Nadaism is not dead

Do you want to know if a person who passes all the time doing nothing would be able to live a normal and happy life?

... I will not work, I will not engage any activity in the long or even in the medium term - but I'll need help! Please check out the nadaist contract at the bottom of the page

... and there's other pointless investigations ongoing, just take a look to the bar on the right hand side

Thursday, July 02, 2009

some writers should not write

There's Internet and everybody may write in here and say whatever they feel like, no need to apologize afterwards. That's me, for example. For these, for us, it's not so important if there's anything really to say, and if there is, it does not quite matter if it is understood. It's better when it is, of course, but not mandatory.

Now imagine there's a writer who has something to say, whose knowledge could be essential for somebody else. This writer could be a philosopher, for example, who has been thinking about a subject for so long (for his whole life he's been a thinker), who writes a book and publishes it, and gets it translated, since abroad they've also figured he's saying something crucial... but then, who buys it?, and whomever does buy it and tries to read it, finds out it's so dense and difficult that it is quite impossible to understand. And the message gets lost, even if the writer was a sage.

For example I'm thinking about Sloterdijk, (whom I've quoted here sometimes). Would it be better if the good man, instead of writing the book himself, gets in touch with a novelist, let's say with three of them, and the four spend a month together talking, so that the thinker makes sure the others have understood, and only then the others write the book. Maybe the few scholars that used to read the original would be displeased, but what about the rest.

The other day I went to a lecture called "happiness and philosophy". It was great, however while I was listening I said to myself, why do I have the feeling they're explaining the usual, only with different words? And on my way back at the tube I kept wondering and wondering and finally this is the best conclusion I've got: it is me, who is actually hearing always the same. I only hear what I know already.

Probably that's my problem with Sloterdijk: there's no way to put his words into ideas I already know. I can only guess he's saying basically the same as the others, but I cannot be certain. And it is so distressing not to know.