Yes nadaism is not only amusing, besides doing nothing helps to save the world. Of course it is not making a big difference, it is quite a subtle contribution; that's probably the reason why nobody had not noticed till today.
As a start, doing nothing is by far better than doing something wrong. If you do nothing you don't break the law. Ok you don't stop the wrong doing that is already happening, (I'm thinking about the real day-to-day bad stuff like wars, people smuggling, killings), but at least you don't participate nor contribute to it. If everybody did nothing the world would be no doubt a better place to live; not every single person, which would not be sustainable, but if we had a significant percentage of the world population functionally disfunctional, let's say 10%, there would be a lot less evil acts, by around 10% on average for the example.
Additionally, by doing nothing you don't meddle or interfere with local affairs. It is common to criticize some organizations that try in their best goodwill to help 3rd world countries, but they don't understand the situation and by their actions they might end up harming more than helping, bringing unbalance instead of wellbeing. However there is not a more tolerant or agnostic approach to problems than doing nothing.
As for environmental problems, ok the nadaist still consumes, (not so much anyway, due to lack of funds), but it is guaranteed that he/she does not produce at all, and production is a strain for the nature as big as consumption, (in particular in sectors like mining or fossil fuels, but also in others that might sound more common, like electronics). I would dare to say that the "ecological footprint" of a person who does nothing is halved due to the lack of production.
Besides, (the more one thinks about it the more advantages are found), from a more right wing pose there could be a fair criticisim for the doing nothing, since development is exactly what some countries need in order to improve the living conditions of their citizens. But the nothing-doers are just spending their money, all of it until and it is finished, which is a perfect catalyzer for growth, (as any high school student should know). If in fact the nadaists go and travel around developing countries, their pouring of money can only be move beneficial.
This is a great finding I believe. The little remorse that I had left for my attitude is gone now; everybody wants to some extent to do something to help deal with global problems, although they don't always find the energy or the good way to do it.
I'm going to propose to the authorities that they create a new NGO, (and to fund it!!).
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The point of travelling & the croupier
All the stuff about the point of travelling of the previous post sounds ok of course, it is a rational explanation, you may or may not agree. But actually it is not so simple, because of the croupier.
The croupier keeps on checking at every moment that I'm not so amused, (I don't remember the last time I got bored), or worried, or not feeling so well, to wonder once again about the purpose of the trip, (if at least I was spending less money or I had some contributions to the nadaist project).
Of course the cheapest is to stay in the same city for a while, to avoid transportation expenses. For the rest, the hotels I go to are usually the cheapest and the food in Italy if you are a bit careful is quite inexpensive. As for the doing nothing, the least possible, that's cheap. The croupier should be happy in that situation. But no, if you are really doing nothing, are you not wasting your money in a country like Italy, since there are much cheaper places to be?. If for whatever the reason you engage more activities and for example you enter the Colliseum you always wanted to and the ticket you know the ticket, (and maybe you don't enjoy it so much for whatever the reason, maybe you are a little bit saturated of art), then the croupier complains again, and so loudly!.
So the croupier will look for every hole, anything that is not exactly perfect, and will wonder about it, and depending on the mood will manage sometimes to torture me a bit. (Well torture is probably a word too harsh, but that's its mechanism, that's its field).
Then the only solution is to rely on the thing (also from previous posts) to take decisions on the spot, to decide whether to visit that temple or to go that city. But the decisions have to be on the spot, and it is annoying, for example I have to get to the entrance of the place to let the thing decide if I get in, sometimes I start phone calls looking for accommodation in places that I barely think they are interesting just to let the thing decide that of course I won't be going!.
This one is not rational and the consequence is that it does not make sense. What can I say.
The croupier keeps on checking at every moment that I'm not so amused, (I don't remember the last time I got bored), or worried, or not feeling so well, to wonder once again about the purpose of the trip, (if at least I was spending less money or I had some contributions to the nadaist project).
Of course the cheapest is to stay in the same city for a while, to avoid transportation expenses. For the rest, the hotels I go to are usually the cheapest and the food in Italy if you are a bit careful is quite inexpensive. As for the doing nothing, the least possible, that's cheap. The croupier should be happy in that situation. But no, if you are really doing nothing, are you not wasting your money in a country like Italy, since there are much cheaper places to be?. If for whatever the reason you engage more activities and for example you enter the Colliseum you always wanted to and the ticket you know the ticket, (and maybe you don't enjoy it so much for whatever the reason, maybe you are a little bit saturated of art), then the croupier complains again, and so loudly!.
So the croupier will look for every hole, anything that is not exactly perfect, and will wonder about it, and depending on the mood will manage sometimes to torture me a bit. (Well torture is probably a word too harsh, but that's its mechanism, that's its field).
Then the only solution is to rely on the thing (also from previous posts) to take decisions on the spot, to decide whether to visit that temple or to go that city. But the decisions have to be on the spot, and it is annoying, for example I have to get to the entrance of the place to let the thing decide if I get in, sometimes I start phone calls looking for accommodation in places that I barely think they are interesting just to let the thing decide that of course I won't be going!.
This one is not rational and the consequence is that it does not make sense. What can I say.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
The point of travelling
Sometimes you're just travelling around going from one place to the other, moving out whenever you feel there's nothing more to see or to do.
Some other times you stop somewhere for a while, maybe just because you are tired and it is a nice place, or because you are really tired, or maybe because you know people over there or there's something you want to do and that's a good place. And then you may spend a few days or weeks happily doing very little, closed to nothing, because at the end you are travelling, in a kind of a holiday.
I guess there is no good or bad way for travelling, and eventually if you do it for a long time you will find yourself enjoying in both situations, combining them, (i.e. in my case moving quite slowly and doing little in the places I go to). Also, you will have moments in which you won't feel like anything, of course.
Because the real point of travelling for me is that there is really no point, apart from the amusement, either in the journeys or in that place I've stopped for whatever reason. But I guess this one will only be wood on the fire for the people (if there's a few people left reading) that believe that my trip is a kind of existential quest.
Some other times you stop somewhere for a while, maybe just because you are tired and it is a nice place, or because you are really tired, or maybe because you know people over there or there's something you want to do and that's a good place. And then you may spend a few days or weeks happily doing very little, closed to nothing, because at the end you are travelling, in a kind of a holiday.
I guess there is no good or bad way for travelling, and eventually if you do it for a long time you will find yourself enjoying in both situations, combining them, (i.e. in my case moving quite slowly and doing little in the places I go to). Also, you will have moments in which you won't feel like anything, of course.
Because the real point of travelling for me is that there is really no point, apart from the amusement, either in the journeys or in that place I've stopped for whatever reason. But I guess this one will only be wood on the fire for the people (if there's a few people left reading) that believe that my trip is a kind of existential quest.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
A bit annoyed today
I wonder why there is not an entity to oppose the croupier, to balance it in a positive way, just to remember in an honest way the good staff about one self?.
It is not the ego; the ego is not constructive, it will always protect itself, it lacks integrity, it is biased by definition.
Which one is it, the croupier or the ego, the one that makes me occupy myself only about myself, about the small world around me?. Is it both?.
(Small world, but of course very important for me; that's the contradiction between "nothing really matters to much" and "satisfaction").
And, by the way, has the thing anything to do with any of this?.
Bah, don't take me seriously, it is just that I'm a bit annoyed today.
It is not the ego; the ego is not constructive, it will always protect itself, it lacks integrity, it is biased by definition.
Which one is it, the croupier or the ego, the one that makes me occupy myself only about myself, about the small world around me?. Is it both?.
(Small world, but of course very important for me; that's the contradiction between "nothing really matters to much" and "satisfaction").
And, by the way, has the thing anything to do with any of this?.
Bah, don't take me seriously, it is just that I'm a bit annoyed today.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The thing
During my wandering around, I've noticed there is something taking my decisions, I've started calling it the thing; (by decisions I mean the small simple steps that I take at all times and make up my journey, starting with what am I going to have for breakfast until whether I'm sleepy enough to go to bed).
The thing listens to the rational arguments, but is seems to be much in contact with emotions as well. When it takes decisions, all the different options I had considered seem to acknowledge the verdict from the thing is ok. Also seems to make my behaviour a bit erratic, since sometimes I take a weak decision, e.g. rationally I'm hungry and think of going for an icecream, but then the thing intervenes in front of the icecream parlour because it wasnt such a good idea, let's say I was tired and it was better to go for a siesta and I hadnt thought about it. (Those are the simple steps of my easy life, it makes it not such a complicated or emotional example).
Maybe forget about the example; I'm just trying to say there is no doubt something that takes the decisions in your mind which is not fully rational, which is over the rational stuff in a way, because it takes into account other contributions to your mind like the emotions, and also because it happens in present. It is like the (classical?) difference between the moment in which you understand something, which happens somewhere deep in your mind, in present, and it is not verbal, compared to the moment afterwards, when you take your time to rationalize it.
Of course the thing sounds mystical, one could think it is a paranormal voice, from god even, (???). That you could surrender yourself to the thing and nothing wrong would happen to you. But the thing does not make you a superhero, does not decide that you start trying impossible things, however sometimes it will surprise you (it has surprised me) putting you into situations you thought you could not handle, and you will get through. The thing knows more than my fear. But it also knows that if my fear is too strong I will get paralyzed and do nothing. So it will not take decisions completely against my fear.
The thing will always decide the right thing to do according to the circumstances. If it is a scared decision, it will be because fear is dominating. A decision by the thing is never wrong, it is just biased sometimes, (e.g. biased by fear, ego, rational). And, well, with that explanation, the thing itself does not even need to exist.
Anyhow, if you believe in the thing, that it exists, that it will always do the right thing, at least you will remove the fear of taking the wrong decision, and that's good, because that fear could only have made your decision wrong, (possibly that is).
The thing listens to the rational arguments, but is seems to be much in contact with emotions as well. When it takes decisions, all the different options I had considered seem to acknowledge the verdict from the thing is ok. Also seems to make my behaviour a bit erratic, since sometimes I take a weak decision, e.g. rationally I'm hungry and think of going for an icecream, but then the thing intervenes in front of the icecream parlour because it wasnt such a good idea, let's say I was tired and it was better to go for a siesta and I hadnt thought about it. (Those are the simple steps of my easy life, it makes it not such a complicated or emotional example).
Maybe forget about the example; I'm just trying to say there is no doubt something that takes the decisions in your mind which is not fully rational, which is over the rational stuff in a way, because it takes into account other contributions to your mind like the emotions, and also because it happens in present. It is like the (classical?) difference between the moment in which you understand something, which happens somewhere deep in your mind, in present, and it is not verbal, compared to the moment afterwards, when you take your time to rationalize it.
Of course the thing sounds mystical, one could think it is a paranormal voice, from god even, (???). That you could surrender yourself to the thing and nothing wrong would happen to you. But the thing does not make you a superhero, does not decide that you start trying impossible things, however sometimes it will surprise you (it has surprised me) putting you into situations you thought you could not handle, and you will get through. The thing knows more than my fear. But it also knows that if my fear is too strong I will get paralyzed and do nothing. So it will not take decisions completely against my fear.
The thing will always decide the right thing to do according to the circumstances. If it is a scared decision, it will be because fear is dominating. A decision by the thing is never wrong, it is just biased sometimes, (e.g. biased by fear, ego, rational). And, well, with that explanation, the thing itself does not even need to exist.
Anyhow, if you believe in the thing, that it exists, that it will always do the right thing, at least you will remove the fear of taking the wrong decision, and that's good, because that fear could only have made your decision wrong, (possibly that is).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)