Two asylum inmates were escaping, via the roof. It was a foggy night, and one of them shone his flashlight across to the next building, pointed at the beam and said to his friend: "go ahead, you walk across first."
His friend said: "do you think I'm crazy? When I'm half across, you'll just turn off the flashlight!"
My dad told me that one when I was a kid. It was also used in the Batman comic "The Killing Joke" by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland.
That one by the way demonstrates why an artist should not comment too much on his own work: Alan Moore has stated that he did not think this was His Best Writing, or words to that effect. And this upset those fans who loved it, as well as the artist Brian Bolland, for whom it was a career highlight. See, no reason for that. If somebody loves something, who's to say otherwise, even the author? (I too thought it was good.)
21 comments:
"If somebody loves something, who's to say otherwise, even the author?"
If somebody loves something, what does it matter? I'm the only one that knows what really touches me and inspires me. I'm not going to let anyone, even the creator of the work, tell me it shouldn't.
Sure, that's the ideal, but few of us are up to that yet. I know I'm not.
Perfectionnism again. Tchaikovsky was very dissatisfied with the Nutcracker, which is considered as his most amazing work (and one of my all-time fave musics!!!).
"Excellence does not require perfection." - Henry James
Eolake, can you believe I found that great wisdom on some nudie site? :-)
Wisdom works in mysterious ways.
Me, I heard it on Frasier.
(Where then, typically, Frasier went on to try to quote it perfectly.)
"Sure, that's the ideal, but few of us are up to that yet. I know I'm not."
What's so hard about it, though? Surely it's far easier to take control of your own mind than it is to tell someone else, "don't say that." If our own feelings can be called into question so easily, then we're running from something. We're not willing to become conscious of the part of ourselves that decides to react that way. I know it's said that it's hard to make the alternate choice, to take full responsibility for our perceptions, but frankly it's far easier than the madness most live.
A work of art just is. It has no purpose, no meaning, aside from what it is given. The artist has an intention for it, yes. The symbols are likely to be interpreted as he would have them be since most human communication takes place through symbolism. But this only works because we've chosen, as a collective, to interpret these symbols in a similar way. (Though some perceptive people can pick up on meaning without knowing the specific language.) But the thing about symbols is that one can understand them as everyone else does and still see them differently. Art is meant to be a medium wherein the objective and subjective universes collide in perfect symmetry.
Taking this into account, why must we feel our perceptions have to be justified? If something touches us, it touches us! We have no need to explain our feelings away. We should not fear appearing as fools in the eyes of others. The only reason we do (fear it) is because we seem to think every other person, every other critic (or at least some specific critics, like the creator of a work), is somehow better qualified to judge how the rest of us should feel about something than we are. This is an illusion that would quickly fade if more would have the guts to be honest about who they are and what moves within their souls. (Think "The Emperor's New Clothes.")
As a writer, my creations are their own once my fingers leave the keyboard. My works are their own before they ever leave my head. I give it life, but I do not give it meaning. I simply have my own interpretation of it. Whether I think it could have been better is of no consequence at that point. It is what it is, and it belongs to no one. No, not even me. The law allows me the right to claim sole ownership privileges, thus allowing only me to do as I wish with the work (or at least be the only one who profits from it), but this is no more than a formality. Every time we read a story we make it our own in some way, and that's not an experience anyone can take from us no matter how the collective (or another individual) thinks things should be. There's no prestige given with the author moniker that allows the creator to say, "you must feel the same way about my work as I do." That's ludicrous. No man holding to such a point of view should call himself an artist; he's completely missed the point of his craft. Rather, he lacks respect for the work he's devoted himself to. No creator should say, "I have given you life, to do only as I bid." Life, regardless of the form it takes, yearns to be free. Art is the ultimate expression of life ergo it must be free to express itself as it wishes, author be damned. (Art's will being determined by the minds that connect with it.)
"Perfectionnism again. Tchaikovsky was very dissatisfied with the Nutcracker, which is considered as his most amazing work (and one of my all-time fave musics!!!)."
There are many who feel that if they are ever satisfied their work will be terrible. They deny themselves the joy of a job well done for a method they think will improve their endeavors through over-analyzation. This does not seem like a worthy trade-off to me. There's no reason you can't have both satisfaction and a work you can honestly be proud of. But I've been called a madman before. I don't know how much water my opinion holds. ;)
Even quote-unquote "terrible" ideas have merit. Oftentimes the inspiration for the good ideas is found in them.
"Surely it's far easier to take control of your own mind than it is to tell someone else, "don't say that.""
If it were so, this world would be problem-free.
"If it were so, this world would be problem-free."
Nah, doesn't mean that at all. There's more factors to take into consideration. It's no harder to choose the high road than it is the low, but there are residual patterns to deal with. The longer you travel one road, the more difficult it becomes to choose a different path. It is not because the choosing itself gets any harder, or because a different pattern is harder to maintain. We simply grow attached to a certain way of functioning and come to think that's just how things are, or how they should be.
In other words there is no inherent difficulty in the path. There is only choice. We're the ones that complicate things. The less conscious we are of our inner faculties, the less control we have of ourselves, the more difficult these choices are. People who function on auto-pilot will have a hell of a time charting a new course. We struggle because we immediately reach for the wheel and try to force the vehicle to move as we wish it to. If we want to be successful we have to disable or re-program the auto-pilot mechanism. In this case that mechanism is the subconscious mind.
If we approach a problem from one angle and feel like we're hitting our heads against a brick wall, we need to approach from another direction. Most of us just slam our heads against it harder. That's the reason paradigm shifts do not come easily. We don't think outside the box, and thinking outside the box is what primes us for transformation. Without that element we can make surface changes through great force over a long time, but nothing really changes within us. It can bring inner change eventually, but it's highly inefficient and thousands of times harder than things need to be.
Really, what is stopping us from choosing how we react aside from our thought processes? If we confess something that is our creation is in some way our master, and further that we cannot alter it through an act of will, are we not simply giving ourselves permission to play the victim and continue as we have been?
I don't care where a person is or how far away their goal seems to be, if it can be envisioned it can be reached. Focusing on how difficult the path will be is useless. Going well prepared is essential, but that's part of any serious endeavor. There is no need to apply a label like hard or easy. Those terms merely imply a level of plausibility, which is absurd. Maybe something isn't possible, but you're not going to find out unless you give it your all, and you're not going to give it your all if your mind is occupied with a lot of small details that are ultimately of no significance. If you're going to act then act! There's no such thing as trying.
There is such a thing as testing the waters while an element of uncertainty still remains. That could be called trying. However, most associate the word with a brand of action wherein failure is not only considered a possibility, it is expected. So what if you do something and it doesn't work out? You rework your ideas and move on. Obsessing over potential failures on the way doesn't do any good. It shows a willingness to fall. One must be resolute while retaining the will to adjust for any potential outcome. I have said this a lot recently, but it bears repeating: the root of all our troubles is fear. We must be fearless. No matter how we complicate this it boils down to a choice. Do we stand courageously in love or withdraw into our fears?
No problem is difficult when there is clarity. This is what we lack. We misidentify what the real problem is and focus on that without digging deep enough to find the root. It is simple if only we will see.
The subconscious goes very deep.
I've been working 20 years, for example, on becoming nonjudgemental. And I've got quite a ways to go yet.
"Art is meant to be a medium wherein the objective and subjective universes collide in perfect symmetry."
I fail to see any relation between objectivity and art?
(Think "The Emperor's New Clothes.")
WHAT clothes? ;-)
Oh. Right. "You saw the man who saw the bill for the clothes."
"Every time we read a story we make it our own in some way"
You can say that again. When I saw Disney's Pocahontas I was SO in love with a girl living in another country.
If you've seen Pocahontas 2, you'll find it quite ironic that my own love story ALSO went into a dead end for no clear reason.
"Making a story our own in some way" is the definition of subjectivity opposed to objectivity, as I recall from one of my College courses.
"and that's not an experience anyone can take from us no matter how the collective (...) thinks things should be."
Resistance Is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated In The Collective.
No creator should say, "I have given you life, to do only as I bid."
But the self-appointed spokesmen of the Creator have no such hesitations. :-P
"But I've been called a madman before. I don't know how much water my opinion holds. ;)"
Well, if you store your water in opinions, it's not surprising you got called a madman sometimes. ;-)
What's wrong with good old glass bottles, huh?
"If it were so, this world would be problem-free."
I happen to have written a counter-argumentation here just a few days ago:
"Peace is actually the simple way to live. It just takes sense to see this truth, and too many people lack that sense.
Making war is easy mentally, it's moral laziness, and creates a uselessly complicated world. Peace is the worthy little effort that makes life so much easier in the long run.
I must confess, I've done my share of stupid rejection, mocking and anger in my life. Then something happened: I grew up. There's no turning back to inside the cave once you've seen the light."
(That last part is a reference to Aristotle, as you may have guessed.)
Interesting, how Peaceful Blade practically said the same thing. Hey, have you been stealing my ideas? (I would've offered them to you, y'know, all you had to do was ask. Owh, the humanity...)
"If we approach a problem from one angle and feel like we're hitting our heads against a brick wall, we need to approach from another direction."
Yeah, so that one day you'll find the angle of the brick, and it's way sharper! ;-P
Who said "this explains a lot"? I heard that!
..."but it's highly inefficient and thousands of times harder than things need to be."
Since you're such a brilliant engineer (judging by your bridges), just how hard does a brick wall need to be to achieve efficiency? :o)
"I don't care where a person is or how far away their goal seems to be"...
You're just saying that. Deep down, I just know you're a person who cares.
"There's no such thing as trying."
"Do, or do not." - (Master Yoda)
"Obsessing over potential failures on the way doesn't do any good."
Sure it does. It greatly helps you fail.
"Um... is that good?" - (Paris Hilton, on The Simple Life)
That Joker feels more than a bit pathetic. Isn't he out of character? I mean, is this the same sadist who beat Jason Todd to death?
"The subconscious goes very deep."
Yes, there's no denying that. But deep does not mean a vast amount of time and effort is needed to understand and reconfigure it. In fact, if you take a close look, your growth has likely come in spurts. You'll go for a long time, nothing will change, then all of a sudden something shifts in your perception and a lot of the problems you were dealing with seem to disappear. When it is understood that change can occur within an instant, and you know what it feels and looks like when such a change occurs, it's just a matter of using intuition in conjunction with your intellect to feel your way to these instances. (All faculties must work as one. They all have their place. Compartmentalizing our feelings, our intellect, etc. does us more harm than good.) With a general aim held firmly in mind, with a strong will to persist, progress happens at a much quicker pace.
It doesn't matter how much time has been invested, or how hard the work seems to be. In the end the matter is still very simple. I would say it is only our refusal to accept a simple answer that hinders us. You don't need to clear tons of issues before you come to a place where you can open yourself to that decision, either. It's simply a matter of whether you do or you don't. The rest is a series of needless tasks we force on ourselves.
"I fail to see any relation between objectivity and art?"
In this sense I'm using objectivity in reference to the symbols we've universally agreed have meaning. In other words, the commonalities of the human experience are present within each work. It may not be extremely obvious at first, it may even be intentionally obscured, but it is nevertheless there.
So what I'm saying is this: art takes what we are familiar with and challenges us to see it in a new way.
"But deep does not mean a vast amount of time and effort is needed to understand and reconfigure it."
Funny, here I thought that that was exactly what it meant! :)
Sure, with a lot of willingness and the right tools, a lot of time can be saved. But then we have not really confronted that otherwise it might have taken hundreds of lifetimes.
peaceful blade, you are a dunce. You just have no fucking clue. Why is it the dumbest people are always such pompous windbags?
"Funny, here I thought that that was exactly what it meant! :)"
Haha, I suppose for many of us that is true. But it simply isn't necessary that it should take that long. An ounce of courage does wonders for the soul. And remember that time is not a constant. Some theorize it doesn't even exist. There is no reason that something resulting only from our perceptions should serve as a limiting factor.
"Sure, with a lot of willingness and the right tools, a lot of time can be saved. But then we have not really confronted that otherwise it might have taken hundreds of lifetimes."
Why would it take so long? And how much would be accomplished if it really did take hundreds upon hundreds of lifetimes to work through an issue? For most of those you're probably not making any progress at all. During the ones in which you do you'd probably make a little, watch it come undone, continue in this manner until you manage to make a lot of progress and the changes are able to become a little more permanent, and so on.
Within the context of time, most effort gets wasted like this. Not to mention since this is the kind of change generally experienced when one is still living on auto-pilot, just as many issues are created as are eventually solved.
I believe you've noted that even ACIM says essentially what I'm saying. Something along the lines of, "for those wholly devoted to the path, it is easy." (It isn't quite the same. I'd say ACIM is referring more to its own path than anything, and it's not a path I've chosen to follow. However, it fits with how many who have traveled their paths have found that the difficulty was entirely in getting themselves to start.) I'm finding this to be more and more true in my own experience. The thing that always held me back was not time, it was not a lack of effort, it was fear and my aversion to facing it. Since I have become relentless in my desire to take a good, honest look at it, my feet firmly on the ground, my eyes staring straight ahead, changes have started occurring at a ridiculous pace. The problem was I mucked about on the surface layers too long and I focused on things that weren't true problems by themselves. They only kept me distracted. Once I reached the core of the issues the rest took care of itself.
I don't think of it as a battle, but I will use battle as a metaphor. If you're outnumbered a thousand to one, striking down every single opponent isn't an option. You need to find the one that's leading the charge and head straight for him, doing whatever you can to distract the others and misdirect their blows along the way. They would expect you to run, and if you fight to fall. They would not expect you to use their numbers against them, blend into the crowd and make for their leader amidst the confusion. If the opponent is deeply afraid, he will not expect bold tactics when the odds are stacked against you.
"then all of a sudden something shifts in your perception and a lot of the problems you were dealing with seem to disappear."
Um... I guess you're not talking about puberty then!
"So what I'm saying is this: art takes what we are familiar with and challenges us to see it in a new way."
On that we can agree. Considering you haven't limited art to what we are familiar with. I suppose Imagination would be the subjective universe, that which creates new and sometimes unfamiliar things.
"time is not a constant. Some theorize it doesn't even exist."
Ah, but beware: it also might actually exist!
"I don't think of it as a battle, but I will use battle as a metaphor."
How about "struggle"? Do you like that term better?
It's ironic: originally, the word "jihad" meant a personal inner struggle for self-improvement. Then somehow it became more about killing random civilians.
"If you're outnumbered a thousand to one, striking down every single opponent isn't an option. You need to find the one that's leading the charge and head straight for him"
Hey, who knew there was deep life wisdom in The 300? ;-)
"Ah, but beware: it also might actually exist!"
Indeed, but even then I think our perception of it matters more than it does. Oftentimes what separates the quick from the slow is simply their ideas concerning how long their task will take to complete.
Time, as an idea, is unhelpful. It can be put to good use, mind you. Anything can. I know that taking time into account doesn't serve me, nor does counting the number of steps I must take. My focus needs to be split equally between three things: my destination, where I am right now and what I need to do this moment to make progress. (This requires a high degree of faith (not religious faith) and intuition, both of which are faculties that can be developed.) The other parts of myself tend to do what they need to do on their own so long as I give them a direction to move in.
Of course I do not think my ideas and my ideas alone have merit, nor do I think I am correct on every point. However, I'm still dealing in universals of the human experience and surely this paradigm contains something of worth for anyone that will give it a good look. We need to argue our supposed limitations. It's the only way to find out if we can move past them. In nearly every circumstance I feel that we can.
"If you think like a soldier, you will be surrounded by enemies."
Oh, and this actually describes why I don't like to use the term battle, or even struggle, when thinking of these issues. I only use the metaphor I did because it describes what I'm talking about: finding a single target amidst many and aiming straight for it without allowing anything else to get in the way.
I don't like to describe the process as a battle or struggle because that's exactly what it isn't once you understand yourself. You're not out to destroy, jettison or sacrifice any part of yourself. At worst you'll deconstruct and rearrange certain parts of yourself to match a new image.
You could try not being a pussy. Chicks don't dig weak men like you (weak mentally and physically). They also don't like nerds.
This all explains why most of you will never win at anything, will never be the best at anything.
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - (Douglas Adams)
So, all people ARE entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't mean all people are smart or even sensible. You'll always encounter some big-mouthed fools.
While other people, like you Peaceful Blade, try to think first, yielding interesting results which I like to reflect on.
Just some thought fodder.
I've also learned a very valuable corollary living in the Middle-East: "Those who yell their opinions the loudest aren't necessarily those who are most right."
Post a Comment