Title of the Painting : Klee, Paul. Possibilities at Sea. 1932, 26. Oil-color on stretched canvas, 97 x 95.5 cm.

To better understand the use of specific symbols in Paul Klee paintings. I am, as an Architect, particularly concerned with examining how the dialogue between Gropius’ principles – that a combination of fine arts and applied arts should be reached resulting in the final product of Architecture – inspired Klee to take a more architectural approach to painting.

As an artist working at the Bauhaus, Klee would not only be continually faced with modern architecture, but would be able to engage with the new concerns of spatial construction outlined in contemporary architectural experiments.

In the decade (1921-1931) that Paul Klee was a master-teacher at the German Bauhaus, he produced a series of paintings infused with a primordial aura and marked by an artistic topos: the arrow. The arrow usually has a recognizable function, but in Klee’s 1922 painting Good Place for Fish, the arrow is puzzling.

Several of Klee’s various arrows, some articulated in pen-thin lines, feathered like an arrow shot from a bow and others stouter and bolder, like the arrows of indication found in the urban environment, are placed in deep green and blue bands of color amongst several fish-like forms.

Thoughresembling attack arrows, the feathered arrows in Klee’s painting are not directed at the fish, but rather they are pointed downward and, because of the way their points and feathers align with the bands of color, they appear to be motionless, suspended in the watery ground. Likewise, the bolder arrows resist their typical role, one of a precisely comprehensible indication. Klee’s arrows are confusing: they show motion, indicate direction, and guide the viewer’s eye.

The arrow is but one symbol that is ubiquitously present in the Klee’s oeuvre.

In such an examination, Klee’s pedagogy naturally becomes a key concern. Not only does it provide the means through which to understand the artist’s development as a painter concerned with architectural concepts, but it serves as the apparatus for investigating the intractably enigmatic symbols that inhabit Klee’s paintings.

The arrow is a common, recognizable symbol that is frequently present in the paintings that Klee produced during his Bauhaus years (1921-1931). It figures prominently in, among other paintings, « Possibilities at Sea » (1932 Norton Simon Museum).

Moreover, the arrow is ubiquitous in Klee’s pedagogy as both a subject for elucidation and elucidating a didactic tool. It makes its first appearance in The Pedagogical Sketchbook as an activator and repeated throughout the pedagogical writings, the arrow acts as energy that activates elements in the diagram.

Klee explains the illustration as « passive lines which are the result of an activation of planes » (line progression).

Arrows are used to show this activation. They can be seen performing the same energy-infusing role in Klee’s paintings. Entering the painting from above as if it were a heavenly ray of energy, the massive black arrow in Affected Place appears to set in motion the miniature world beneath it . The forms below imply buildings, ships and even a little person (the summary legs and torso are evident though no head or arms are apparent) all slightly off-kilter to indicate activity.

Disguised as part of the micro-world, it points directly at the figure’s back as if transmitting the energy from its larger companion arrow. Energy can also be classified as “stress” in that it contains forces that oppose one another.

Indeed, in the summary of Klee’s exploration of basic forms, the stresses that generate the forms are indicated by arrows. The concentration of stress points and their directional arrangement as fixed by arrows is directly linked to the creation of rectilinear shapes. The arrow as activator is the representation of energy and also implies motion.

In Klee’s pedagogy the arrow is more often than not the indicator of direction. This jobis a matter of life and death with the spiral, for instance; if the arrow indicates the direction of movement as outwardly-directed, the spiral infers a living and growing process; if the arrow indicates the opposite direction, the spiral is shown to be expiring, waning in its ability to generate energy, and dying.

This display of extremes, the life-and-death role prescribed to the arrow is born out pictorially in Possibilities at Sea, and encaustic and sand painting that Klee completed in 1932 while teaching at the Düsseldorf Academy.

In this painting, a sailboat-like structure of red and white lines floats on water (indicated by elongated blue rectangles and a brown squiggle) between the sun and the moon. As implied by the title of the work, the sailboat is provided with two possibilities of direction.

The white arrow next to the structure points to the right edge of the picture representing the life-giving direction: onward.

The weightier black arrow to the left of the structure, however, points downward toward the water.

It indicates the direction of sinking and death. The sailboat, floating ever so precariously, is subject to both arrows and their life-giving or life-ceasing directions simultaneously. The arrow emphatically specifies direction. Klee reinforces the arrow’s defined role: “the symbolic arrow is direction with point and feathering combined as point-rudder.” Not only does Klee provide a material equivalency for the arrow as a point-rudder, but by doing so, he introduces yet another element: dimension.

Klee explains:

“If we consider direction or movement, we obtain the following result:

1. Dimension: left-right, movement each way
2. Dimension: above-below, parallel movement
3. Dimension: front-back, movement and countermovement.”

S.M

I think that I am dealing with the grief of losing (mourning) only if I believe myself being a separate entity. Because it’s always the separate entity that believes she is losing something. And with the mourning of a relationship, we give up on all the imaginary imagery that built the story. And the body can feel a real tear.
But the truth is that the mourning of a relationship is totally different from the mourning during a loss or death. Because love is the only relationship that matters and it’s always shared, unless of course we are lying to ourselves.

If you have a loving relationship with someone, and that person dies, you may actually be under the impression that the love is gone and he left you. While in a relationship that ends with a break, it’s totally different, because it means that one of the two is not satisfied. And if one is not satisfied the other can’t be, and it becomes obvious that something was missing in love.

So this kind of loss is not about something that was real, but about a desired, imagined and projected love. We are the victims of our own imagination and desires. It’s like a bridge being loaded with bunch of weights and crumble before our eyes. This often happens in a relationship when both parties load the deck with his own vision, each having an idea of what he needs … If you mourn a relationship this means that you are a victim of your own imagination and belief. You believed that this relationship brings you what you need but if it ends, this means that in reality it would never have been able to bring you what you need.

This is why we should never soften oneself. If something is broken this means it never worked out from the beginning. And even though in both mourning, the body is missing. You must know that the bodies are replaceable. Love is more difficult to replace.

The moments of love are ONE in consciousness and it is eternal. This is why in the process of mourning; mourning is a sweet sadness, not despair. The ignorant part of grieving is a form of despair. But the spiritual aspect of mourning always leads us to sweetness.

His body inside a white sheet passed before my eyes, he left the house and I cried, but the tears were sweet. Because even though it was difficult, this sweetness part of the love we shared was still there.

O.G

I dedicate this article to my friend Danielle Bleitrach: http://histoireetsociete.wordpress.com/

For one thing, there is really nothing you can do for the people in the Ukraine, at least not directly.  And you have already done something crucial: you have identified with their struggle.  That is extremely important because the 1%ers are trying to divide us and separate us along national, ethnic, racial, religious, educational, social, political and any other line they can think of.  Our response should be, to paraphrase Marx, “99%ers of the world, unite!”.

The big mistake of the Marxists (well, one of them) was to think in big terms – stuff like “proletarians of the world”.  What we need to do is think *small*.   Here is the key thing: the struggle against evil happens one soul at a time, especially in the West, and especially in the USA where any organized struggle immediately gets discredited, infiltrated and eventually shut down (or even shot down).  Stay small, take little steps.

 

In other words, do not waste your time on those who are not asking anything from you, but don’t deny your attention to those who are seeking the truth.  Or even more basically – don’t waste your breath lethargic morons, but spare no effort towards those who seek to understand.  For one thing, the lethargic don’t doubt – they already know it all.  But others do doubt, all they need is help to connect the dots.  A true man, which I once met, told me “one human soul is more precious than the entire universe”, and that is quite true.  So if all you do in your entire life is help to guide one single soul to the truth, you have had a great life!  Just one.  And it does not matter where this soul lives, in the USA, the Ukraine, Palau or Timbuktu.  All souls, all humans, have the same value – its infinite.

 

Second, there is only one way to lead people – by example, by inspiration and not by instruction or by polemic. Save yourself and thousands around you shall be saved.  Forget about acting on others, act on yourself.  And then you will be able to act on others.  This is paradoxical, I know, but in practical terms, this means that for your the highest priority must be pursue the truth in all its forms with passion and determination.

1) never go against your conscience
2) always do the right thing and don’t worry about outcomes or consequences

 

That’s it.  That is my personal version of “survival in a crazy world 101″.  And just to answer your question, don’t worry about what your tax dollars do in the Ukraine, worry about what they do were you live.  Pay your taxes, don’t break the law, but stand up for justice and righteousness every time you can.  Most importantly, show compassion and love to each suffering person near you.  Modern liberals are so mistaken when they send money to the hungering kids in Africa yet have a total “compassion deficit disorder” towards their fellow Americans!  Again, think globally – act locally.

 

In conclusion, let me refer to one of my favorite pieces from one of my favorite authors: Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “Live not by lies”. “What can we do?”. This is an old question indeed. When a nation becomes enslaved by a government of thugs and terrorists one of the main goals of the rulers is to make their subjects believe that there is nothing they can do about it. Failing that, they want to push all the opposition into some activity which would justify the use of violence against them. So what are the options for those who oppose the rule of the current Empire?
Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote an essay in 1974 which, I believe, still fully applies to today’s USA. Soon thereafter he was expelled from the USSR. From his exile he declared that he would live to see the Soviet rule collapse and would return to his country before his death. For these words he was ridiculed – at the time the Soviet Empire, protected as it was – not unlike Dubya’s Empire – by a huge military and secret police, looked invincible. Twenty years later, Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia. He has passed away since (in 3 August 2008).  He, the man who survived the three worst calamities of the 20th century – the war, the concentration camps and cancer – lived to the age of 89 and before his death he even met Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB officer, who expressed immense admiration for him.

 

Following is the full text of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s essay “Live Not By Lies.” It is perhaps the last thing he wrote on his native soil [before the collapse of the Soviet Union] and circulated among Moscow’s intellectuals [at that time]. The essay is dated Feb. 12, the day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany.

At one time we dared not even to whisper. Now we write and read samizdat, and sometimes when we gather in the smoking room at the Science Institute we complain frankly to one another: What kind of tricks are they playing on us, and where are they dragging us? gratuitous boasting of cosmic achievements while there is poverty and destruction at home. Propping up remote, uncivilized regimes. Fanning up civil war. And we recklessly fostered Mao Tse-tung at our expense– and it will be we who are sent to war against him, and will have to go. Is there any way out? And they put on trial anybody they want and they put sane people in asylums–always they, and we are powerless.Things have almost reached rock bottom. A universal spiritual death has already touched us all, and physical death will soon flare up and consume us both and our children–but as before we still smile in a cowardly way and mumble without tounges tied. But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength?

We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today’s modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants–but just don’t disturb our fragile existence. We lack staunchness, pride and enthusiasm. We don’t even fear universal nuclear death, and we don’t fear a third world war. We have already taken refuge in the crevices. We just fear acts of civil courage.

We fear only to lag behind the herd and to take a step alone-and suddenly find ourselves without white bread, without heating gas and without a Moscow registration.

We have been indoctrinated in political courses, and in just the same way was fostered the idea to live comfortably, and all will be well for the rest of our lives. You can’t escape your environment and social conditions. Everyday life defines consciousness. What does it have to do with us? We can’t do anything about it?

But we can–everything. But we lie to ourselves for assurance. And it is not they who are to blame for everything-we ourselves, only we. One can object: But actually toy can think anything you like. Gags have been stuffed into our mouths. Nobody wants to listen to us and nobody asks us. How can we force them to listen? It is impossible to change their minds.

It would be natural to vote them out of office-but there are not elections in our country. In the West people know about strikes and protest demonstrations-but we are too oppressed, and it is a horrible prospect for us: How can one suddenly renounce a job and take to the streets? Yet the other fatal paths probed during the past century by our bitter Russian history are, nevertheless, not for us, and truly we don’t need them.

Now that the axes have done their work, when everything which was sown has sprouted anew, we can see that the young and presumptuous people who thought they would make out country just and happy through terror, bloody rebellion and civil war were themselves misled. No thanks, fathers of education! Now we know that infamous methods breed infamous results. Let our hands be clean!

The circle–is it closed? And is there really no way out? And is there only one thing left for us to do, to wait without taking action? Maybe something will happen by itself? It will never happen as long as we daily acknowledge, extol, and strengthen–and do not sever ourselves from–the most perceptible of its aspects: Lies.

When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: “I am violence. Run away, make way for me–I will crush you.” But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally–since violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies–all loyalty lies in that.

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.

This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.

We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It’s not necessary.

It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.

This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account out inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier–it’s dangerous even to say this–than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.

Our path is to talk away fro the gangrenous boundary. If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside.

That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world.

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood–of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies–or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.

And from that day onward he:

• Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
• Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
• Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
• Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
• Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
• Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
• Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question.
• Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
• Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed.

Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.

No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul- don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views,a dn don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general–let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.

A great people of Europe, the Czhechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven’t they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it?

You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. let us then bow down even more, let us wail, and out brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.

And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:

“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?

“Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

 

 

Je dédie ce texte à mon amie Danielle Bleitrach, c’est ma façon de lui demander de ne jamais abandonner : http://histoireetsociete.wordpress.com/

Il n’y a vraiment rien que vous pouvez faire pour les gens en Ukraine , du moins pas directement . Et vous avez déjà fait quelque chose de crucial si vous vous êtes identifié à leur lutte. C’est extrêmement important parce que si 1 % tentent de nous diviser en ethnies, races, religions, classes sociales, politiques et autres ; la réponse doit être, pour paraphraser Marx, « 99 % ers du monde, unissez-vous! ”

La grande erreur des marxistes a été de penser en termes génériques – des phrases comme ” prolétaires du monde “. Ce qu’il faudrait faire est de penser *petit *. Dans l’Ouest, en particulier aux États-Unis, toute lutte organisée est immédiatement discréditée, infiltrée et finit par s’arrêter. Rester petit, faire de petits pas d’oies, est la seule chose à faire.

En d’autres termes, inutile de perdre son temps et son souffle avec ceux qui ne vous demandent rien, c’est à dire les léthargiques ; mais ne jamais nier son attention à ceux qui cherchent la vérité et ne ménager aucun effort pour ceux qui cherchent à comprendre.

Les léthargiques de ce siècle ne doutent pas – ils savent déjà tout. Mais d’autres doutent et tout ce dont ils ont besoin est de l’aide pour relier les points. Un sage homme, que j’ai rencontré une fois, m’a dit: « une seule âme humaine est plus précieuse que tout l’univers ” .. . Donc, si tout ce que vous faites dans votre vie entière est juste pour guider une seule âme vers la vérité, cela suffit à donner un sens à votre vie. Juste une. Et peu importe où cette personne vit, aux États-Unis, en Ukraine, Palau ou Tombouctou. Tous les hommes, tous les êtres humains, ont la même valeur. Car on ne peut pas amener les gens vers la vérité par l’instruction ou la polémique, mais uniquement par l’inspiration. En agissant sur nous même, nous serons en mesure d’agir sur les autres. C’est paradoxal, je sais mais en termes pratiques, cela signifie que la plus haute priorité doit être de poursuivre la vérité sous toutes ses formes avec passion et détermination :

1 ) Ne jamais aller contre sa conscience.
2 ) Toujours prendre la bonne décision, peut importe les conséquences.

C’est ma version personnelle du guide de «  survie dans un monde fou 101 ». Ne vous inquiétez pas de ce que l’argent des contribuables fait en Ukraine, mais il faudrait se soucier de ce qu’il fait la ou vous vivez. Payez vos impôts, il est inutile d’enfreindre la loi mais il faut se battre pour la justice à chaque fois que cela est possible. Les libéraux modernes se trompent quand ils envoient de l’argent aux enfants avides en Afrique alors qu’ils ont un déficit de compassion total envers leurs concitoyens ! Encore une fois, penser globalement – agir localement.

En conclusion, permettez-moi de citer un de mes auteurs préférés : Alexandre Soljenitsyne “Ne pas vivre dans le mensonge ” : ” Que pouvons-nous faire? ” . C’est en effet une question vielles comme le monde. Quand une nation devient esclave d’un gouvernement de voyous dont l’un de ses principaux objectifs est de faire croire qu’il n’y a rien qu’on puisse faire pour changer les choses . Faute de quoi, ils pousseront toute l’opposition dans une activité qui justifierait l’utilisation de la violence contre elle. Alors quelles sont les options pour ceux qui s’opposent à la domination de l’Empire actuel ?

Alexandre Soljenitsyne a écrit un essai en 1974 qui, je crois, s’applique encore pleinement au USA aujourd’hui. Peu de temps après, il a été expulsé de l’URSS. De son exil, il a déclaré qu’il vivrait pour voir l’effondrement de la domination soviétique afin de retourner dans son pays avant sa mort. Pour ces propos, il a été ridiculisé – à l’époque l’Empire soviétique, protégé un peu comme l’Empire de Dubya – par une énorme police militaire, semblait invincible. Vingt ans plus tard, Soljenitsyne est retourné en Russie  jusqu’à sa mort en 2008 (c’est en anglais, je n’ai pas trouvé de version en Français, si vous l’avez, je vous prie de la poster”:

 

Following is the full text of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s essay “Live Not By Lies.” It is perhaps the last thing he wrote on his native soil [before the collapse of the Soviet Union] and circulated among Moscow’s intellectuals [at that time]. The essay is dated Feb. 12, the day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany.

At one time we dared not even to whisper. Now we write and read samizdat, and sometimes when we gather in the smoking room at the Science Institute we complain frankly to one another: What kind of tricks are they playing on us, and where are they dragging us? gratuitous boasting of cosmic achievements while there is poverty and destruction at home. Propping up remote, uncivilized regimes. Fanning up civil war. And we recklessly fostered Mao Tse-tung at our expense– and it will be we who are sent to war against him, and will have to go. Is there any way out? And they put on trial anybody they want and they put sane people in asylums–always they, and we are powerless.Things have almost reached rock bottom. A universal spiritual death has already touched us all, and physical death will soon flare up and consume us both and our children–but as before we still smile in a cowardly way and mumble without tounges tied. But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength?

We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today’s modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants–but just don’t disturb our fragile existence. We lack staunchness, pride and enthusiasm. We don’t even fear universal nuclear death, and we don’t fear a third world war. We have already taken refuge in the crevices. We just fear acts of civil courage.

We fear only to lag behind the herd and to take a step alone-and suddenly find ourselves without white bread, without heating gas and without a Moscow registration.

We have been indoctrinated in political courses, and in just the same way was fostered the idea to live comfortably, and all will be well for the rest of our lives. You can’t escape your environment and social conditions. Everyday life defines consciousness. What does it have to do with us? We can’t do anything about it?

But we can–everything. But we lie to ourselves for assurance. And it is not they who are to blame for everything-we ourselves, only we. One can object: But actually toy can think anything you like. Gags have been stuffed into our mouths. Nobody wants to listen to us and nobody asks us. How can we force them to listen? It is impossible to change their minds.

It would be natural to vote them out of office-but there are not elections in our country. In the West people know about strikes and protest demonstrations-but we are too oppressed, and it is a horrible prospect for us: How can one suddenly renounce a job and take to the streets? Yet the other fatal paths probed during the past century by our bitter Russian history are, nevertheless, not for us, and truly we don’t need them.

Now that the axes have done their work, when everything which was sown has sprouted anew, we can see that the young and presumptuous people who thought they would make out country just and happy through terror, bloody rebellion and civil war were themselves misled. No thanks, fathers of education! Now we know that infamous methods breed infamous results. Let our hands be clean!

The circle–is it closed? And is there really no way out? And is there only one thing left for us to do, to wait without taking action? Maybe something will happen by itself? It will never happen as long as we daily acknowledge, extol, and strengthen–and do not sever ourselves from–the most perceptible of its aspects: Lies.

When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: “I am violence. Run away, make way for me–I will crush you.” But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally–since violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies–all loyalty lies in that.

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.

This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.

We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It’s not necessary.

It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.

This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account out inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier–it’s dangerous even to say this–than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.

Our path is to talk away fro the gangrenous boundary. If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside.

That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world.

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood–of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies–or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.

And from that day onward he:

• Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
• Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
• Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
• Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
• Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
• Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
• Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question.
• Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
• Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed.

Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.

No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul- don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views,a dn don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general–let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.

A great people of Europe, the Czhechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven’t they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it?

You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. let us then bow down even more, let us wail, and out brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.

And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:

“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?

“Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

 

 

 

 

Le viatique est le seul but de l’homme qui se dit “Extraordinaire”, qui se prouve par lui-même et se crée de lui-même… Il est un but en soi qui se réalise comme tel bon grès mal grès, en redoublant toujours d’ardeur dans ses attaques en se disant avec orgueil et assurance: “il faut être fort, la force est nécessaire , sans elle on arrive à rien”. Voilà le fruit défendu auquel il ne faut pas goûter.

 

Il y a une ressemblance frappante entre ce faux génie et André Bolkonski dans guerre et paix de Léon Tolstoi qui rêve de son “Toulon”: “hé bien , et ensuite … Ce qui arrivera ensuite, je n’en sais rien, je ne veux pas savoir, ne peux pas le savoir. Je veux cela , je veux la gloire, être connu et aimé des hommes et pourtant ce n’est pas ma faute si je le veux. Oui uniquement pour cela ! Je ne l’avouerai jamais à personne mais mon dieu ! Que veux-tu que j’y fasse si je n’aime rien que la gloire, être aimé des hommes. Ni la mort ni les blessures ni la perte de famille rien ne me fait peur. J’ai beau chérir avec tendresse bien des êtres. Mon père, ma sœur, ma femme, mes êtres les plus chers: aussi horrible aussi monstrueux que cela paraisse, je les donnerais tous pour un moment de gloire et de triomphe sur les hommes, pour me faire aimer d’hommes que je ne connais même pas et ne connaîtrai jamais.”

 

Ce mauvais génie dépravé au fond de son désir, monomane en proie à une idée, et au cœur irrité par les théories, rumine des buts iniques que dissimule l’automystification , la peur de prendre conscience de lui-même… alors peu importent les noms à chacun sa petite préteuse, son Élisabeth, sa mère sacrifiée, son Nicolas (Gogol), son veau, son Golem. Et encore n’oublions pas qu’une confession sous-tend secrètement l’histoire car son idée est anti-populaire, en tout premier lieu c’est cela le peuple pour lui: les inférieurs, les faibles qui pourtant ont le pouvoir de juger le sage et de rendre la sentence.

 

Ce faux héros se compare à un atome de peste contaminant des nations entières, le résultat le voici : le sage qu’il se croit être, cherche à exterminer au plus vite tous ceux qui n’étaient pas sages et n’acceptaient par son idée, pour qu’ils ne retardent pas son triomphe. Voici ce qui fait dire à Dostoïevski : “Je suis un gredin”… Ou encore le rire de Sonia lorsqu’elle demande à Raskolnikov ce qu’il fait dans la vie et que celui-ci répond : ” Je pense”.

 S.M

Peinture de Oscar Rabin.

 

 

Quand Derrida apprit son nom de circoncision “Elie”, il n’eut de cesse de stimuler cette résurrection même si elle était loin de lui assurer une prise d’identité, il s’éloigne du «je» illisible, il se trie…Comment trier l’origine parmi tous ces bruits de fonds ? Derrida passa sa vie à téléphoner à des fantômes, à filtrer les interférences sans jamais réussir à parler à un seul esprit. Toujours quelqu’un d’autre est sur la ligne… Cela me fait penser à la Birkat Cohanim dont la problématique est connue. Qui donc bénit ? Les Cohanim se mettent devant les fidèles recouverts de leurs talit balançant leurs mains comme des fantômes et bénissent les fidèles…Mais qui donc bénit ? L’origine est muette elle se tait. Si les Cohanims le faisaient ils se prendraient pour origine alors on fait un subterfuge : Le délégué des fidèles prononcent à voix basse le texte et les Cohanim vont répéter a voix haute, ainsi donc les bénis vont s’auto-bénir.

 

Dans son récit “Bobok”, grâce à son art, Dostoïevski suscite le phénomène, ces personnages tels qu’ils sont à visage découvert et, en effet, c’est pis encore. Dans un cimetière, les morts ressuscitent pour deux mois et décident, maintenant qu’ils sont enterrés, de ne plus mentir et de ne plus avoir honte de rien: “sur la terre, il est impossible de vivre sans mentir, car la vie et mensonge sont synonymes; alors qu’ici, hé bien, histoire de rire, nous nous abstiendrons pour une fois de mentir… À la surface, la haut, tout était attaché avec des cordes pourries. Au diable les attaches, et qu’on vive ces deux mois dans la vérité la plus obscène! Exhibons-nous, mettons- nous à nu “.

Le résultat, le voici: ” débauche dans un lieu comme celui-la, débauche ou se vautrent les dernières espérances, débauche ou se plongent des cadavres flasques et pourris, et cela même sans le moindre regret de ces derniers moments de conscience” c’est bien cela, le Bobok: maçonner des vérités obscènes et inutiles, se livrer cyniquement à des exercices de fornication verbale même au seuil de la mort.

Les derniers conseils de Lénine avant de mourir (Lénine, Oeuvres t.33, p503)… Tricher ou dépassement ? dans les deux cas nous n’aurons pas recours aux mêmes méthodes .. (Auto mystification ou recours à l’esthétique)… Car la mise en intériorité de la mauvaise conscience amène forcément à une sublimation.
“La faute de mes talons me cerne” Ps 49:6… Sinon on peut avoir recours à cette consolation relative d’Isaïe 57,1: “les hommes de bien sont enlevés avant que le malheur n’éclate”. ..Mais Pour ma part, je songe de plus en plus à la justice par la transmission de la conscience: On peut transformer les cendres en diamants ainsi est il de l’échec et de l’inachevé, émerge la nécessité d’une continuité de la conscience..Combien de vies seront nécessaires pour Lever le voile du superflu et œuvrer pour la perfection? Car j’ai compris que notre seule concurrence est avec”l’être” qu’on a été, le seul a dépasser c’est ton “toi” d’hier.