Skip to main content

Top Post

It is never personal, you're not the protagonist

It's so easy to become offended. It actually comes pretty natural. Someone says something.  You feel it's directed at you Strong reaction follows No need to react, it's got nothing to do with you as a person Imagine some remarks about academic work versus manual one, a bit dismissive about the latter. You don't have a degree and never wanted one. You know very well it takes years of experience and training to do what you're doing. Talent is involved too, as some people do have "two left hands".  You still feel you should add something to the conversation, but not sure if it is going to be well-received. No need to enlighten the other party right now Most people think in terms of opposites. If it's not this, it's that and it can't be anything else. Certainty of one's convictions is also a form of self-reassurance that everything is stable in one's world. Other points of view cannot be allowed because they are disruptive. Cognitive disrup

The Virus (not a computer one)




If a 4-year old can ask a parent who has just sneezed :"Have you got the virus?", something has definitely changed in the world.

The new player on the stage ( I know, Shakespeare has said it before, "all the world's a stage"), this new player is terribly feared and ferociously pursued.

It's both fast and  evasive, it carries no ID (do scientists know something we don't?),  it can kill. It does kill and maim.

For short, more than just a bloody nuisance. Fleeing communism or fascism or any -ism used to involve crossing some form of physical border, risking life and limb.

No point anymore in viewing the other side of any border as a safe space.

The Virus has made sure old perceptions have become totally useless, even dangerous.  It loves ridiculing us, the whole lot. 

Take that "There's safety in numbers".  Gotta be joking, no?

Is it still true that "No man is an island "? (I know, just quoting John Donne, full poem on this site.)

Not true. Everyone is and has to stay an island till the Virus has either completed its karmic cycle or it's beaten back by the Vaccine. 

Writers have a very difficult task ahead.  They can write ad nauseam (I know a bit of Latin too) about the V-factor. They can revive Romanticism or other literary Golden Age. They can just devote a lot more time to reading than writing.

Which one will prevail?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Montaigne's kidney stones

Philosophy underpinned by a kidney ailment?  Michel de Montaigne was quite a prolific essayist despite his kidney stones or was his painful condition the catalyst of his writings? When does being unwell stop being an impediment? Too many questions, admittedly, a sign of weakness in prose and poor rhetoric anywhere else. Seriously now, or "srsly" as some write nowadays, questions can be quite an effective way to jump start a monologue, and it rhymes with blog as well. Etymologists, beware, I know the two word' ending may sound similar, but they have different origins. A chat with a philosophically-inclined friend included at some point a reference to Montaigne and how debilitating a toothache can be. First the pain and then its crushing ability to obliterate any high-level thinking. Suppose that quite a few of us, bringing a vague cultural or literary reference to the table, feel a bit guilty afterwards and double-check they were not misquoting or worse, inventing. I have

It is never personal, you're not the protagonist

It's so easy to become offended. It actually comes pretty natural. Someone says something.  You feel it's directed at you Strong reaction follows No need to react, it's got nothing to do with you as a person Imagine some remarks about academic work versus manual one, a bit dismissive about the latter. You don't have a degree and never wanted one. You know very well it takes years of experience and training to do what you're doing. Talent is involved too, as some people do have "two left hands".  You still feel you should add something to the conversation, but not sure if it is going to be well-received. No need to enlighten the other party right now Most people think in terms of opposites. If it's not this, it's that and it can't be anything else. Certainty of one's convictions is also a form of self-reassurance that everything is stable in one's world. Other points of view cannot be allowed because they are disruptive. Cognitive disrup

Artificially emotional intelligence

       A blog post by Shelly Palmer,  I've Talked to the Future and it Talked back , set me thinking a couple of years ago, so I wrote a blog post. I am re-publishing it because nothing seems to have changed since.  His questions were not purely rhetorical. Indeed, how are we going to distinguish between human and machine? Will a new code of conduct be invented and become part of product instructions,  same as the ‘do not immerse in water’ one? Imagine how many future legal departments could be scratching their collective heads over a certain feature that may open the door to litigation. The anthropological aspect is a bit trickier, I agree, but has it ever been otherwise?  Children turn out well-behaved or not as a result of at least two factors: genetics and environment. From a certain age onward, peer pressure displaces parental influence. Add to this chance (yes, goddess Fortuna, that one) and the concoction is almost ready. I am not worried ab