in praise of suffering

It goes without saying - it's probably a weird thing to point out - that each of us prefers to have experiences that bring us pleasure, rather than having experiences of suffering and challenge. We think there's something wrong when we suffer. It's a deeply ingrained assumption not just in individuals but in our culture. The whole point of therapy is to get you to feel better. There's a really good book about cognitive behaviour therapy, by David Burns, called The Feeling Good Handbook. 

That's the ultimate goal - to feel better - to not experience the kind of extreme levels of distress that mental health issues bring. I think like that too, of course. No one wants to suffer. No one wants to be ugly or unloved or unwanted. No one wants to fail. No one wants to be misunderstood and rejected. No one wants to miss out. 

But then there's the other side. There's a value in suffering that pleasure just doesn't have. 

civilisation

I find it really interesting that Middle Eastern culture and learning played a central role in the progress of Western civilisation. The medieval era in Europe was the golden age of Islamic/ Arabic scholarship, amd Arabic (not Latin) was the international language of scholarship. So, European scholars wanting access to the latest developments - wanting to read works on science, philosophy, and other fields of learning and/or wanting to read translations of the ancient Greek texts - would learn Arabic. Arabic scholars invented algebra, and developed astronomy, navigation, ways of telling the time and various other technologies. Concepts that were fundamental to the development of mathematics in the west, such as the use of zero in numbers and the use of decimals, came to the west from the Middle East. But what's most interesting to me, because of my interest in literature, is that all of the Ancient Greek texts were translated first by Arabic scholars, and that's how they came to the west, and that's a big deal because those texts were the driving force behind the rennaissance. 

So the Western canon and Western civilisation and culture have some very deep roots outside the west. It's also interesting that there's an Islamic influence, and that, for a very long time, there was an inter-faith collaboration in the area of learning and study. 

بحث

I've been listening to/ watching a lot of debates lately on youtube and twitch. I especially like Destiny (even though I diagree with a lot of his views) because I appreciate his ability to do something extraordinarily well that I'm not good at. 

Why I'm not good at debating or other kinds of adversarial discussion is that I find it really hard to hold the big picture and the details in my mind at the same time, and to easily switch between the two. To debate well, you have to be able to do that. I can sometimes do it well when the big picture is something I care about very deeply, so I can focus on the details and I don't lose sight of the big picture because it's more deeply ingrained in my consciousness. When free to hammer the details like that, I can be pretty adversarial, but it's because I care about the issue. 

My appreciation for Destiny is like my appreciation for Harold Bloom. I'm not really interested in their views, but I'm impressed by their ability to think. 

fallibility

I watched an animated version of The Pilgrim's Progress and I was struck by the pilgrim's stupidity towards the end. I thought, after everything he's been through why is he still thinking it's OK to leave the narrow road because there's a parallel path that is much easier? And then, he's specifically advised not to talk to the flatterer, and what does he do? he talks to the flatterer and gets trapped. 

But later I was thinking about it, and I realised that I am literally that stupid. Maybe 'stupidity' is the wrong word. It's more of a moral thing. All I know is that I do stupid and irrational stuff a lot. If anything then, I found the Christian pilgrim's mistakes reassuring. He made mistakes and went astray, even quite late in his journey, but he made it in the end. 

what you want

sometimes not getting what you want is a good thing. I don't think there is a single thing in this life that is the same when you have it as it appeared to be when you either wanted it or didn't want it - when you were either looking forward to it with pleasant anticipation or apprehension

bad art

I haven't made any art for two months. I made some deliberately bad art a month ago, but then I don't know if anyone would be able to distinguish it from my other art. I wanted to be kind of punk - and do something deliberately bad....I think because I watched a documentary about Sid Vicious, who wasn't actually as vicious as his stage persona tried to portray. 

I even bought a wacom one - a pen display where you actually draw on the monitor rather than on the tablet and see what you're creating on the screen. I was pretty impressed when I first tried out the wacom one. I'm sure that at some stage I will use the wacom one. It's like when I bought my wacom intuos. After initially trying it, I stopped using it and put it away for about a year because I had this idea of what 'good' art is and I can't even make good art on paper, never mind using a tablet. 

What got me started making art again - both on paper/ sketchbooks and digital art with the intuos - was just the desire to do it and to create whatever I wanted to create however I want to create it. I put aside all the ideas about what good art is and the desire to develop skills, and just started making stuff. Some of it's not too bad. An interesting thing was that, through using my tablet and the software to make digital art, and also all kinds of pens, pencils, paints, etc in my traditional art, I did actually start to develop some skills. 

So, I encourage that approach. Do your thing. Consider Jean-Michel Basquiat. His work is brilliant and unique. He would never have created it if he was trying to be like other artists. One of the really interesting things about people like Basquiat and other profoundly gifted creators, is that they know. They know that they are really, really good - that they achieve a kind of perfection. 

What stopped me making art and doing a lot of other things two months ago is the crisis I'm going through which has pretty much shut me down. But if I live, I'm sure I'll be making art again. 

polarisation

in my experience, arguments are a waste of time. You can think of all these great points to make your case, but it's as if the other person sees every single one of the facts or pieces of content through a different lens. You think, surely I've got them now, but they look at the same fact(s) or text and they're convinced it proves their point. What is going on? You feel like there's a mountain of evidence, but none of it changes their mind. They have an answer for every single point. And, to you, their answers seem contrived and convoluted - seems like they have to perform mental gymnastics to make their case, but they're totally convinced and completely closed to your argument. 

The paradigms, assumptions and narratives through which we perceive reality really are like a kind of lens. We don't see lenses, we see through them. We think we're perceiving reality, the texts we engage with, the things people say, the events we experience, directly, but we aren't. 

It seems like this is a more important issue in the 21st century than it's ever been before, because society is increasingly polarised, and, in many cases, there is literally no common ground between the opposing sides. There probably is some common ground, but it seems like people are more interested in the differences - the conflicts. The conflicts are all encompassing. The conflicts subvert any common ground. 

things developing naturally

I was watching some performances of INXS from around 2010, where Jon Stevens and J D Fortune were playing the part of the lead singer. They're both great singers. I actually really like Jon Stevens. 

Even though their performances were good, they made me appreciate a certain aspect of Michael Hutchence as a performer, when I watched videos of him performing with INXS afterwards. What I really noticed was the ease and naturalness with which he performs. He doesn't seem to be working hard. He's in his element. It's not that he's lacking in energy or taking it easy. He's a powerful performer. 

It's probably an unfair comparison though. Michael Hutchence was in his element with INXS because it was his band. It makes sense that performing with them would be natural. Whereas, Jon Stevens and J D Fortune were kind of performing as themselves, backed by INXS. In the performance I watched with J D Fortune, which was at the winter olympics, most of the songs were reworked - the arrangement was different - which I think makes sense because it's saying, this is something new - we're not trying to be Michael Hutchence's INXS without Michael Hutchence. 

I just learnt that there was another lead singer for a couple of years (2011 - 2012) - Ciaran Gribben. I watched some of his performances with INXS. To me, he seems to have done a better job at really being part of the band - actually being the lead singer rather than being a kind of substitute. But he doesn't seem to have done that much with INXS...not that Jon Stevens and J D Fortune did that much either. (I found out later that he actually did a world tour with them though). 

I watched an interview of Ciaran Gribben and the interviewer asked him how he ended up fronting INXS for a time. He explained that he just happened to be in Sydney, working as a support act for another artist, but he was good friends with Andrew Farris and they used to hang out regularly. Being musicians, they started jamming together, Ciaran sang an INXS song, and that gave Andrew Farris the idea. It's interesting....Ciaran Gribben is such a humble guy. He talks about how he was kind of in awe of INXS and when Andrew Farris first suggested that he might play a part one day, he was like, no way. But then a while later - after Ciaran had gone home to Ireland - Andrew rang him and invited him to come and sing with INXS. Then, after trying out a few songs, they offered him the gig. It's interesting - in the interview Ciaran comments on how casual the whole thing was. 

When INXS first decided to re-form, there was a big competition - I think there was even a TV show about it - with all of these singers competing to be the frontman of INXS - all working really hard and putting on their best performance. But it seems like the singers that emerged from that didn't really work out with the band. It didn't become a long term thing. Then, years later, through the friendship of Andrew Farris and Ciaran Gribben, and them jamming together and then eventually Ciaran meeting and working with the band, the role just developed naturally. And, like I said, even though there aren't that many videos on youtube of Ciaran Gribben singing with INXS, the performances seem so much more natural than the ones I watched with other lead singers. 

warmth

there's always something special about the warmth of the sun this time of year (early spring here)

it's a real warmth - not heat - that you can feel on your skin. I suppose it's because winter still lingers in the air. 

it's amazing to think that the sun, which is so hot, and so big (though there are much bigger stars) and so far away, can have such a benign and gentle effect

some differences between the way Americans and Australians speak

Through watching many youtube videos I've noticed some differences in word use between Australians and Americans. 

One of the differences is the use of the word 'whenever'. Americans use that word to refer to specific times, whereas we use it mainly to refer to events that happen regularly or events that we're unsure when they will happen. For example, an American might say, 'Whenever I first started reading War and Peace.....' which to me, doesn't make sense. There was a particular point in time that you started reading the book, so you would say 'when I started reading War and Peace.....'. 

Another difference is that we use the word 'of' more. Like, for example, I would say, 'a couple of people were walking down the street', where an American would probably leave the word 'of' out and say 'a couple people'. Or.....'in a couple of months I will start a new job' vs 'in a couple months I will start a new job'. 

golden eggs

That question of 'what book or book(s) changed your life?' is one that a lot of people have very clear ideas about, and they can identify particular books that changed their lives or their views, but it's never been a question that I relate to. There is literature that I love, but even the best of it didn't change my life. I don't think that's what literature is for. 

To my mind, only you can change your life. But anyway, just as a matter of fact, all the literature I have loved the most - Wuthering Heights, Middlemarch, The Portrait of a Lady, Frankenstein, David Copperfield, Great Expectations, Emma, The Idiot, The Possessed, A House for Mr Biswas, A Fine Balance, The Story of am African Farm, Such is Life, Jane Eyre, Daniel Deronda, Convenience Store Woman, A Passage to India, A Room with a View, Let the Right One In, Howards End, The Power of One, The World according to Garp, Setting free the Bears, Invisible Man, Brave New World, Dracula, The Secret Garden, To Kill a Mockingbird, Oscar and Lucinda, Leviathan - none of it changed my life or made me think in a dramatically different way about the world. 

It's kind of the same with the really good non-fiction books I've read, and even self-help books. 

Maybe it's just because I have a different definition of 'life-changing' to other people. If I got creative, I could probably think of ways that each of the books that I have cherished changed my life. You can tell by my book collection - both physical and e-books - that I deeply believe that books enrich one's life. 

Self-help books are a special category. The main point of them is to change our lives. We sometimes read them with a sense that they will impart some kind of secret knowledge that will make all the difference. But the reality is that their best use - and some of them are quite good at this - is to give us some knowledge and ideas that we can use to change our own life. There is no 'cheat code' that you're going to discover and then success, well-being, happiness, money - whatever it is that you want or need - will come easily. Geese don't lay golden eggs in real life. 

स्वातंत्र्य

there are so many things to read and so many things to write about. There are so many books I want to read and yet there's nothing I really want to read. I have freedom to write about anything and yet nothing to write

I've been learning about a lot of technical things lately...cybersecurity, data analysis, data management, digital workplace solutions. and, in a job I was doing in 2019, I started to learn a lot about IT networking

learning experiences are peculiar things. You never really feel the learning. Like, for example, when you're younger, a degree seems like a really substantial thing - after doing a degree you would have expertise, and if you do a masters or a PhD, you would really be a master of that subject area. 

but the reality is less tangible /// a degree - even a masters, if it's by coursework - is just a series of separate units that you do. It's true that the units generally become a bit more involved as you progress, but it's still a series of separate units, and once you finish a unit, you're done with that subject. A degree is not like one big unit that you work through and steadily grow in expertise and then you do some kind of grand exam/ assessment at the end that examines the whole course. 

I suppose you can bring that sense of progress to it yourself depending on how you use what you learn. In a way I did that by doing honours at the end of my degree and writing a thesis, and, because I did it part-time, I was able to spend two years writing my thesis, which was really great. If I had done it full-time, I would have had to spend 1 semester (just 14 weeks) doing course work, and then 14 weeks to write my thesis. That's kind of how academics work. I've known academics, for example, who were on the panel to judge literary awards and had to read something like 60 (maybe slightly less, but a lot) novels in a few weeks, on top of their everyday work. but, for me, writing a thesis in 14 weeks is just not something I would want to do. Maybe I could do it, but spending two years thinking, reading, making notes, writing was so much better. 

It was weird how it came together. I was getting worried because the due date was rapidly approaching and I'd written a lot, read a lot, made a lot of notes, but none of it was really a draft. I'd had a lot of meetings with my supervisor and she had kept me on track, but I still didn't really have a draft. But then, when the time came to write my thesis, all the reading, thinking and writing I had done came into play and I wrote the thesis pretty quickly. It wasn't that quickly. A 15,000 word thesis that needs to cite 50 - 200 references is not something you can write the night before. But it came together in a matter of weeks. And there wasn't really any drafts. I suppose the drafts were all the writing I had done in preparation. When I wrote the actual thesis, my first draft, maybe with a few minor changes, was it - it was the thesis. 

I did well. I went on to start a PhD, which I didn't end up finishing. Then, more recently, I started another PhD, and worked on it for a couple of years and then discontinued. There's always something about the system - any system - that I'm averse to - that I can't function in even if I want to. I think that's why I've succeeded more as an English tutor than as an English teacher, because, as a tutor - yes, you're teaching students, but there's also a sense in which you're working against the system - you're teaching the student how to beat the system/ play the game, and get a good result. I love doing both. I love literature and literary theory and sharing that joy and interest with students, but I also love the process of coaching students in how to do well in their assessments. The two are different things and I like that. I like interdisciplinarity. 

anger at the book

The first really difficult literary text I read was Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. I thought it was a children's book - a fantastic adventure story - and I read it as that, but it was really difficult and I only just understood it - even just the surface story, not to mention the deeper allegorical meaning. 

It was hard work but I kept going with it. I don't think I quite finished it (I can't really remember). I think I got to quite an advanced point in the text and just realised that the rest was going to be more of what I'd already read. I remember getting angry at it - angry at the book. 

I know that it really enriched my literacy and my vocabulary, even though it was such hard work and I hardly understood it. 

гүлдөр

I was really struck by this verse from the Bible earlier today: 

The grass withers and the flowers fall,

but the word of our God endures forever. (Isaiah 40:8)

စပ်

my frenetic attention prefers Dostoevsky to Tolstoy, Emily to Charlotte, and hybrids to aesthetic discretion and dedication

света

if the world was a person, its biography would be strange indeed // as it gets older it gets faster and more complicated

digital and traditional

when I do digital art, I carefully select and adjust the colours and effects, but when I do traditional art, I don't want to have to think about that, so I just select a pencil/crayon/marker/pen at random and use it as I see fit ||| I make sure they all get used though...I keep all my pencils, etc in one set of containers - cups and tupperware - and then, once I've used one I put it in a different container \\\ then, when the 'used' container gets pretty full, or sometimes when I start a new image, I transfer all the implements back to the original containers and start the process again 

the great thing about digital art is that it's so adjustable - there are an endless amount of settings, colours, adjustments and effects you can do, and, unlike traditional art, you can try something to see how it looks and then undo it. You can change sizes shapes and colours as you go. You can delete and add different features. You can choose whether or not the different media you apply - pencil, paint, etc - interfere with each other

খাওয়ান

I'm reading Feed by Mira Grant. it's timely because it's about a virus, but this one turns people into zombies, and the world is rife with them. I also like it because it's about blogging. aside from their adventures with zombies, the novel is about the blogs of the three main characters as they reflect on their life experiences and the state of the world in their own way. the two main characters write kind of journalistic blogs, and the third character, who seems like a secondary character, writes a fictional blog. so, it has a lot of relevant and interesting (at least to me) themes

શબ્દો

I've never been a big fan of Nietzsche, mainly because of his opposition to Christianity, but one idea he expressed that I find very interesting and have thought a lot about is: 

Whatever we have words for, that we have already got beyond. In all talk there is a grain of contempt. (translated by Walter Kaufmann)

Marie Cardinal would probably disagree. She wrote a book called The Words to Say It (1976), which is a true account of how she recovered from mental illness through the process of finding the words to express her issues. but then, that actually supports Nietzsche's contention // just not in the way I think he meant it // because Marie Cardinal's use of words did correspond to 'getting beyond' her mental health issues. And maybe there was also a grain of contempt in her words ⇾ 

I remember reading part from the end of the book and I was really surprised. I had thought that she would have a really kind and friendly relationship with her therapist who had been instrumental in her recovery, but from what I read, she kind of despised him for some reason. She was really glad to 'get beyond' not just her disorder but her relationship with him. 

So Nietzsche's quote is not necessarily inconsistant with the idea that the use of language is meaningful and worthwhile. 

Here's the quote from the end of The Words to Say It (translated from the French by Pat Goodheart 1983):

"Doctor, I am going to settle our accounts. I will not be coming here anymore. I feel able to live alone now. I feel strong. My mother transmitted the Thing to me, you have transmitted the analysis, they are in perfect balance, I thank you for it."

"You don't have to thank me, it's you who came here to find what you were looking for. I could not have done anything without you."

"Goodbye, Doctor."

"Goodbye, Madame. I'll be here if you need me. I will be happy to hear how you're doing if you consider it necessary to tell me."

Inviolable little man, so he's going to maintain the role to the end! 

The door closes behind me. In front of me, the cul-de-sac, the city, the country and an appetite for life and for building as big as the earth itself. 

So, the contempt is very real and undeniable, but it seems to be a different thing from what Nietzsche was talking about. Or maybe it's an interesting and extreme example of what he was talking about. 

Her reference to 'the Thing' is not some kind of euphemism or personal code - it relates to psychoanalysis....and that opens up all kinds of interesting (and complicated) links to Freud, Lacan and other theorists, and to the relationship between words and thoughts, theory and literature. 

I think, to simplify, you could say that 'the thing' is the central problem or concern of the individual...it's what all their attention is focused on, but the problem is that the thing can't be focused on - it's too complex and self-contradictory (or ironic). It embodies opposites - love and hate, apathy and desire, disturbance and composure. 

ທະວີບ

there's a book that I've never yet read the whole of, but I've always felt like, more than any other book I know, you can read a section from this book and it's satisfying in itself...each section you read is like a segment of a mandarin - delicious and self-contained. 

it was that quality that made me buy the book. I'd never heard of it before, but I picked it up and read part and really liked it. I actually did have a similar experience with another book - The Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath || but this other book I'm referring to is Reading by Moonlight: How Books Saved a Life (2010) by Brenda Walker. It's about her reading experiences and thoughts when she was being treated for cancer. 

Here's an example - arbitrarily picked - of what I mean about the self-contained quality of this book. She's writing about The Tale of Genji and modern day Kyoto, and in the midst of that there's this:

We wouldn't have a passion for storytelling if we cared only for the world of facts, because storytelling is a way of adjusting the facts, of lending some and not others weight and significance, of arranging them in a time and an order that we determine for ourselves. 

That observation is anchored into her story, but you don't need the story to make sense of it. If you just read that quote and nothing else, you would have something to think about - you would have taken something away from the book. 

and like I said, i get that sense from the whole book. ironically, that quality of not needing to read the rest of the book makes you want to read the rest of the book.

համերգ

nobody else can hear music the way you do. there's this urge we all have to get people to listen to the music we like - to kind of coerce them into it if necessary

but they don't hear what you hear \\\

maybe one day we'll have the technology to be able to play music for other people in a way where they hear it like you do...no, that's probably impossible

but even if we don't hear the same thing there is a consensus...like, everyone who likes particular songs or artists agrees that they are good. 

a concert is a very communal thing (one of the connotations of the word concert is unity \ conformity \ togetherness e.g. we did something 'in concert'....everyone is listening to the same sounds, but it's also a personal thing because each person will hear the music in their own way

the way that beliefs influence perception of facts

I've been enjoying reading, on and off, Bloom's book about literary genius: Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds (2002). He rightly points out that 'Very few readers would be untroubled by the phrase "the genius of Jesus", so he doesn't include Jesus among the 100, but he does write about the apostle Paul, the 'Yahwist' (the writer of one of the manuscripts that was [so it is thought by some experts] combined with other writings to form the first five books of the Bible), and Muhammad. Bloom actually published a translation from the Hebrew of 'The book of J' (the work of the Yahwist) of which we only have fragments. He didn't translate it - David Rosenberg did - but his The Book of J, includes his commentary and interpretation of the book. 

I'm looking forward to reading it. Just like with the Qur'an, my familiarity with the Bible makes it really interesting to read about the same people, events and subjects in a different text. I find the Qur'an especially interesting on the Old Testament characters - like Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Ishmael (who is more favoured by the Qur'an), etc. A lot of the accounts from the Qur'an of those characters are compatible with the Bible. 

It's easy to understand how, as a non-Christian, Bloom sees Paul as creatively misreading (Bloom's term for revising, and wilfully misinterpretting the original text in order to hijack it for oneself) the gospel - the original message of Jesus. 

I read (part of) a book that had some fascinating things to say about the old testament, but I ended up not reading any further because I flipped to the very end and the final sentence of the book is: 'You are God'. Spoiler alert: no, I am not God. Not even on my very good days. The book is God: A Human History (2017) by Reza Aslan, and the interesting thing he writes about the Old Testament, besides what he writes about links between other ancient texts and cultures and the Hebrew Bible - which is interesting, but the most interesting thing to me, was his argument that there were two separate and very different conceptions of God that were held by the Israelites. 

When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush to tell him to return to Egypt and lead the Israelites out, Moses was living with a Midianite tribe and his father in law was a Midianite priest so, Reza Aslan suggests that Yahweh (the name of the God who appeared to Moses) is a Midianite deity. Even though God instructs Moses to tell the Israelites that 'the God of your ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has sent me to you', Aslan argues that:

This claim would have come as something of a surprise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Because the fact of the matter is that these biblical patriarchs did not worship a Midianite desert deity called Yahweh. They worshipped an altogether different god - a Canaanite deity they knew as El. 

When I first read that, I thought it was interesting, but now, I think Reza Aslan is putting too much emphasis on names and cultural difference. He doesn't believe that there is one true God, so he's arguing from that premise. If you believe there is one true God, which Christians, Jews and Muslims all do, it doesn't really matter that he was called by a different label in a different culture. It's like saying I worship a different God from French people because they call God, Dieu, or, converesely, that Christians whose first language is Arabic are really Muslims because they call God Allah and use some of the same phrases that Muslims use, like In sha Allah, Masha Allah, and Alhamdulillah. 

The word 'El' is simply the word for God in ancient semitic languages. It's not even strictly tied to the idea of there being one God. The word 'elohim' in the Hebrew Bible usually means God - the one God - but sometimes it refers to a plurality of gods. 

The name Yahweh developed out of the special new way that God began to reveal himself, starting with Moses and the burning bush and eventually to Israel and hence to the world. Here's the quote from the Bible (Exodus 3:13 - 15):

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

The 'LORD' that I highlighted - that's the word that became Yahweh. Originally it was rendered YHWH, so who knows how it was actually pronounced, but in this text that word is connected with the verb hayah, to be. The Israelites until that point had known God by various names and designations, but here God is establishing the particular name that he was to be known by from then on, as he revealed himself more fully to them. The introductory part where he talks about 'I am' is interesting. 'I am who I am' is from the hebrew: ehyeh asher ehyeh, and if we translate “He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists”, we get "Yahweh-Asher-Yahweh". So Yahweh is more than just the word that gets translated as 'LORD' in the English Bible, it's also a statement about God's character and his eminence. 

pieces

when I used to paint with watercolours (which I haven't done in a long time) I always had the strong feeling that I was working with something I was only partly in control of. I was managing the materials more than I was controlling them. 

anything could happen

one time I sprinkled some salt on my work, because it looked kind of tasty, and it created this really nice star-like effect because of the way that the salt absorbs the water and it gets absorbed in little streams rather than evenly in a circle around each grain of salt

so you just combine the things and the art creates itself

I think there's a similar principle at work in all forms of creativity - art, writing, music

when you separate a portion of the work, it becomes more concentrated. like for example, the phrase above ⇾ 'anything could happen' ⇽ has so much more meaning than it would if it was part of a sentence. being separate like that means that all the meaning has to be concentrated in those three words. 

or if you separate part of a painting or image from the rest, the colours become more vibrant and the details stand out more 

🈮

создавање

Ohuhu is a brand of art materials that I really appreciate because they have products that are comparable to the really good but expensive ones but much cheaper. They're economically priced but - in terms of quality - they're not cheap. 

I bought a set of 60 water-based Ohuhu markers, that are double ended ￫ one end is a brush tip and one end is a fineliner, both of which I really like. The brush tip - because the markers are water based - is a bit like using watercolour paints, which is something I find very appealing, and the fineliners are really good fineliners, which are nearly always very expensive for good ones. I like using both. I also bought a specially made Ohuhu marker sketchbook. I was so pleased with the sketchbook because of how huge it is. It was delivered in this big box....I'm sure they could have actually fitted the markers and the sketchbook in a smaller box, anyway, but, the sketchbook is huge. It's A4 size, which is a big page size, but it's also really thick and heavy. 

Ohuhu just radiates quality....they give you really good quality storage containers, they have extra little touches like perforated pages - so you can actually remove an artwork if you want to (but the perforating isn't so pervasive that the page comes away really easy), they give you a plastic sheet to use so the colours don't bleed on to another page or your desktop, and they have extra little touches like replacement nibs, book marks in their sketchbooks, complimentary swatch sheets, etc etc etc

Just to give you an idea of the price difference, a set of 72 copic markers (which are like the industry standard, kind of like how photoshop is the industry standard for digital graphic design) which are alcohol based and have a fine tip on one side and a chisel tip on the other side, costs AU$443.99. That's just over $6 a marker. A set of 60 Ohuhu markers of basically the same type - alcohol based with a fine point on one end and chisel tip on the other - costs $44.99. 160 of the same kind of Ohuhu costs $110.99. That's around $0.70 per marker. and these are not 'dollar shop' quality (not that you can't get perfectly and surprisingly good art supplies from dollar shops). 

It makes me think of the situation with photoshop. You can't buy photoshop outright any more - you have to subscribe. If you want all the apps, it's AU$58.29 a month, or if you just want basic photoshop or illustrator they are $29.99 each a month. So, if you're doing a variety of things it's worth getting all the apps. But there are many other examples of software that, on their own, or in combination, you can use to do pretty much everything photoshop can do and they are much cheaper and, in some cases, free - paint tool sai (one off payment of AU$61, fire alpaca (free), Krita (free), Blender (free), gimp (free), clip studio paint (one off payment of $50), inkscape (free), Autodesk sketchbook (free). 

The different softwares are more suited to certain purposes. Gimp is more about editing photos, Krita is more for actual art, Inkscape is for illustrating, clip studio paint is for art generally but specially good for creating manga (it used to be called manga studio). Blender is probably the most complicated and difficult to use but it's also the most powerful. It's been used for special effects and CGI in movies (e.g. Spider Man 2) and TV shows, NASA uses it to create 3D models and it even plays a role in operating the rover, it's used in commercial computer games, for ads, and animated TV shows and films, so, in other words, it's professional standard. 

so, about both Copics and Photoshop, I would say, unless you're a professional designer or artist, you'd be much better off using the alternatives. Animation is a good example. Most digital art software programs allow you to do animation now. You can animate in Krita, Fire Alpaca, clip studio, and of course Blender, and maybe others as well (I'm not sure) but to animate in photoshop, you have to subscribe to the animation app (for AU$29.99 per month) or all the apps. 

Of course, if I was a professional designer, artist, animator or anything of that sort, I would definitely buy Copics and subscribe to the whole suite of Photoshop apps. It's worth it in that context, because these things really are better, and if you're earning good money for your creative work, the monthly subscription for photoshop represents just a couple of hours of work...same principle with Copics, and actually the same applies to all art supplies. There's a huge difference in the price of paints, but if you're a professional artist, you need to use the really good quality paints that will hold their colour over time and not degrade. 

From Ohuhu, you can buy a set of 24 x 12 ml tubes of acrylic paint, 6 brushes, and a canvas, for just AU$23.99! 

But what about the good stuff....Winsor and Newton has one of those water colour sets where the paint is in solid form and you add water - for 24 colours it's $214.84. One paintbrush costs $17.48. A pad of water colour paper with 20 sheets costs $49.75. A single 5 ml tube of Aqua Green watercolour paint costs $21.29. 200 ml tubes of oil paint are around $40 a tube. On the other hand, for $29.95, from Meeden, you can get a set of 48 different coloured acrylic paints. 

so it's interesting. someone once gave me a couple of expensive brushes and 3 small tubes of the more expensive watercolour paint, as a gift. I was used to using the acrylics and watercolours that come in packs of 12 for around $15. I wasn't able to really appreciate the difference. but then, I was never really very good at proper water colour painting. one kind of art supplies that I have noticed the difference in quality of the more expensive ones though, is coloured pencils. 

I was sceptical, but I wanted to try out prismacolor pencils to see what the fuss was about, and yes, they are substantively better even than the less expensive artists pencils. They're really good. Like any strength, it comes with a corresponding weakness though // because the core is quite soft, if you sharpen the pencil and then press down hard, it tends to break. speaking of pencil sharpening, I never would have believed this until I experienced it, but the better quality pencil sharpeners are much better than the cheaper ones. You don't notice until you use a good one. 

There's (arguably) an even better coloured pencil than the prismacolor though - the faber-castell polychromos. They're oil based, not wax based like prismacolor, so they won't have that weakness of breaking and they will be good for rendering details. Prismacolors are kind of soft and creamy, so they're a bit better at blending and (apparently) the colours are more vibrant. 

and here's an important point....as I mentioned earlier, if you want to actually sell your art, you need it to hold its colour over time, and prismacolors don't (according to a review I listened to). 

the reason I've been resisting buying polychromos is the price. Polychromos is the pencil equivalent of the Winsor and Newton paints. Prismacolor are $94.27 for 72 pencils, and polychromos are $289.95 for 72. I'll probably buy the 12 pack for $30.99 at some stage. 

unfamiliarity

The one book by Harold Bloom that I've never been inclined to read is his book about Shakespeare, which is interesting because for Bloom, Shakespeare is literally the best writer ever - absolutely without question and without qualification. I suppose...I don't really know, but I suppose...the reason why I don't like reading Bloom on Shakespeare is that there's no surprise or tension involved. It's like, there's nothing new here...it's kind of like that, anyway. I know the way Bloom writes about Shakespeare and I don't want to read a whole book like that.

what I like about Bloom is the way that he synthesises, alludes to and processes so many voices - so many writers and books of all kinds. 

I love the series of books Bloom wrote to introduce his central theory, about the 'anxiety of influence' to the world, especially the first one (and shortest one) called The Anxiety of Influence. After that series, he broadened out and began writing about literature more generally, with some exceptions, where he focused on particular writers or books, including the one about Shakespeare: Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. 

One of the great things about The Anxiety of Influence is how unorthodox it is || interestingly, according to Bloom, the defining characteristic of literary genius is strangeness. maybe that's why I'm not keen on Bloom's book about Shakespeare // I have a sense of what to expect. In other words it's not strange. 

Another defining characteristic of great literature, according to Bloom, is that it bears re-reading. I think that's definitely true, although there are limits to it. Like, if you're writing a thesis about a particular book or author, and you read the same literary work over and over for your thesis, you begin to lose the desire to read the work again for pleasure. But, aside from that, really good literature does sustain re-reading...it's like you experience the book anew each time. 

polarisation

why don't we treat aesthetic choices as matters of fact? like, there are certain bands and artists that I just don't like. I don't think their music is good. but it doesn't bother me if other people do like them, as much as it bothers me when I think someone is wrong about factual matters

we feel a sense of outrage when we think someone is wrong about matters of fact or real world-issues \\\ we wonder, how can they think that? 

no one wins arguments that are truly contentious because both parties to the argument are totally focused on convincing the other person they are wrong....and that's never gona happen

literary criticism

I just read a very negative review of one of Harold Bloom's books and.....Oh! I just discovered after reading it that it was written by Terry Eagleton. It's hard to be dismissive of Terry Eagleton. He's arguably as much a giant of literary criticism as Bloom. 

Anyway, I googled, 'who would win if Terry Eagleton and Harold Bloom had a fight?'....no, not really - I googled 'who is better - Terry Eagleton or Harold Bloom' /// which is probably as ridiculous a question, and I found a reddit post that was critical of Eagleton's review of Bloom's book, and I found a few negative reviews of a book Eagleton wrote. The interesting thing was that the two books in question were about basically the same thesis - how to read. Bloom's was How to Read and Why and Eagleton's book was How to Read Literature. 

Eagleton's criticism of Bloom's book is that it's basic and facile - there's nothing incisive or deeply compelling about it. I agree with that assessment but the mistake Eagleton makes is to think that this book is somehow a comprehensive representation of Bloom's views about literature at that point in his career. He's like, Bloom used to be interesting, but now he's reduced to writing a kind of Cook's tour of literature. But the fact is that every other book Bloom wrote, before and after How to Read and Why is more deep and rich and insightful. You can't ever accuse Bloom of being shallow. Sorry, that's just not something you're going to get away with. I think what Bloom was trying to do with How to Read and Why (I think I even heard him say this in an interview) was to write something more accessible than his other books. On that point - the basicness of the book - Eagleton is right, but in my opinion he's not right about much else in his review. And his review is really nasty. Here's a quote from near the end: 

It would be charitable to think that Bloom writes as slackly and cack-handedly as he does because he is out to attract the general reader. He is admirably intent on rescuing literature from the arcane rituals of US academia and restoring it to a wider audience. Even so, you cannot help suspecting that this rambling, platitudinous stuff is about the best he can now muster.

You can help suspecting that, because I don't think it's true. I don't even agree with the characterisation of the book as rambling and platitudinous, but even if it was those things, how is it that 'you cannot help suspecting that this....is about the best he can muster'? After How to Read and Why Bloom went on to write another 7 or 8 books that are longer and more academic in tone and content - heavier reading - and in the same vein as his earlier works. How to Read and Why is very different from his other books. 

and Bloom's writing style (in my opinion) is brilliant...he's erudite, smart, and very funny. Bloom never seems to descend into bitterness, even when he's being critical. Admittedly, I'm probably biased. Harold Bloom has been my favourite literary critic/ theorist since I first read him and I was first studying literary theory and literature. 

I don't agree with most of Bloom's views, but I like his thinking and his engagement with literature and literary theory and scholarship in general. So much literary theory is like something you read for academic purposes, but the best literary theory meets that standard and transcends it - becomes a kind of poetry, a celebration - goes beyond the rigid confines of courses and subjects. 

polish

sometimes things can be too polished...like a speaker who knows all the right gestures to make and all the right places to pause. it's ok to be polished when your performance is absolutely sublime - like I think of some of the figure skating performances in the winter olympics where the skater achieves a kind of perfection ^ their performance is flawless. 

but when you're doing something more ordinary, rather than the performance of a lifetime (or one of the performances of your lifetime) the polish can seem like complacence. 

there's a similar thing with rock bands. sometimes the rougher and rawer sounding band is just better than the more polished one. 

bad behaviour

I think cognitive behaviour therapy works so well because it's a way of systematically challenging our thinking, which is always so driven by our emotions and beliefs, with rationality ///

i've always thought that that was the really useful and worthwhile part - the cognitive part || not so much the behavioural part. the behavioural part is probably good and valid as well...it's just that it's a different thing. 

I've learnt about the power and benefits of changing my behaviour in other contexts, but what I take from CBT is mainly about challenging irrational thoughts. 

I really like dialectical behaviour therapy, but I think it's mainly because I like the idea of dialectics - that all progress and meaning is an expression of the tension between opposing forces

мешавина од апстрактно и реално

poetry was really important to European society in the 19th century, while science, as we know it, was just emerging. in the 21st century, it's kind of the opposite - poetry is peripheral to life, but science and technology is central ///

If you read Shelley's 'A Defence of Poetry' or Wordsworth's 'Preface to Lyrical Ballads' you get a sense of how highly poetry was regarded. Here is a quote from Wordsworth's preface: 

The Man of science seeks truth as a remote and unknown benefactor; he cherishes and loves it in his solitude: the Poet, singing a song in which all human beings join with him, rejoices in the presence of truth as our visible friend and hourly companion. Poetry is the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge; it is the impassioned expression which is in the countenance of all Science.....the Poet binds together by passion and knowledge the vast empire of human society, as it is spread over the whole earth, and over all time......Poetry is the first and last of all knowledge—it is as immortal as the heart of man.

Here is another section where Wordsworth writes about the relationship between science and poetry: 

If the labours of men of Science should ever create any material revolution, direct or indirect, in our condition, and in the impressions which we habitually receive, the Poet will sleep then no more than at present, but he will be ready to follow the steps of the man of Science, not only in those general indirect effects, but he will be at his side, carrying sensation into the midst of the objects of the Science itself. The remotest discoveries of the Chemist, the Botanist, or Mineralogist, will be as proper objects of the Poet's art as any upon which it can be employed, if the time should ever come when these things shall be familiar to us, and the relations under which they are contemplated by the followers of these respective Sciences shall be manifestly and palpably material to us as enjoying and suffering beings. If the time should ever come when what is now called Science, thus familiarized to men, shall be ready to put on, as it were, a form of flesh and blood, the Poet will lend his divine spirit to aid the transfiguration, and will welcome the Being thus produced, as a dear and genuine inmate of the household of man.

For me, it's impossible to not think of Frankenstein when I read that last sentence, because he's talking about the production of a 'Being' through the use of science. I'm not sure if that's literally what he meant though. was he speaking figuratively? 

Wordsworth expresses the idea that both are important - science and poetry. In the rest of the preface he also writes about the important role that poetry plays in dealing with the negative effects of technology on society. So, it's a kind of balance - the scientific and technological impulse has to be balanced with (or maybe augmented by) the poetic impulse. 

And maybe Frankenstein can be read as a story about the horror that results when the scientific enterprise is pursued with no regard for the importance of the poetic sensibility. For Wordsworth, poetry had a humanising/ socialising influence, so if you leave out poetry, you end up with monstrosity and alienation. 

Frankenstein seems to also be about, among other things, the danger of obsessively pursuing some kind of intellectual or moral quest and losing sight of everything else. Things that we think are really, really good and worthwhile (which is how Frankenstein regarded his endeavour) can turn into nightmares when they are realised, and there seems to be a link between extreme zeal and obsession about some good thing - or something perceived as good - and tragic results - results which are the opposite of what was pursued. 

කවිය

in many cases it seems like a writer's work will be lost to history, but somehow it endures and gets passed on and achieves lastingness. 

sometimes writers don't seem to know the real merits of their work || or maybe they do, I don't know || it's always impressive when they know and they announce it....like Alexander Pope saying that he was going to write the perfect pastoral poem, and then he did, and William Wordsworth saying that he was going to write a new kind of poetry that would change poetry forever, and he did. and this is how Ovid concludes his Metamorphoses: 

And now my work is done, which neither the wrath of Jove, nor fire, nor sword, nor the gnawing tooth of time shall ever be able to undo. When it will, let that day come which has no power save over this mortal frame, and end the span of my uncertain years. Still in my better part I shall be borne immortal far beyond the lofty stars and I shall have an undying name. Wherever Rome’s power extends over the conquered world, I shall have mention on men’s lips, and, if the prophecies of bards have any truth, through all the ages shall I live in fame.

Rome fell, but Ovid's work has endured.

әйберләр

I was watching an interview of Grimes. besides the fact that I like some of her music, I really like her ideas about creativity. I like how she uses software to do a lot of stuff with both music and visual art. 

In the interview she talks about all of her albums - the names, content, the art. she tends to do a lot herself...like, she produces the music and does the album art and plays different instruments, as well as using software to create the music. 

she refers to literature and classical music and art when she talks about her albums

anyway, with visual art she talks about using photoshop, and she also talks about how wacom gave her a drawing tablet and it enabled her to produce better album art for her 2015 album...and then a bit later she talks about how she got a desktop computer and that helped with her creative process. 

then, at one point, she talks about when you're working in photoshop or manga studio or premier....

what inspired me about all of it is that I have a wacom tablet and I have manga studio (now known as clip studio paint). 

it made me want to start using them again, but I don't know where to start. actually I did start...I plugged my wacom back into my laptop and I opened clip studio paint for the first time in ages, and there was an update which I downloaded, but I haven't gone any further in using them because I've kind of gone down a different path lately with art

for a while I was working on my skills, and I will probably do that again at some stage, so I can actually make good art and I can use clip studio paint.  lately I've fallen into a pattern of making images (I hesitate to call it art) in a way that is totally easy for me....I could just do it all the time. I make images that include a lot of writing - writing over writing in all different directions - and lines and colours and shapes. i've always been interested in writing as visual art as well as the way that writing can interact with images. so, I make these images in my sketchbook, then I take pictures with my phone - pictures of all different parts of the image and from different angles, then edit and post it to instagram. 

i like the way that i've just kind of fallen into doing this. 

if I get into digital art again, I'll probably post it to pixiv, deviantart and pinterest rather than instagram

پراڪسس

when i'm working on a project, i like to go through the whole thing and just get it done roughly - put links or notes in the spaces - so that I can then work my way through the whole thing and not have to think. 

I like everything to be resolved very quickly, otherwise it weighs on my mind. 

\\\ i suppose, in a way, it's like drafting. 

what compels me to take this step is that, from first looking at the project and reading the materials, certain tensions arise - issues - things that I don't know what I'm going to do about. and I want to resolve those tensions....so I read through the materials again, and whatever I know how I'm going to handle, I leave it and whatever is problematic, I very quickly look into it and make some notes - maybe even write out the whole section in full

i hate systems but i rely very heavily on my own systems || i build systems as I go. the system is why there are parts of the project that I know what to do and there is no tension. 

നങ്ങൾ

does every text have to have a structure? supposedly they do, but something I've noticed, especially about more modern novels that I like, not so much the older classic novels (not sure why). 

what i've noticed is about the endings. it seems like writers want to have a proper conclusion - like, end with a kind of summing up or a statement of something profound, but I often don't like the endings. either their anti-climactic or they're kind of disturbing - so, either under-impacting or over-impacting. the problem is basically that I really like the novel, but the ending is different - the ending does something different from what the rest of the novel does. 

i was thinking about why I don't find this problem with older literature - like nineteenth century literature - and I think it's because, in the classic texts, the writers begin the final movement earlier - they really build up to it. It is different from the rest of the story, but they don't spring it on you in the last few pages.

खरं तर

there's a kind of irony in Sayaka Murata's Earthlings || the book is narrated by the protagonist who has a really weird world-view, to the point where you could objectively say she's delusional. but as the story develops, you come to understand this world-view and to sympathise with it

the irony lies in the fact that, though she - Natsuki - believes her world-view, the reader recognises the strangeness of it and also understands, through the narration of the story, why Natsuki thinks the way she does and what is actually happening. There's a duality. Natsuki narrates events in terms of her world - so you know how she sees things - but it's also clear what is really happening, and the two are very different. 

the beauty of creating fictional worlds is that things that we would call delusions or some kind of mental aberration in the real world can be accomodated, entertained and explored. by its nature, a story is a kind of delusion. we know the story is not true, but we suspend our disbelief, so the story has a kind of reality.

our own personal world is, in a sense, a fiction. 

өөрийгөө

I forget who it was but I remember hearing a famous comedy actor say that the best way to play a comedy role is to forget about comedy. Play the part as if it's serious. Don't try to be funny. 

acting seems to involve a kind of humility, where you put your real self aside to do what is required for the role. then again, we all do that in our different roles - for our jobs and our families and the roles we play in the groups we are part of. ||| and it's not really a negation of the self. at its best, it's a fulfilment of our selves//

ପ୍ରତିନିଧିତ୍ୱ

I was watching this interview of Siri Hustvedt: Siri Hustvedt Interview: Art is a Memory. 

the part of the interview that I find very interesting, and that I've watched more than once, is where she compares art to writing, or the image to the word, and she says that, unlike an image where you can grasp the details all at once, in writing, the details unfold in a series or a process. 

she makes a point of saying that text is a different thing from visual art, as if it's a common view that it isn't, and that you can't represent the same thing in them. you can write about visual art, but you can't achieve any kind of equivalence. I've thought about this before with music....would it be possible to represent the actual sound and experience of listening to music? // not just to write about your thoughts and feelings regarding the music, but to acually convey the music itself somehow through words. of course it's impossible, but it's an appealing idea. 

కథలు

when I was at university, I knew this girl who was a really good leader. She had a lot of friends and was always helping people, giving advice and encouragement. She was involved with lots of activities - sport, social functions, events, clubs, etc. She was very charismatic and vibrant. 

anyway, one night I was on the bus and I saw a couple, and the girl reminded me somehow of this other girl I knew. and something occurred to me that was quite different from the usual story we tell ourselves and society seems to tell us - that true fulfilment and happiness lies in having a relationship and being devoted to this one other person - because it struck me that all the good this woman did through her relationships and interactions with a wide range of people - all the meaning and purpose she brought to the world through her life...it would kind of be a negative thing if that was all focused on one person. It would be a waste. It would be a kind of dimming of her light. 

but of course, hopefully, that's not the ultimate reality in a healthy relationship, and I'm sure that when she did get married (which she did) she would still engage with the world. I don't know because I've lost touch with her but I'm sure she's still the dynamo she always was, just deeper and more mature. 

but it told me something about the stories we tell ourselves

dichotomies

our brains contain an old brain and a new brain. the old brain is a lot older...it evolved first, and it's associated with emotion. The new brain is more associated with reason. interestingly, there aren't that many neural networks connecting the two, at least by default. that's why, when we react to things emotionally, we can have very strong thoughts and feelings that make sense to us and are very convincing, but we're not actually being reasonable. we're operating within the old brain and it's not really talking to the new brain. 

with practice we can develop connections between the two brains. some psychologists call this engagement of both minds, the 'wise mind'. usually the old brain kicks in first and you feel very strongly that you have to take a certain course. your feelings can be mixed...part of you regrets that things have to be this way, but you're certain that that is the case. but then, because you don't really want to go that way, you begin to question it, and it's then that you can make a decision, or come to a realisation, that you don't actually have to go that way - you can apply reason to the situation.  

so, we generally start with the old brain - it kind of kicks in instinctually - but to think wisely, we need to get the old brain and the new brain to talk to each other. the challenge is that the old brain won't initiate that conversation. 

interesting that wisdom is wrought by the tension between emotion and reason. 

when I looked up the etymology of wisdom and wise in the online etymology dictionary, the results weren't that satisfying: Old English wis "learned, sagacious, cunning; sane; prudent, discreet; experienced; having the power of discerning and judging rightly,"

so, it's like, the word 'wise' developed from the old English word 'wis' which meant...and then they give you all these synonyms of wisdom

i did find something very interesting though, looking through all the words that have 'wise' in them - like clockwise, otherwise, etc /// the word righteous developed from 'rightwise'. it would have been really interesting if the 'wise' in that word was the wise that relates to wisdom, but it isn't - it's the wise that we see in clockwise and otherwise, meaning way or manner. it's still interesting. it makes an interesting link between righteousness and the way we live - our manner of engaging with the world. 

and something else interesting - the word 'wizard' developed out of the word 'wise' || and even more interesting, it wasn't originally associated with magic. in the early 1400's, a wizard was a philosopher or sage. it wasn't until 1550 that it came to mean someone with magical or occult powers, because, before that - in the middle ages, according to the online etymological dictionary, 'the distinction between magic and philosophy was blurred'. \\\ this reminds me of the way that to spell (as in words) comes from the same root as the magic spell cast by witches, and the word 'grammar' is related to the word 'grimoire' which is a kind of manual used by witches. 

errësirë

I've been reading Earthlings by Sayaka Murata - translated by Ginny Tipley Takemori. It's Sayaka Murata's second novel to be translated into English, but she's written ten books in Japanese and won all of Japan's major literary awards. I really enjoyed Convenience Store Woman, which was her first novel to be translated into English, so I was keen to read Earthlings and I'm really enjoying it. I find Sayaka's novels very readable. 

Earthlings is a surprise though. The first indicator that it was quite different from....I just realised that I wrote about all this in an earlier blog post. sometimes i forget what I've written. or, i might remember writing about something but sometimes I write a whole post and delete it. but on January 18 I wrote about both of these books, and about how the reviews of Earthlings all said that the content was disturbing and dark. at the time, I didn't yet know what that meant, but now I do, and I agree - it's hella dark. and I think it's gona get even darker. 

ដំបូន្មាន

stop trying to draw things the way they look

learning to draw involves learning not to draw things the way you think they're supposed to be drawn

abjection

i was looking at the draft I wrote for nanowrimo. It's around 9,600 words long. as I look at it now, I can see how I could add to it. it's basically autobiographical and revolves around a couple of issues that have been important in my life. in the later chapters, I've planned out which time periods are going to be covered in each chapter, and I haven't written much yet for most of the later chapters, so I could keep adding to it \\\

the problem is that it's not really creative writing

I've been reading Sayaka Murata's second novel that has been translated into English - Earthlings. I really enjoyed Convenience Store Woman. It's about a woman whose greatest joy and fulfilment in life is working in a convenience store. I had heard that it was based on Murata's experience, so I had this image of her in my mind as someone who is like the main character, and loves working in a convenience store even though she's a successful writer, and has no interest in anything else, including getting married - she just wants to work in the convenience store. but I watched an interview in which she talked about the book and that's not the case. It is (loosely) based on her experience working in a convenience store as a student, but it's a critique of the kind of mentality that she felt was expected - not a celebration of it, as I thought...in the interview she talked about how that was what the work culture was like at the convenience store - as if everything was centred on serving the store. For example, you had a responsibility to keep yourself well, mainly so that you could effectively perform your duties in the store. She talked about how people would get sick but they would come to work anyway because the job was more important than their health. 

sometimes I really don't get the subtext. 

I'm not very far into Earthlings. apparently - from reading the reviews - it takes a very shocking and dark turn as it progresses. the consensus is that it's good but disturbing. the reviewers used words like stomach-turning and shocking. it sounds good. I think there's not enough extremeness (I know that's not a word but 'extremism' doesn't convey the meaning I'm looking for). Modern literature is so tame...maybe it's just the books I've read....but I think about a book like Wuthering Heights (which is my all time favourite novel) and how, in its day it was considered all those things - shocking, disturbing, depraved, focused on everything ugly instead of everything pleasant and beautiful. It seems like no one of any consequence in the literary world would have dreamed that this novel would one day be considered a great work of literature, as it now is. 

but Wuthering Heights still divides people...people tend to either love it or hate it. 

خلق

I saw an instagram post by Hannah✨Artist + Illustrator 🎨. This is the post. I found it really inspiring - the idea that you don't need a special space, or a studio or even a desk to do art. She talked about how she lives in a one bedroom apartment and does her digital work on the couch and her painting in a corner \\

here I am stressing because I can only fit my laptop on my desktop and my wacom tablet next to it, so when I draw or write by hand or read, I have to put the book on my lap. in any case, i've ordered a desk - actually a small table - so that I will have space to do those things on a hard surface

i'm looking forward to having that space, but still, like I said, I really liked Hannah's attitude. you don't need a lot of stuff. 

დიახ

i saw that they were dealing with me as if i was a problem in a textbook. i realised later that that's because they didn't know me. the group didn't comprehend me, both in the sense of understanding and the sense of 'enclosure' connoted by comprehension. so it was inevitable that I would come out of the group, or at least that I would never really be part of the group. 

i had issues that never went away, and i realised later that there was no capacity for me, in that group, to resolve those issues, because what mattered to the group was results....any issues were immaterial - like, they literally didn't see them.

it became very clear that that was the case because my issues manifested in my words and behaviour, and then they challenged me about that, but they said it was 'x' - it was me being Xional...and I knew they were wrong...they were actually wrong...that was interesting. 

that's the problem with making absolute claims. if you say, I'm always right about everything, all it takes for your whole position to be undermined is for you to be wrong about a single thing or even for there to be a real possibility that you could be wrong. 

languages

I started learning New Testament Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Qur'anic Arabic. I made the most progress with NT Greek, and not much with Hebrew and Arabic. 

The one I would most like to learn is Hebrew, because I'd really love to read the Old Testament in the original language, but I think I made most progress with Greek because it's closest to English out of the three. The characters are different but not as radically different as Arabic and Hebrew, and it's read from left to right.

հավասարակշռություն

I've been biased against Sam Harris, mainly because of his books opposing faith and Christianity, parts of which I've read. I thought he was unreasonable and unbalanced, and that his views weren't well thought through - were lacking in nuance and penetration // but I've just listened to one of his podcasts, and I was pleasantly surprised. 

I didn't agree with him about everything, but (just as I always say about Harold Bloom) I like his thinking. One of the things I really liked about his podcast was that he was critical of both sides - right and left. It's refreshing to hear that. So, it was interesting, compelling, and also very funny in parts. 

I was surprised. I thought he would be a rabid antitheist (which I wouldn't enjoy), but he came across as the sort of person that you could have a good conversation with. and yeah - it was very refreshing the way that he criticised both sides. he made the point early in the podcast that it's reasonable to do that - that we can be critical of the faults on one side without absolving the other side of all faults. we don't have to take a side, or, if we do take a side, we don't have to demonise the other side and think they're wrong about everything. 

irony

we always think pain and challenges are bad and pleasure and encouragement are good, but, like a lot of things we tell ourselves, it's a lie//

I think the truth is nearly always ironic. It's in giving that we receive. the way to deal with anxiety and other unpleasant emotional states is to stop fighting them - stop trying to control your emtional state. So, the way to exercise control is to let go of control.

another weird thing I've noticed is that, for some reason, it's often at the very moment that you give up trying to achieve a goal (or not long after) that it just happens.