened up the atmosphere a little bit with a shorter email/blog thing. Nothing much new to the incredible story I get to live over here. I'm going on the field trip this weekend to northern italy (Padova, Mantova, and hopefully Venezia again), and this past week an article of mine was published in Vista magazine here in Florence. I'm also in the picture!
There is a good chance that I will be interning at the Regione di Toscana, translating documents from Italian to English. It should be good experience for being a bum later on in life. Wish me luck!
Cheers,
Anthony
Two weeks. Two weeks, and no matter how many times I listen to it on my ipod when I walk to school (a good 8 minutes, so 4 times all the way through), play it on the guitar at home, sing it in the shower, or write it down during class I cannot for the life of me get that song out of my head. I still like it, and maybe that’s the problem.
So we went to Paris, me and Jenny, and I wished I spoke French. Apparently studying it for 3 years in high school wasn’t enough. Does anything really stick in high school? I’m beginning to feel that those years are just a waste.
But I digress. It’s such a sexy language, and for this I am unsure where all this hatred has come from. Growing up I would hear about those toad-suckers who never won a war, pompous snobs who pretend that you are invisible if you don’t speak the language perfectly. Horrible hosts that only want the world for themselves, thinking that they are the most powerful country in the world, thinking they can have whatever they want and everything they do is right, no matter what it is. Don’t be worried friends. I’m still talking about France, not about the United States. It is a close assessment, however.
Needless to say we were surprised to find that not only was the city beautiful and spectacular but the people were incredibly nice for their stereotype. But since they’re stereotype is frog-leg eating snobs I guess a “bless you” to a sneeze would make them look like the pope. Speaking of popes I had a dream about him the other night. We both slept in late and when I woke up he was sitting next to me. The undertaker in the right room was angry, since it was already 10:27am. And so he went to the left room and wrote in the log that the church (my room) wasn’t properly opened with the pope’s blessing. Talk about a page turner.
I have to say that I wrote the first part of this email, the preceding part, more than a week ago. For the strangest reason I got writer's block, and was almost forcing my fingers to type, telling them that they had to, but neither my brain nor my hands had any more strength. I think it had something to do with going on vacation (from a vacation), relaxing and running around without worry, and then having to go back to school and get back in a "schedule." How that word makes me shake even when I write it.
To me a schedule is what we do when we aren't thinking. That is to say, when we get in to a routine we don't need to think anymore because everything we do is known. We become more like machines than we do anything else, and I think our souls hurt a little bit for it. Maybe that's why we have to sleep in so much on the weekends, and why we don't want to talk about work unless someone really wants to hear about it. Do we not want it to become our life? And for those who love work, is there any difference?
I know that in a given society, in the western world that is, (remember folks we're not the cream of the crop nor are we the only group of humans out there, capitalism isn't the ONLY form of economy, and republic isn't the ONLY form of government (even though it makes it much easier to believe everything we hear if we assume so)) a job is needed in order to live, that is, in the given society. Civilizations are born out of the simple fact that we need things to survive, and the best way to help each other is to work one job for your whole life, that way you can be really good at it (what Plato says) and eternally have to depend on others to do everything else (what I say). It's a tough bargain, and since we therefore need people in order to survive, in order to ensure our well-being (what Thomas Paine says) we need government.
Is there a way around this fact?
I'm not sure, but earlier today when I was listening to a boring and monotonous lecture I started thinking about government and the why, the reasoning behind it. Self-importance has to have something with it, because if the government found a solution that would ensure people wouldn't be dependent on it then the government wouldn't exist, but the government is put there to make sure we survive, and they never try to fulfill any personal agendas, right? "Of the people, for the people, by the people," and we only had to change our constitution 17 times after that!
It's interesting, a monarchy and a republic, and the differences that they think they have, the pros and cons that our republican governments tell us to think. I have to write a paper and do a presentation on the connection between the roman republic and that of the american and french revolutions. The first concept that jumps out is that of history.
What exactly is it?
Is it the study of the past? It can't be completely, because we are studying it in the present. But what are we studying in the past? We are studying the present, the past, and the ultimate future in the past (which sounds like the last email, so I'll cut it short). So we study all three, but from our own brains and our own eyes, and we use scholarly opinion as fact, since they continue to do the same.
So basically history is what we think happened, and since everyone is titled to their opinion we'll never really know for sure. Does that make any sense?
Another concept that bugs the hell out of me when it comes to history is the selfishness of it. We study humans, but only those in power, who wrote stuff down; the winners, that is. The american indians didn't write as many things down as the americans, so we don't teach their history, or at least we don't understand it because they are not as self-important and individualistic like we are. But shouldn't we be worried about individuals since we are a republic? Is it really that interesting to study the diffusion and reincarnation of various clubs and their colors and their members?
And this history that we make up has a way of valuing certain things over others, making some things more reputable than they should be, while leaving many things out i.e. the dark ages vs. the renaissance, roman history vs. italian history (at that time), and hitler during wwII vs. FDR during wwII. Ever heard of Japanese internment camps? Or the forced removal of Americans by their own government for no reason? But FDR was in a wheelchair, and he was a good man, so we don't hold him to horrible standards like we do hitler. Internment is short for concentration, don't let yourself be told otherwise. We did the same thing, but history talks about one and rarely mentions the other. At this point in my life I wonder about the why more than the how.
To make up for it: good old Ronald the actor said "sorry" and handed out checks.
Paris, in short, was huge, and roman. Day 1 we spent 5 hours at the Louvre after hanging out with Notre-Dame, then walked to the Eiffel Tower, then returned to the Louvre for another 2 hours before we made our way back to our hostel. Day 2 we walked all the way to the tower but on the other side of the river, and ran into some awesome looking buildings and parks. Day 3 we trekked all the way to the Arch after spectacularly finding Napoleon's piazza. Day 4 was filled with goodbyes and walking up the tower. The pictures are all up on the website (http://picasaweb.google.com/Jerseynumber53), and they tell a story that I could never possibly put in to words.
I hope I lightened up the atmosphere a little bit with a shorter email/blog thing. Nothing much new to the incredible story I get to live over here. I'm going on the field trip this weekend to northern italy (Padova, Mantova, and hopefully Venezia again), and this past week an article of mine was published in Vista magazine here in Florence. I'm also in the picture!
There is a good chance that I will be interning at the Regione di Toscana, translating documents from Italian to English. It should be good experience for being a bum later on in life. Wish me luck!
Cheers,
Anthony
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Time Travel
So before I get in to detail about my blog or my blue guitar that I purchased a few days ago, or about my incredible journey that my imagination took me on last night, explaining the intricacies and delicacies as well as possibilities of actual and real time travel, let me hit you up with some knowledge (from?)
- My new year came before most of yours, which means for a definite period of time I was living in the year 2009 while most of you were still living in 2008. One could say that we were a year apart, and at the same time just a day apart, or better, a few hours. This heavily complements my theory of being in the future with respect to the states, in the past with respect to China, and in the present when it comes to good old Italia.
- The Persian new year isn’t until March 21st, which means we have a few more months until the real party starts.
- I quite possibly had my most intricate and profound dream last night, or better yet this morning, and using the western christian (what’s up with the capitalization Word!) calendar let’s say that it is january 1, 2009, or 1/1/2009, or if we are doing it the european way 1/1/2009. There are millions of different ways to define “day” and “date” so we might as well start somewhere.
- Time travel: all I will say about it now is that it can only happen in between two realities (the dream will explain itself towards the end of the email, if you choose to read that far).
- I don’t expect most of you to finish the email, as I don’t expect to finish it. Let’s exceed our expectations.
- I really like parentheses, and can’t figure out why.
I guess it’s time to go back to reality, our relative reality, that is. By popular demand and a quick and simple google search, I decided to create a blog. It wasn’t my idea in the beginning, but the feedback that I received from a few close friends led me to believe that maybe the internet was ready for what we do here, or in another way it was time to grow within and without ourselves and invite others to the party. I wondered about a blog, its crazy schematics and the way in which it worked, and after about a week finally had the courage to google it. Turns out a blog is just a web page, an online diary, a free way to email the internet instead of your friends, and in that case I find it relatively secular and lonely. I don’t email people, I rather upload words on to a webpage and hopefully people will find it, read it, and like it. Either way we should begin to start sharing and see where that takes us.
Another thought that came to mind when I created the blog was a secret fantasy that gave birth to itself a few months before: being discovered. I secretly (and ironically not secretly anymore) hope that some bored person stumbles upon my blog and likes it. Or maybe I get some followers, and better yet start a cult! (that thought process started somewhere and then took a crazy direction, so crazy that I didn’t catch it until the end; let’s try that again…)
Another thought that came to mind when I created the blog was secretly to be discovered, for someone to find me and then rush to Florence and give me a 10 million dollar book deal. Yea, that’s realistic, and pretty humble of myself too, right? Are goals and ideals set so high for a reason? Are we supposed to ever achieve our truest and most intense fantasies? Are we supposed to be successful or rather live in our own fairy tale land until we get lucky or die trying?
I would argue that some goals, albeit pretty realistic, are put in place in order to propel ourselves forward, for us to continually look to the future, continue the path, and finish what we started when we arrived here via our mothers’ birth canal. I still don’t think that there HAS to be a reason, but it’s fun to humor the point, since we all feel we have something that HAS to be said.
And that is where I run in to trouble. For me, and maybe for most of us, the future is always in the future (that is, not now, not yesterday, but tomorrow). I know it sounds rather obvious, but let’s talk about the linear definition of time and see if we can uncover a few traps that we (not time, as time is not at fault and cannot therefore exist without us. Yes, without humans, I am saying, time doesn’t exist) have unconsciously (or consciously) created.
A counter argument could be that nature has some sort of process, that it is not just randomly placed and running haywire, that nature, in itself, even has a sort of governing body and hierarchy, and so when we bring those ideas from nature to our own communities (which in this case would be unnatural) we are not doing a necessary evil but moreover trying to emulate the perfection that we see in nature. Since we came from nature, we are therefore a part of it.
One way to break this argument down would be to first try to understand the difference between “humans” and “nature.” Aren’t we one in the same? How are we possible to differentiate ourselves from nature, nature being part of the earth, part of the galaxy, part of the universe. Can we successfully separate ourselves from the universe in order to understand ourselves?
In this example it then could be argued that our cities, states, and governments are therefore not trying to emulate nature but rather a part of our own human nature, which obviously would then be a part of nature, and this thing about rights and wrongs would (unfortunately, then again thankfully) go away, because we would then be living not in accordance with a higher power nor with a specific set of rules but rather how and what we see in nature. We use mostly science to tell us what nature does, how it operates, and we have been able to come to many a fundamental and major conclusion that has aided in both the continued practice and teaching of science as well as some more closer epiphanies that hit us in the heart.
However I would say that at this stage we have created and identified not 1 but 2 logical fallacies, furthermore that this illogical logic that is ingrained in our heads can easily be broken down and turned in to a mess, much like a house of cards.
Firstly, the future, as we know it, will ALWAYS be ahead of us. What that means, by definition, is that we will never be able to experience it nor live in it, as its primary definition describes a state of mind, a piece of time, in the future. Can I be any simpler in my speech?
Let’s use an example and try to see how the future, in a way, only exists in our minds (and I know that it could be argued that everything exists in our minds but in order to form this argument we have to make some sacrifices to our own logic in order to make it better..err...wiser?)
The example (and forgive me if this sounds sarcastic and condescending, as I still firmly am convinced that life is complex in its simplicities and simple in its complexities) is this:
A) Right now we are in the present, a constantly changing state of time, but when things are happening in the present they are happening now: not before, not after, but the bridge in the middle.
B) One hour ago is in the past, that is, not happening now, something that already happened and will not happen again with the exact same characteristics that we gave it. That is to say, 4:47pm European Standard Time on January 1, 2009 will only happen for 60 seconds, only once, until the end of time.
C) One hour from now is the future, that is, something that isn’t happening now, hasn’t happened yet, but will eventually happen (if we continue to believe our concepts of time, the way in which it is created by us to keep order, as well as sell those really fun calendars of puppies or rainbows).
Now that we have our definitions let’s begin to talk about the future and try to untangle this simple and yet complex web we have created.
The present hour is one that we all know, since it is contemporary with ourselves. Our past was contemporary, but due to the fact that it is not current we can’t hold it responsible for the continued flow of time. The future hour, however, is something we construct and wait for. Seem simple enough?
Let’s first go back 1 our. That would mean that the past is now the present and the present now the future, which makes sense due to our definitions of present, past, and future. But one hour ago the future was not the present, it only becomes the present when we are working in the past. Now that we are in the past it is ok for us to say that yes, the future was now in the past since it already happened, but that would be wrong because how then could we assume that both the past and present are working at the same time? And let’s not forget about the future.
Let’s now go forward an hour, making the present the past and the future the present. But now where did the future go? Even if we assume both are happening at the same instant with respect to time, we still lose the future, it is still always in front of us. What I am trying to say is that right now the future lies ahead, but once the future is in front of me it is not the future anymore, but rather the present. Even though it is still the future with respect to the past we cannot eliminate the past’s relative stance towards its
future.
Secondly (if you are still counting), by doing all this we still cannot escape our own language and the way we use it to understand, or at least convince ourselves that we understand. What I mean is that things don’t have to be the way they are, that we use our tongues to make noises to infer and imply certain characteristics, but without the language we are using nature, time, concepts, words, nothing can exist. We have to have control, we have to be able to change it, and if something is unknown we have to make it known to be able to control it and change it. Language is ambiguous in that anything can mean anything, words in themselves are empty, and we have to fill them up with our own understanding and values. Thankfully we have a dictionary that tells us what to think when we hear a word, but that can’t always save us. Most of the time the context in which a grouping of these words follow can change or alter the meanings of words, and that’s with respect to just one language. Throw in another one and translation begins to look more like oil paintings then they do running rivers. One is beautiful, but dead, and the other is constantly moving until it stops.
What I am trying to say is that assuming meanings to words is one thing, but assuming our own assumptions is another, and I’d hope that it doesn’t have to worry about morality, but ultimately it does. I guess it’s another way that we learn.
I hope we’re all lost. I can’t remember how the talk of the future started but I hope we opened some new doors or at least gave each other some headaches. If not, and if you are still reading, then I applaud you for your efforts (and hope that you are at work and not wasting valuable TIME at home!).
I guess what I am trying to say is that I started a blog and you’re all invited to look at it. I have been trying to fiddle with it and maybe in the future I will change its layout, but right now I think it serves the purpose of being a blog.
On another note I bought a guitar a few days ago. It’s blue and still doesn’t have a name, but it’s sitting right next to me and in a few moments I’m going to make it talk. Or does it talk through me? Or do I talk through it? Can it be played without me? Can I play it without directly or indirectly interacting with it? I guess we’ll have to try to answer those questions (by posing more) in our next episode.
If you haven’t read enough, I thought I would copy and paste the dream that I had last night at the end of this email/blog. It’s kind of fun to be in between both email and blog, and this liminality (yes, it is a word) will help if you do choose to read my entire dream. I wrote 4 pages, which for me is a record (in the 10 months that I have been writing them down). A lot happens, most of it weird. I have to warn you that I have developed a way that I write them that might not be very pleasing. Firstly, something indirectly related to the dream, but not apart of my present state of consciousness, I put in parentheses ( ). However, if I see something in my dream that propels me to think a bit more about it, then I use brackets []. So if you read something in brackets you are reading something that I thought while I was writing the dream down, and not while I was actually dreaming. I hope that makes sense, as it still confuses me sometimes.
Thank you again if you read the entire email, and if you plan on reading another 4 pages I am eternally grateful. Tell me what you think. I always appreciate your thoughts.
Ciao,
Anthony
PS: here’s the dream…
1/1/2009
School was on a field trip (from Florence to a city near Venice) but the city was more Arab than anything. We were going to be there for a few days and upon arrival via plane we had to take a submarine, but the submarine sat on top of the water and never went underneath. So we take the boat from the main land to our city, which was southwest of it.
The city was dark, orange, and the arab feeling was much apparent, maybe due to the fact that they had told us earlier that we were in for a dangerous encounter, if we chose to walk the streets and try to see the sights. I am walking down a main road at night and can see outlines of buildings, an orange hint accented by the blackness of night, and it looks like an old shop, or maybe it’s just closed. I have to get back to the hotel, but am not thinking about anything, since I can’t hear a sound. I walk closer to this building but it seems like the building is walking away from me, only so slow that I don’t realize it. I think about turning right at the alleyway but stop to think about it, all the while the scene continues to progress, as life does not wait until one is ready to live. This is by our definition, so maybe it can, can it not?
We are about to leave this city, and I used to know the name but later on when I am recounting the story to Jenn it leaves me. There could have been an sv in there, something that sounded arab, but in actuality probably more Slavic. And so we get back in the submarine that doesn’t go underwater, and it looks like a train inside, but very cramped with low ceilings. It’s definitely a circle though, since the walls are curved and the size is long and wide enough but too short to walk around without having to worry about bumping in to people. The walkway is on the right side of the machine, actually there seems to be 2-3 seats to the left side (if you are standing in the back looking forward) and 1 seat to the right, with a small isle in the middle. We board and then get off, and begin to walk around the main walkway that will lead us to the central station in Venice, and instead we walk on the roof (since that was where the submarine dropped us off).
When we were arriving this time we were in the air, and could see that on top of the main station or airport terminal it was written “Venice” from bottom to top in red letters, more like red lights so it could be seen in the dark. The top of the building was normal gray, kind of old and boring looking, and the building was long and thin and then seemed to branch out to the left and right, but not in a pure cross, more like a peace sign without the circle, as the main hub continued straight on even when the two side paths began to walk away.
I am walking with someone and realize that our bags were left on the submarine, mine being my small adidas bag and hers being a dark gray garbage bag tied with an orange string. I run back to the ship, thus over the roof again, and then jump down to where we were supposed to walk down, towards the right of where I was standing, and I see the ramp that looks to be welded to the top to allow people to disembark. I run in the ship and there are still people from this year’s program on it, I find the seat that I was sitting in but then pass it, the machine is moving and it’s turning, and we are all in it! People are shouting, and I am waiting for it to stop. First it turns clockwise with respect to me facing the front of the ship from the back, a loud crash but not too bad, we all are still standing, but the second crash (again clockwise but this time I was facing the back of the ship, having already seen my blue bag and still looking for her trash bag with the orange neck.
“BOOM!” the ship turns this time about 90 degrees, and although we are still standing we have to bend over in order to compensate for the tilt. People are screaming, I see Marisol from Italian class at SJSU, but only for a second, as I see my bag in the seat, buried a little and it looks lighter than I had thought I packed it. And then I find Megan’s bag, and I grab it with my left hand as my right shoulder has the strap to my bag. I exit the ship fast and start to think that now the ship is going to tilt, or in a few minutes, like I was shown and felt the future only to be warned, or maybe just to fuck with me. As the feeling was that that hadn’t happened yet, as everyone was calm and not screaming anymore. Or maybe enough time had passed for us to get over the situation and begin to get back to our shallow realities. I am leaving the ship and going back to Florence, but something tells me it’s not time to be there yet, and that even though I think I’m going home there is another stop on the way.
We’re at the beach, me Megan Claudio and they are playing volleyball with a light green (or faded) ball. The beach is white sand and there is water on both sides, then some mountains, we are on a sliver of land but the water is only felt from the left side, as I am at the tip of it looking back at the great earth, the mountains in the background, their gray/orange/red/earthly tones, with white caps that resemble snow but could just be dust from the volcanoes.
Before this we are all leaving the arab city near Venice, because we wanted to go to Taormina which was close on the hill. Me and Jenn are there, and big boulders are beginning to fall from the top of the mountains, engulfing themselves in fire and then crashing and taking more buildings and rubbish with them. It sounds like thunder and then a bolt of fire and the stones are getting hotter and burning but not falling apart, like lighters used to create an inferno.
We look straight ahead and see Taormina, and on top the volcano of Etna, and the city can’t be seen anymore, just volcano dust as the eruption has started. Then boulders the size of houses start to fall from the sky, having an epicenter on top of the volcano, instead of lava there were more rocks, on fire, burning, crisping, popping, and all we can do is watch the end of the world. We slowly are positioning our bodies further away, but are so marveled that we have to stop and watch the complete destruction and carnage. I tell Jenn about the time me and Blake were in Taormina and this same thing happened [which was a dream, and now I am using dreams in dreams to tell about past stories, as I begin to create my own reality in my dreams, a hierarchy, where they are linked and can be used to further my understanding of what’s going on. They are more like chapters in a book rather than short stories, but I guess right now they would appear to be short stories, and it is my own conscious mind that wants them to make sense, or maybe I just like their entertainment value, so they could be short stories independent of one another unless I choose to see the connections which don’t have to be there]
We are on the bus going back to Florence, but we are taking the route and going towards San Francisco. I had seen this on the map and had hoped to take the golden gate bridge and not the bay, and when we saw the cloud of fog encasing the city I knew we were headed for the golden gate, and as soon as we crossed over the blanket we would be in the city. Finn was sitting on the left side of the bus, me on the right, and it appears to me one of those big red buses. We had been away from the city a few days due to the field trip, and at last we were going to see the city that we had missed, and it was a glorious day. To my right I look out the window and see entrances to the zoo, with many iron doors that spin only one direction to let people in and out, in this case they were going in, but the doors weren’t there, only remnants of them, as they were in ruins, a story of the past that didn’t function anymore except in our own minds as we try to discover who we are (by who we were) and what we are doing here (by what we did there).
Finn is smiling and he is looking at me, I tell him what a glorious day it was going to be, and he continues to smile. Although the bus is full and the internal lights are turned off it feels like me and him are the only ones that matter. I can’t see his guitar but I know it’s there, and we can see all the way in front of us, as if the bus was our vehicle but it wasn’t in any way a limiting factor to our arrival, we were free.
On the beach with Megan and Claudio and I thought I saw Marco, but it was only a girl with curly hair. I wished it was him. She was wearing a diaper for a hat and a matching light green, almost teal bathing suit that was more like a speedo. No top, and her tits were more like a mans. I try to focus on her, as she talks to Megan, Claudio starts to break out and play, hitting the ball up with his hands and waiting for some one else to hit it back. The first round I sat out, not wanting to play. I was not going to take off my shirt because I didn’t want to show my white chest and hairy attributes. I focus hard on Marco and realize that it is him, that he gained some weight and was wearing a diaper on his head. I run up to him to great him, to kiss him, but I never get the chance. He hits the volleyball high in the air and before I realize that I have done I am running with my shirt off in my green trunks to try to hit the ball back to someone. I do, but it’s not close, but in the vicinity of Marco or Claudio, and we continue to play this way, the ball always getting hit and then rising and falling very slow, in slow motion or with less gravity, and everytime I go and hit it I have to dive. I am always on the sand, and one time I hit the ball so hard it goes over everyone’s head and into the desert oasis.
A boy has the ball at his feet. He’s tan and skinny and looks just like Scott Lint. Because he is. And there is Splain and Tumath and Brian (Julieanns boyfriend) and even Preet I see, mostly friends from high school. I never look back at the 3 I was playing with, and start to give Scott a hug, telling him he hadn’t changed a bit, and looked in good shape with a good tan. We ask each other where the hell we had been, but neither of us is that excited, like it wasn’t a big deal, as we had just seen each other years before, but they were closer to us than farther a way, more of an annoying fact we had to accept but nonetheless they didn’t have any bearing on our relationship. I turn and see people sitting down, my old friends, smiling at me, with the green palm trees and grass and water hole, a fountain. What a marvelous place. For a minute I forgot where I came from, who my current friends were, and I wonder what they are thinking about me, if they miss me, if they can see me as I take this journey to the past. What they will ask me when I come back, how much they care, hoping they care, but knowing it’s just my imagination, my fantasy that’s more important than the reality of what might happen, where I have the most control and can think and do whatever I want. I can get lost with it, change it, manipulate it, and the minute it comes out of me and to other people I have to give up that control, that ability to change and be whatever I want, and I have to start to conform, for the fantasy to start to adhear to rules, to society, to other people that will change it the way they want to change it, without regard for me, even though it’s my mind. They will declare how it will happen, what’s right and wrong about it, and where it should go. I am no longer in control of my own thoughts, of my own mind, only humor myself that I have these liberties, trying to chase the slave inside of me, wanting to liberate him from everyone and everything, knowing it’s impossible in this form of consciousness. [maybe that’s why I dream so much?]
Me and Jenn walking, but first it’s just me at my house in the city, and I am charging a car battery on the camaro in the garage, the ’68. And my dad comes does stairs with what I think is my puff jacket. I try to rip it off him and he says to watch out for the steamer, as there was a steamer inside of the jacket he was wearing on his left side. I try to pull, telling him he’s wrong, and then I realize that I am wearing my puff coat, and that he was right. I tell him that, rip the red and black wires off of the battery of the car, that was located towards the middle and not on one of the sides. I run in my room and try to grab everything, but can’t. The room is clean, just me in there, I don’t see anyone else and the only light we got was from outside, nothing artificial, no candles. It was enough light to live, but we could have used more, I guess, for us to function completely as we would have liked, with all of our desires and motivations, we need the artificial to continue living the way we do, and if we were set back by nature it would be its fault, not ours.
I leave the house, me and Jenn are walking up the street and see a dog in my house. Jenn says, “That looks like chewy but chewy is always standing in the window, so maybe it’s not him.” I say yea, and take a look at the Portillo house and then at the island, and then at my feet: I only have white socks on and they are very clean. I don’t want them to get dirty so I walk by the island, still on the pavement, and I am on my tip toes, trying harder and harder not to touch the road, or at least with least sock possible. And so Jenn is standing next to me, walking with me, and we talk about her going back to my house and grabbing all my stuff, since I will be in Italy-but Italy, and we are in San Francisco!
We walk and I tell her that this has happened to me before, and that you have to close your eyes a little and believe in where you are, where you are going, that there existed a place between realities where you could travel through time, but it was only this place where it was safe. It couldn’t happen for real in this reality, nor in another, but only the bridge between was where people traveled through time, a difficult thing to do because you cannot be tied down by any one reality, but rather be able to let yourself float in the middle and past nicely. It was going to take a lot of hard thought for us to do it, but once we stop at the top of the hill I can feel my body getting lighter. It is starting to get dim, to get dull, this reality is leaving us, but we musn’t wait until the next one fills the gap. We have to stay empty, have to stay liminal, we have to take our shot at the perfect moment and then we can be in two places at once, but where are hearts are is where we want to be, and if that place is far and we haven’t the time nor money it is possible to go there with neither. We are holding hands and I know that when we wake up we will be both back in Florence, safe for the time being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
