Nadaism reborn

One of my nephews has posted a message complaining it’s been twenty days since I last updated the blog. Well, I’ve been busy breaking the nadaist principles. My landlord in London offered me to work for him some 15 hours a week to pay the rent, and I accepted.

The fact that it wasn’t for money but for shelter (or a basic need), and that I did not enjoy it, (we’ve built a bathroom), are not good as excuses; anyhow, since nobody had given me not even a cent to help me through the blog, (still waiting for Leo Bassi to order the money transfer), there’s nothing to reimburse in the nadaist fund.

Some other people had been complaining that I was a bit cheeky asking for money, (until I removed the buttons to make a donation, which did not work anyway). Well I think it was a fair commercial transaction, you wanted to know the answer for a big question, and I was going to sacrifice myself and my lifetime for the cause. But I still think we can make a deal. You can host me for as many days or weeks as you want, giving me shelter and food. Of course, I don’t do anything in exchange; (nadaism, remember?). Please send me your coordinates and the dates that would be suitable for you. I’m going to leave London in a few days, and then I’ll go to Berlin for a couple of weeks, and afterwards it’s up to you darlings. As a start, I’d rather go somewhere in the Mediterranean, in May is still not too hot and there’s not so many tourists. For the summer, I’d prefer to go North, somewhere fresh. Thank you.

More on apathy

For somebody apathetic, doing anything is always more difficult than doing nothing at all. Such a person could find a rational backing for their lack of interest; although they would need to spend some effort, probably it would have some benefits as well.

Writing the nadaist contract could look like an example, (but not a effective one, since it does not bring any profits at all). Anyhow apathy means a certain kind of agreement in which you take less risks, but you don’t get the real thing. Could be seen as a contract between you and your fear, your insecurity; just going through life like a tourist with a guide: it’s safer, you don’t waste your time, but you don’t experience the genuine stuff. Nobody is sure what’s the genuine stuff anyway.

The contrary is absolute freedom. Nadaism is not a frame for that absolute freedom, but at the end everybody needs food and shelter, no matter how free they feel. A fake enlightenment could be used as a similar kind of setup, I’d say.

Apathy?

Thanks to the site meter, (wonderful tool), I’ve seen that this blog conversation is getting more and more intimate, nearly a monologue... maybe now, knowing that hardly anybody is listening, I could address a fundamental subject: how to figure out the differences between nadaism and apathy?.

Well, I’m not going to avoid the easy joke, I’m not really going to bother explaining it.

Clichés and anticlichés

There's a number of clichés that I've always found quite annoying, and I've been fighting them by trying figuring out other statements, the anticlichés, which at the end, repeated continuously, became new personal clichés, and got me even more bored.

For example, the cliché about life that passes quicker the older you get. My anticliché claims the explanation is pretty simple: when you were little everyday was a new adventure and it was truly important, not only subjectively but also as a percentage; if you are 5 years old, 1 year more is 20% compared to what you've lived, while if you are 50, 1 year would be only a 2% of living that you add.

If I had an anticliché about the weather, it would be the most boring thing to repeat I can imagine, even more than the comments themselves about the weather.

All the enlightened writers and thinkers eventually talk about silence, they might put it into words in slightly different ways, but whenever you read it rings some bells, since it has become a kind of cliché around; e.g. in the explanation of E. Tolle, “every sound is born out of silence, dies back into silence, and during its lifespan is surrounded by silence; silence enables the sound to be.”

Alright!. And then you start listening to the noises around in your room and wherever looking for that silence and indeed realize that the concept itself is tricky, (and beautiful, maybe). But in fact they’re talking about god, the unmanifested, the being, the self, (depending on the author). They use an irrefutable sentence with poetic kind of meaning and you are put in a trap unable to argue. How are you going to tell them they're wrong. But still you (I) don't understand.


Then, I'd like to explain you that during my introspections, (nadaism leaves a lot of free time), I've been surprised of how much I cheat myself, intellectually and emotionally. But then, how can I tell you that honesty with yourself is the 1st step, not making a personal cliché out of it?. What do I do, when you agree and tell me that you see the logic on it, but you complain that it does not necessarily show you the curative proprieties of honesty itself.