Mary’s Frankenstein; Less and More than Human

800px-RothwellMaryShelley

Less than Human, More than Human

Mary Shelley had four children and buried three as infants. Her last son Percy survived her and died of old age. But Frankenstein, her ultimate creation, has lived on. Her literary science fictional monster child became a myth, an aspiration, an ambition and even somewhat a reality in the past 200 years.

Mary Shelley’s “less than human being” became a superhuman cultural talisman, a fictional monster of godlike immortality. It would probably shock and appal her to find her shocking and appalling invention so native and normalized in our epoch, and I doubt that her fame as a horror writer would appease and content her as a thinker, author, as a woman and a loving bereaving mother.

Not every corpse struck by a lightning becomes a Frankenstein, but a writer’s intuitive talent can become her shambling heritage whether she wants it, or knows it, or not.

The more than human and the less than human; it can be thrust upon us, or it can be taken away. Some years ago I spoke to mothers from Srebrenica whose children were executed in a genocide. I remember vividly how they craved for the lost status of a common humanity. Their children had been classified as “less than human” by criminals appointing

themselves judge, jury and executioner. A mere conventional legal punishment could not rectify that less-than- human/more-than-human situation. They needed public justice done for the moral crime, not just for lethal criminal acts. They needed the criminals to look in their eyes on the level ground of humanity, and say that they were sorry. But the criminals, who had left the extremes of war to try to regain normality, also felt that need. Some even did say that they were sorry.
FOOTNOTE 1

Truth and reconciliation, the justice model: Frankenstein too still craves to be pardoned, understood, and ranked in heaven and hell as a killer and as a victim, as a member of our society, as just a being among us, neither less nor more.

Imagine Hitler’ s mother confronting Anne Frank’s mother. What could they possibly say? Mary’s feat in writing Frankenstein was to give them some ground for that discussion. A creature comes into the world — he’s not born of a mother, so he’s not one of us, but he’s there. An anomaly, but real. He’s an agent in the world, and he is morally tainted by the evil of a world from which no mother can protect him.

Mary, being a Romantic, thought that Nature was pure and good, and that the lack of a natural perfection made the alien creature go wild with rage. Nowadays we’d be inclined to think that Nature is quite faulty and that human nature even more so. Rather than fearing Dr. Frankenstein’s hubris in his medical natural-philosophy, we’d be keen to seek

technological and social enhancements to correct and control the too-natural processes of our mortality.

Mary Shelley, the teenage author of FRANKENSTEIN, likely felt some need to impress the famous male poets around her, one of them her husband Shelley, the other the lover of her sister, her friend Byron. FOOTNOTE 2

Teenage girls know everything, from thirteen to nineteen they should rule the world. Because adult women must be subjugated and civilized; that is how patriarchy works.

Byron and Shelley didn’t write Frankenstein, because no man would ever feel that maternal responsibility for her creature, that moral obligation towards the society, that love and shame when it fails the world. That is the point of view of a woman, a motherless daughter, a childless mother, a troubled and sensitive soul. FOOTNOTE 3

Mary, like all of us of mother-born creatures had to emerge from her mother’ s body. That is the hardest, shortest trip for a human being, and Mary’s birth caused the death of her creator. That survivor’s guilt prompted her artificial gift of life to a differently-born creature, a page-borne thing of ideas and words. Frankenstein was her expiation and guilt.

My mother was a doctor, while my father was an
engineer who slowly turned hypochondriac. I grew up in atmosphere of permanent war against imminent death. Both my parents were atheists and Communist idealists, so the

issue of how and when to die was awkward for them. Atheism offered them no imaginary refuge in a God-given eternal life, while their communist idealism made them relentless activists for some new-and-improved world, some utopian safe-house against the actual, existing world of all- too-Balkan invasions, injustice, poverty, disease and crime.

In an era when mass popular totalitarianism is out of style, our temperament is closer to that of the lonely but brilliant biotech inventor, Victor Frankenstein. Many of us owe our lives to unnatural interventions which would have shocked Mary Shelley, such as artificial insemination, transplantation of organs, gender change, and mood stabilizers. And what would Mary Shelley make of the lives of the women of science, like Madame Curie or Rita Levi-Montalcini? Are they her cultural foes, or the kind of woman she herself should have become, like, say, Byron’s estranged daughter, Ada Lovelace?

Frankenstein is a mythic story, as fluid as the Thousand and One Nights of Sheherezade. All writers become stowaways in a civilizational process of upgrades and updates, notes and footnotes, of veils falling to the dancer’s feet and while new and more decent wraps are hastily invented. Honestly, every woman writer has a Frankenstein in her cradle, in her soul, in her marriage bed, and in her empty grave.

Is the Frankenstein monster more a living being, a mutant; or a technical product, a robot?

This unnatural man resembles a human, he is constructed with once-living parts of different human bodies, vivified by the lightning from heaven. But he lacks acculturation. He needs human beings to teach him a conformity he can never really have.

A robot is manmade of different elements too. But since robots aren’t alive, they can’t exist without a vast and complex technical support system. A robot can’t be at ease under the sun and sky like some flower or an eggshell, a robot is a childless mechanism, always at the brink of the junk pile.

Who has the stronger claim on my sympathies; the mutant or the robot?

Frankenstein’s story is a big and sad love story, rather histrionic and not in the best of taste, rather like “Gone With the Wind.” Mary’s own love story with Percy Shelley is a mad passion of a teen ready to die for love, who elopes with her ruthless lover, defying the church, the state, decency and convention, her widowed feminist father, the scholarly Mr Wollstonecraft… in the name of Romance, passion, creativity, freedom, poetry, sensibility. What are the limits to the capacity to love, the demand to love, of an intelligent teenaged girl? She puts all her life at mercy of sensibility, and through this brave act she wins a victory, a knowledge of the limits of her soul. But she has to pay a price for that, that of her dead children and the unhappy life of her mutant robot,

her cyborg Frankenstein.

Donna Haraway said: I would rather be a cyborg than a princess. Mary Shelley wasn’t offered that choice, but she lived it. The beautiful cyborg in Blade Runner, the one with the most awareness, is not frenetically killed or killing like the other cyborgs; she can love and be loved: nobody is perfect. She’ll never be a princess, either, but for a Philip K. Dick property in Hollywood, it’s what passes for a happy end.

Haraway argues that a happy end for women is to deconstruct their identities as natural born entities, to split from the myth of nature and allow oneself to become a cyborg. Might Frankenstein have survived, or even lived indefinitely ever after, if society found him an education, a day-job and some heath insurance? What if nobody mentioned the stark dividing line between the human and the Other? What if the subject never came up, what if nobody cared?

Haraway says in her cyborg manifesto:

“Cyborg writing must not be about the Fall, the imagination of a once-upon-a-time wholeness before language, before writing, before Man. Cyborg writing is about the power to survive, not on the basis of original innocence, but on the basis of seizing the tools to mark the world that marked them as other…

The tools are often stories, retold stories, versions that reverse and displace the hierarchical dualisms of naturalised

identities. ..
Cyborg imagery can suggest a way out of the maze of dualisms in which we have explained our bodies and our tools to ourselves. This is a dream not of a common language, but of a powerful infidel heteroglossia. It is an imagination of a feminist speaking in tongues to strike fear into the circuits of the super- savers of the new right. It means both building and destroying machines, identities, categories, relationships, space stories. Though both are bound in the spiral dance, I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess.” FOOTNOTE 4

Mary Shelley’s life was rich eventful important tragic dramatic creative wild famous important…and she lived it with full lungs, with stoic strength. and an intelligent open approach. The novel Frankenstein was written in the turmoil of a melting pot of ideas, the revolutionary romanticism of England France and Italy.

Mary was the daughter of a one of the most prominent feminists, Mary Wollstonecraft and the famous liberal philosopher William Godwin. She was married to a world- class poet and the friend of another, but she could not catch a breath until she came with the idea of a monster.

It was a party game in the Villa Diodata: to write the most terrifying thing you could think of. They talked about sex money and poetry, love peace justice and equality — what about weird terror? What about love?

Her striking effusion of horror found the instant blessing of Byron and the strong support of her husband Shelley, who was proud of his partner in Romantic transgression: his “inspiration, muse and prophetess”. FOOTNOTE 5

The central theme of Frankenstein is not horror, but unhappiness, the lack of love. Mary put some undead flesh on the bones of Byronic alienation, the sensibility of those around her, whom she doted on. She wrote in the missing parts, the despair of someone who is not a dissident but less than a human being.

Frankenstein is rather more human in his tragedy than many fictional hero and heroines of the conventional novels of the era. His sufferings feel real and they get through to the reader. This entity of pain whose only fault was is his desire to be like us. He has a soul, he has a sense of justice, he can love, he can hate, but he gets nothing in return for those mirrored human traits projects on the world. As a melange of adult corpses, he was never a child; he cannot grow, he can only decay.

He cannot die romantically as a dissident poet, for he is a living corpse, a European zombie, with the scraps of a worldview turning bad with mould… His obsessions illustrate how ideas can work on the isolated mind: they start stinking dangerously…they become ugly poison.

Mary projected unconsciously the danger of women living men’s ideals. Most women manage in a parallel world of

harsh feminine reality. They live in small lies, managing the truth on daily basis, providing for survival, with small talk, bread and soothing tender kisses. Even if they love, or write romantic poetry, they live the gap which sometimes they hide and other times they expose.

You can hear it in the pauses, the estrangement, if not in downright cries. From Cristina de Pisan to Mary, to the Bronte sisters, Austen, Virginia Woolf, Wollstonecraft… even Mary Elizabeth Braddon, with her torrent of best-sellers. Elizabeth Barrett, the poetess who escaped from her tyrant father who crippled her in order to possess her.

Before these ladies, we hardly have any record of a feminine witness. Other women certainly were there, they certainly did think, some even wrote…but no literary traces… their cries were not considered literature, their lives were historically expendable… just like Frankenstein’s!

Frankenstein the monster does not have a name — it’s his creator who is “Frankenstein.” The monster does not write his own story, his story is reframed, retold by an authorial voice that will be heard and believed. Mary Shelley did not even put her name on the first edition of the book. To judge by the original text, it seemed that Percy Shelley had written a book about some nameless guy who knew the Frankenstein tragedy. Mary Shelley and Frankenstein were both in the literary shadows, the surrogate mother to the less than human.

Mary was the nymph of the sideways looks, as her admirer Leigh Hunt called her. FOOTNOTE 6

She didn’t flee raging to the North Pole, as her creation did; she merely fled to sunny Italy, where she surrounded herself with brilliant men who legally took over her life because that was how live was.

She experienced sympathy with other invisible women around her; there are records of these sympathetic moments in her biography. She bought a present for a maid s birthday, and pitied the mother of an illegal child… but these moments were like pearls thrown past the pigs of capital-P Poetry. The novel persisted, though. It is all still there. Sincerely nowadays 200 years later reading Frankenstein, I have tears in my eyes. I never weep at the poetry of Byron, even though I love Byron’s poetry.

But Ada Byron, Ada Lovelace, I love even more. As somebody who loves technology because it made my life better as a woman, as a writer who writes different from the mainstream, who does not want to be coherent or poetic but who has pretences of honesty…I take Mary Shelley and Ada Lovelace girls as my spiritual ancestors. And Frankenstein’s Monster can be my patriarch father. Whom I loved dearly, incestuously, endlessly and tragically, until he vanished onto the ice-floes of literary immortality, setting me and the world free.

FOOTNOTES

1 “Scorpions” https://jasminatesanovic.wordpress.com/the- scorpions/
2 Byron shared the admiration of Frankenstein and his author page 217, Miranda Seymour Mary Shelley, Grove Press, New

York 2000

3.May 13, 1917 Mary finished copying Frankenstein novel. As Mary recalled in the Preface to the 1831 edition of Frankenstein: ‘Many and long were the conversations between Lord Byron and Shelley to which I was a devout but nearly silent listener. During one of these, various philosophical doctrines were discussed, and among others the nature of the principle of life, and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered communicated’. – See more at: https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/ mary-shelley-frankenstein-and-the-villa- diodati#sthash.pqwux7cA.dpuf

Mary recounted the nightmare in her 1831 preface to the book, giving a startling example of how the heightened consciousness of terror could be transformed into brilliant and inspirational creativity:

‘Night waned upon this talk, and even the witching hour had gone by before we retired to rest. When I placed my head on my pillow I did not sleep, nor could I be said to think. My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie. I saw – with shut eyes, but acute mental vision – I saw the pale student of the unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine show signs of life and stir with an uneasy, half-vital motion …’

– See more at: https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/

articles/mary-shelley-frankenstein-and-the-villa- diodati#sthash.pqwux7cA.dpuf

4. Donna J. Haraway, Cyborg Manifesto
Simions, Cyborgs and Women, Routledge 1991, New York

5. Shelley in his dedication to “The revolt of Islam” book addresses Mary as his queen, his friend, his twin… source of his inspiration, muse and prophetess, Miranda Seymour Mary Shelley, Grove Press, New York 2000 page 188

6. The “yon nymph of the sideways looks”, Lee Hunt (, Shelley and Mary, 16.11.1821, 4 volumes, page 705) privately printed 1882

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

IoWT: Internet of Women Things

Internet of Women Things site where we post our things from all over the world, welcome girlsIoWT poster small
IoWT

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Bez Ideja 1959-1998

Today she would have been 58, my cousin Biljana. This is the content of her suitcase she left me after her death. So little, and yet she was a legend!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Designing in San Diego

a talk show

Posted in casa jasmina, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Women from East Europe

prava-hurem-1359624844-261239

“A Serb makes a good wife: she can pull the cart out of mud.”

That old Serbian proverb, its genius author has no name.    It’s like the earthy quip from a hospital that I once heard in real life; after her severe car crash, the emergency doctor told her worried husband: Don’t you worry man, those Herzegovinian vipers are hard to kill!

I’m personally half Serb and  half Herzegovinian, so I take these attitudes to my heart, half proud and half offended. But my American friend said: what about the Serbian and Herzegovinian husbands?   Are they pleased about their mud-carting vipers?  Is that the kind of proper home-girl that a local guy just has to have?

Good questions!   If enough years go by, a man gets used to the woman of the house, muddy viper or not.  But what about the opinions of the rest of the world?

Our world is a big place, so maybe a Serbian Herzegovinian woman is considered just one regional sub-class of East European womanhood. I might be called Balkan, from that mountain region of many fractured grooves, or a historical, fossilized ex-Yugoslav.   I was never “Warsaw Pact,” although that arrangement meant “Eastern Europe” in the eyes of the Cold War West.   I’m from a shatter-belt,  a corner cushion among conflicting empires,  a little regional federation that has vanished like the Austro-Hungarians and often resembled the modern European Union.   It broke up in blood, but that’s been the fate of most European alliances, eastern or western, northern or southern.

These days, though, in the fractious nation of Italy, a minor scandal has broken out.  A female TV talk-show host on the RAI national network suddenly recommended, more or less out of nowhere, that Italian men ought to marry “Eastern European women.”  She offered six good reasons, or rather six sexist stereotyped points, about how these foreign easterners made much better wives than Italian women.

They may be foreign, yes, but they stay in the kitchen and cook.  They’re women who clean the house.  They forgive adultery.  They become mothers but don’t get fat. They always dress decently.   They don’t whine, nag and complain.  And they obey a husband’s  commands.  These six female virtues make them great wives.

To tell the truth, I’ve been hearing these myths and traditions for decades now.   I grew up in Italy and can pass for Italian, although when Italians hear that my name is Tesanovic, they often assume that I must be a Slav off the factory-line or collective farm.   I was offended by that, but more as an East European than as a woman.

It’s annoying to hear that we non-Unionized Europeans are supposed to be poor, desperate and therefore obediently at the feet of the West.   After all, aren’t Italians aware that this same stupidity, ignorance and machoism is also applied to Italian emigrants?   If anybody’s women have the reputation of scheming gold-diggers, it’s those seductive, Machiavellian Italian women, and not us meek and lowly Balkan creatures, so blandly pretty and matrimonially faithful.   We’re wholesome.  We’re naively honest.  We’re tiresome and boring, we’re no trouble at all!

However, the traditional Eastern European concept of us kerchief-headed creatures has clearly changed a lot since Yugoslavia split up, the Soviet Union fell and the EU fortress hastily erected its own walls in response.   New prejudices always arise with new walls.   Nowadays, instead of being a communal peasantry, we’re becoming world-class sultanas and empresses.  Slovenian model Melania Knauss Trump is the First Lady of the USA!

Most of the current American President’s  harem women have a Balkan air about them, even American-born Ivanka, the daughter / heiress who seems to be managing the Washington palace while the current wife keeps her head down in her gilded skyscraper in New York.  We’re witnessing a modern psychological drama that closely resembles the intrigues of Hurrem, the abducted Ukrainian concubine,  who became the Ottoman Empress of Suleyman the Great.  Why her, why Eastern European Hurrem?  Because Hurrem was a viper, and she could pull that muddy cart, and also because Suleyman the so-called Great didn’t have any other real friends.

Melanija Knauss is an ex-Yugoslav, just like me.   She and I both sang patriotic hymns to Tito in our primary schools, with red kerchiefs around our necks.  Nowadays those Communist adornments are more ragged and forlorn than Janis Joplin’s dirty red bandanna:  freedom is just another word for losing your entire nation.   We thought Marshall Tito was our family more than our  leader.  The school song was: Comrade Tito, we  vow we will not go astray.  Now far-straying Melania is decked out in Ottoman jewels as an offshored one-percenter bride of a mogul.  Still,  this is modernity, so, presumably, that fate had to happen to somebody.

Hell has no fury like someone’s national womanhood scorned, so TV mayhem broke out over this Italian RAI TV talk show.  The commentator got promptly fired from the focussed social-media rage of vengeful Italian netizens, and even her boss was purged and her show was cancelled.  Italian women certainly don’t care for invidious comparisons.   But there’s nothing new about people making them.

Back in Italy in the 1970s, it was the Swedish girls who were cast as the ideal exotic brides. These Swedes were blonde and not dark, tall and statuesque and Nordic,  un-Catholic and sexually emancipated, ready to hop fully-clothed right into the Trevi Fountain, dolce-vita style.  But Italy survived that female threat somehow.

Now the entire RAI programme has been blown off the air scorched-earth style, as if Italian bachelors were in desperately short supply and all the girls have to scrabble.  Why are Italian women protesting about an Italian female talk-show?  Wouldn’t it make more sense if the women directly confronted their men?

And for that matter, why aren’t the Italian men complaining about their possible prospect of having to court and marry Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians and whomever?

Plus — what about the grievances of us East European women who happen to be in Italy?  To think that we never complain and lament is absurd — we’ve got enough daily grievances to fill the Roman Colosseum.    We’re the women of a soulful people with vast intellectual conceptual fields of grief, sorrow and historical disappointment, and the near-infinite spectrum of the sorrows of a Russian woman is, in fact, shockingly different from the handwringing of any Polish one.  Right now the Ukrainian women are bitterly upset about Russia.  What if you’re an Eastern European woman from one of those small and awful “frozen conflict” zones, where your ethnicity doesn’t even have any proper nation for foreigners to get stereotypical about?

But, well, who cares about all that mess? RAI certainly doesn’t. The network has only one concept for all of us splintered ethnics, mostly because their TV programs are never about the many sorrows of women of the world, they’re mostly about young, prancing, pretty Italian women who are  half nude and seem available.   Berlusconi used to be the master-of-ceremonies for that kind of regional showgirl parade, but it goes on with him or without him.

Italian TV culture  ranks with the most blissfully vulgar TV in the world, because it really knows what sells on a glass screen.  RAI is second to none in kitsch, misogyny and casually racist sexism, but those values go unchallenged because Italian national TV is a closed moral universe.  It’s by no means  all about us East European women in Italy, we’re merely the occasional collateral damage off their NATO airwaves.

Besides, there remains the primal source of the real anxiety in this little scandal, which is that foreign people really, truly are alluring.  They’re hot.   Nobody mentioned this prospect:  but what about the Italian woman in bed with the Eastern European guy?  How scary could that be, really? What if this intimate encounter with the Other  turns out to be incredibly fun?

You never know what the night may bring to a woman, as my Mom used to say. But you see, I really can pull a cart out of mud, I am a Serbian woman all right, for better or worse. Plus I am a feminist pacifist who is always, Always Disobedient!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Luxury Open Source

Posted in casa jasmina, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Milosevic, Berlusconi, Trump

I saw it coming, for the past ten years, at least. I saw small Trumps rising and tramping around, first timidly, then bravely, and finally boldly. Until Donald Trump got elected. I saw the same thing happening in Serbia and in Italy, at the end of the past century> They were called  Milosevic and Berlusconi. These three guys that have impacted my life in the countries where I live have things in common: they are men, they are machos and they are so-called typical men of their nations:  self-invented men who became potent, with money, with media,  with fraud. But the bigger they are, the more false they became. Pundits call our era a post-truth time where politicians act without having to give an account to anybody: god or voters.  This is nothing new really, there have been other such moments in history  where truth was subjected to higher instances: religion, ideology, weapons. It is not  new as a doctrine and some ruthless pundits  even claim it is not all that bad to  shake up this world of established truths with dysfunctional rules.

In this perspective I saw it coming. I never knew Trump even existed before he got political, though my daughter who grew up in Serbia under the Milosevic’s laissez-faire belligerent regime did know of him. He was loud on local junk private channels selling  cheap thrills while other foreign media were forbidden to the Serbian population. Sanctions were imposed  by the American government in the first place–those who put you in a torch, then sell you the goodies of survival, making profit  out of your misery. That’s how  bad guys make money on politically correct issues. Not that certain governments (not people, however) don’t deserve international community sanctions. On the contrary, we are lucky to have a community nowadays, bodies like UN, decent NGOs etc. But the downside of these measures or the abuse of them is that those who impose the sanctions will be the first ones to make a profit out of the new economic order.  Same goes with wars. Wars are profitable. They make a few individuals rich while most of  the population is miserable or killed, as collateral damage, even though they are the vast majority.

I expected somebody like Trump to   emerge from  the USA cultural and political environment   because of  the  very restrictive rigid and hypocritical political correctness. The rule  of politically correct law    was  imposed and sanctioned legally but even more frequently it was an unwritten  lurking puritan law. At moments  it felt like living in Soviet Union. But people are just persons and  humans.  Laws will not make you a better person, they will only make you an outlaw if you are not a strictly  law abiding citizen.  Even though democracy and laws are the best  we’ ve got  and political correctness is a code against discrimination, no doubt,  the danger is to throw away the baby with the  bathwater. Life is not linear, language is never fully politically correct. It is deeply related to the people who create it by using it everyday. And laws are an instance of regulating interpersonal relationships based on behaviour, language, etc.  However when a gap is created between real life,  everyday language,  beliefs of the living people and the  laws of a state, this vacuum becomes a dangerous playground for populists like Trump, Berlusconi, Milosevic, and, why not, Stalin and Hitler! Manipulative dictators open their dirty hearts stating the politically incorrect opinions present in many people. They act as leaders who speak the unspeakable truths about our imperfect human condition . Because people are often racists, sexists, selfish, violent, and unaware of it.   When asked how does she want to be called,  “gypsy” or  “rom”, my  neighbour answered  wisely: you can call me as you wish, but  I must have the same right  to call you as I wish.

I saw it happen slowly while I was in USA in the past 10 to 15 years in small details of everyday life. My collaborators, family, friends were too much absorbed in their personal virtual lives, personalised diets, abstract political correctness instead of stepping down from their one-person universe and dirtying their hands with the world, with the Other. Wellness and some kind of pretentious self-care made me nervous. But everything was on their side except for the phenomenon Trump, who was hurling like a snowball getting bigger and bigger on the neglected side of the enchanted mountains of the isolated perfectionists. From Silicon Valley geniuses to laid-back hippies  who never bothered to realise that the seventies are over and that holding hands, chanting, praying is not enough. And the money fetish in USA is  a bonding file rouge between the rich and  the poor. The rich because they are rich, the poor because they are poor: they all have excellent reasons to be money obsessed.

If you don’t have money you die in the streets; if you don’t have the money perspective you will have no money and you will die in the streets; if you don’t have the money rhetoric you will have no money perspective, you will have no money and you will die in the streets…

But  you cannot solve the one-percent question/problem, without changing the question, perspective…Is it too much to ask for common sense?

Well, that’s what Trump has, money (or the appearance of it)…and he will not die in the streets, but people will…trying to solve the post-truth riddles old as humankind that are distracting them from their human condition. Be it called truth or post-truth, every day we live in a real world with real issues. And what we believe to be truth, love, etc. Believing in truth is enough to find the truth. But in order to believe things true one must perceive them as such, emotionally, intellectually, scientifically. In order for this to happen, one must be honest with oneself, be active,  get out of bed, look outside the window, work, walk, study, think, emote…Americans, are you ready? To get out of your virtual worlds of gaming thrones… of eating disorders, emotional dependencies on cats and other pets… zombies and vampires. Another troubled non-beautiful world is waiting for you out there, you can reach it if you make an effort or it will reach you without any effort because it is here now.

In 1300, Dante wrote in so-called “vulgar” Italian his Divine Comedy. At the time, Latin was the official language of truths, but Dante challenged the official truths .  He was of course exiled as punishment, but his visionary poem is a masterpiece of his time.

Dante was not politically correct or a man of power or money, just a poet. Same goes with Vaclav Havel, the Czech playwright from the 20th century who from prison made it to the presidency. Living in truth is not comfortable or profitable but healthy and necessary.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment