FOINIKA

"Those who spend too much time with their noses glued to maps will tend to mistake the map for the territory." –Nassim Nicholas Taleb from "The Black Swan".

A few months back I had the sudden realization that almost heedlessly, I have nurtured a passion for philosophy. I would find myself (unknowingly) imitating Socrates and asking thought-provoking questions to random passerby's about seemingly trivial topics, yet I was wary about calling it philosophy just yet. I would call it a… social experiment on conformism or a psychological review of behavioral conducts or whatever… just not philosophy. Maybe because it simply drew out a spiritual connotation too pompous for my taste, or maybe I was simply afraid I was piling on a whole new interest just by saying its name aloud, as the old Latin verse says, "Absit nomen, absit omen." (Avoid the name - avoid the curse.)

Nevertheless, I eventually gave in and started to WikiSearch a whole new brand of "–ism's" and mind you, that is a very long list of -ism's. My bookshelf started taking on a new disposition and regrettably, the "need to read" list will perpetually outsize my bookshelf. Surely enough, just as I have always done when I was handed new tools to work with, and as any artist would define as "the essence of his being" (or something of the sort)- I had to express myself. My very own –ism! Because no one has yet said it like I see it. Everyone else's reality, when expressed, is a philosophy (a theoretical abstract), my philosophy is me expressing my reality.

            Soon enough I came to see, out of the all-related nature of philosophy, that the typical subjects were losing their appeal- everything was predefined, analyzed, categorized and already filed somewhere between Nietzsche and Spinoza, everything else was… too shallow. Then I recalled an anecdote I told my biology teacher once when she asked me why I don't take an interest in her class. I later called it the "Anecdote of the daphodyl," basically, it criticized the over-analysis of otherwise wonderful things. "You couldn't see the flowers for the chloroplast," I told her. In other words, some things are worth more (to me) when kept in wonder.

            This was uncharacteristic of me because I have always believed the old clichés that say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it will always be where you'll find it- all you have to do is seek it out. It would make sense then to insist on finding the beauty in everything typical and atypical alike, (btw, do you think there's a difference?)

            The problem is the abstract, when you get caught in a context that is too detached from anything understandably applicable to reality (see the paragraph above) then you'll find that the minute "your message" is said and done, you'll be left with the same sores and the same scores you were with a minute earlier. Now, I'm not saying we should let burn all the theoretical expressions of philosophy (I'd be feuding with my alter ego for ages), all I am saying is that upon reaching a disagreement, the two sides would be equally counterproductive in trying to prove themselves right. When the theoretical is forever doomed to stay theoretical -leave it be.

            A good friend of mine, (aka Happy Harry Hard On,) introduced me to his idea of how philosophy should meet common sense and I tend to agree with him, yet I will reserve him the opportunity to express it himself, if he ever wishes to. All the same, talking to him has spurred me to express my opinion on how some branches in philosophy had lost their 'intimacy' with reality. Such voices would loudly accept the perpetual induction of the human reasoning and then by some diverse manner claim to be spared of such inconveniences. They won't accept "I don't know" for an answer. It is hypocritical, it is arrogant and it is childish, but most of all: It is a waste of our bloody time!

            Take for example the determinist, a title that can be applied to a large fragment of the atheist population without them ever hearing the term (the religious simply term it differently.). It is logical, it confirms with our reality, but the only relevance it would ever have in my life is as a groundless idea, summed up and filed along with all the great names who invented their very own –ism's. It is an abstract concept that is barely worth my effort to write about. (Apparently Happy Harry thinks it's not worth it at all.)

The point that I'm trying to get at is not that these philosophies don't present interesting concepts- they are simply not applicable. This genre and the likes of it can be pointed out and identified, which is just like shouting, "You cheated!" without anyone around who has ever actually read the rulebook. Or maybe better put- "It's like a eunuch masturbating in other people's ears and then feeling mighty good about himself that nothing spilled on the floor." …A bit too graphic for my taste, but I believe it conveys the message properly. (When you think about it, maybe more like Freud would have, this type of missionary-determinism could be a sexual perversion.) …not funny.

Anyway, I believe in learning from experience, acting from experience and having the tolerance to learn from others' experiences. I believe in trying to find those little anecdotes in our lives that could be applied to different more significant aspects of our lives. Simple, practical, handy and down-to-earth anecdotes that we learn along the way through the "sweat on our brow," as they say. Some of them have a punch-line, some of them don't, some of them even rhyme if you wanted them to and some of them would sound obvious and trivial to others, but only you would truly know the impact that they bear. And the great thing about these is that they are everywhere to be found, all you have to do is look for them.

-Yours sincerely, Cerca Trova.