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.

The dark side of the force

When I first saw “Star Wars” my preferences were divided but I was mostly in favor of Darth Vader, even if he wanted to sweep off the Republic, even if Skywalker and the Pricess and Han Solo were heroic, fighting only with their hopes, with no means, to save a full planet. The dark side made so much sense: using hatred, wrath, and moslty fear, which come from a very deep place in the self, and creating such a powerful entity, maybe physically harmful, but encapsulated in a wonderful black dress, so smart; that’s the Darth, an impressive character, who seems to be living in a world apart, not needing anybody else, independent. The ones at the good side are the weak, they don’t have balance, they are ambitious and at the same time they’re confused, unpredictable; they reject violence but actually use it, they cannot see that the dark side is so much above them.

The step to the dark side is the neglection of the real world, which does not make sense, and the creation of a new vision based on the own identity; that’s why Darth Vader seems to have a certain aura of integrity, honesty, and although I’m not so sure of the reasons why I was attached to him when I was a child, I think I understand it fully now, and in a way I’ve regarded myself as a Darth.

Anyhow, at the same time I understand that everybody else probably believes that they’ve done something similar, (although they might express it in different terms), and everybody walks around believiving they are a lonely Darth Vader, making their way, on the dark side, safe in their total distrust.