bucuriile mici

Ce bine că pot

Să mă tac făr’ să mă prefac

Să mă tic fără să mă stric

Să mă toc făr’ să mă sufoc.

Ce bine că ştii

Să mă mustri-atunci când mă îmbii

Să-mi spui pas dându-mi totuşi nas

Să-mi laşi loc să nu dau în foc.

Ce minunat, minunat

Că-mi trebuieşti rezonabil şi cumpătat

Că piticii din ţeastă s-au maturizat

Că-mi trebuie doar trebuitul, şi ăla moderat.

Dar cel mai şi cel mai bine

Ar fi să reuşeşti (alt tu, cel generic) să-ţi ascunzi

Cât mai ai de cărat sacii ăştia cu tine.

– Care saci? Nu cumva mă confunzi?

sorcova, vesela, veselă s-o crezi mata…

Ba veselă, bătu-o-ar nevoia, vacanța asta ploioasă și cu zile întregi de stat degeaba (mă rog, fâțâit de colo-colo) e o binecuvântare. Și regula că pauza de calculator în vacanță e sfântă merită conservată. De aia am trecut pe-aici numai să zic:

Leru-i ler și un covrig

Să nu tremurați de frig,

Velerim și un vin fiert

Să nu fie-un „an incert”,

Zorior și o sarma

Vă rămâie punga grea,

Flori dalbe și turtă dulce

Tot necazul să se culce

Și-aș mai sorcovi așa

Dar mi-i că v-oți sătura…

Așa că mă-ntorc la programul sărbătoresc-artistic constând în curățatul după oamenii care ne vopsesc ultimele camere (ceea ce nu vă dorim și dvs). Pe anul viitor și o căruță de drag ălora care se simt cu musca pe căciulă că li se scrie în mod special lor 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g .

Gaura ca temă recurentă

Zicea băiatul ăla cândva

Că gaura din steag se va umple cu sens,

Că scopul va deveni palpabil, ca pe pahar vizibilul condens,

Că gaura e mai mult decât ea.

Ziceau şi la cunoştinţe despre natură că puloverul cel mai gros

Nu-ţi ţine cald cu lâna, ci cu ochiurile rotunjite pe andrea

Că pledul de aer din spaţiile circumscrise e… aşa

…un fel de termopan avant-la-lettre miţos.

Să zicem, prin urmare, că şi gaura asta din stomac

Între când, carevasăzică, totul urmează şi totul a fost

Are, probabil, un rost,

O pupăză sau măcar un colac.


It’s like playing a sort of Risk with two, you know? With each of the players having a different objective on the start card and neither of them knowing what the other’s objective is. And while one is playing the entire time to win as many continents as possible and assuming that the other has a similar goal, the other’s card might just say `you both win when you have an equal number of armies and there’s a truce`. There is no way of obtaining that in a game with just two, because there’s nothing that might bring about a truce, if there’s nobody else. Therefore if your winning is conditioned by harmony, you lose from the start. That’s sometimes how it feels – as if consensus is a non-notion, there are only different positions on things you care or not enough about to defend. You lose each battle that you win and you lose each battle that you lose. And it wasn’t about losing in the first place, it ought to have been about playing together, but somehow the game is perverse and doesn’t allow you to play for fun – you either win or fold altogether – which is not acceptable, because that is your own rule number one.

de ciocolată şi meringue cu lămâie

Am fost în weekend la Maastricht. Şi e drept că mi s-a mai întâmplat ca stările de bine concret şi culorile de toamnă să se traducă în senzaţii gustative (nefericită condiţionare atunci când funcţionează pe dos), dar oraşul ăla, în care am hotărât acum că, într-o zi, dacă lucrurile stau altfel, ne-am putea muta fără nicio îndoială, oraşul ăla în care trebuie musai s-o plimb pe mama, oraşul ăla care se află de fapt într-un buzunar mental foarte asemănător cu cel al oraşului în care locuim cu mult drag, dar parcă totuşi cu alt tip de dantelă, oraşul ăla care are întotdeauna o mângâiere pentru sufletul omului (probabil al omului care-şi găseşte acolo vreo rădăcină), ei bine, oraşul ăla, toamna, pe soare de miere şi pe frunze de culori dintr-alea în care aş vrea să-mi crească părul de la mama lui, maastrichtul e de ciocolată cu caramel cu bezea cu coajă de lămâie şi cu piure de castane. Iarăşi am imagini diabetice. Da uite, na, fără dulciuri, ăsta e un gust coloristic de luni:

coajă de castană cu geantă de piele

Ştiu bine că sunt şi oraşe mai romantico-brizbrizuite decât ăsta. Ştiu că-i produsul unui hibrid de culturi care explică, pe rând, fiecare colţişor. Ştiu că mă interesează fiindcă e, ca şi oraşul meu de azi, provincie şi capitală în acelaşi timp, nu foarte mare, dar universitar, burghez şi boem totodată – resorturile sunt previzibile. Mă descurc în el cu ochii închişi după vreo şapte-opt vizite. Dar visez să stau acolo de-adevăratelea, să-mi crească în mitologia personală pietricică cu pietricică, poveştile mele să fie din oraş şi poveştile oraşului să facă parte din mine… Şi asta tocmai când aş fi zis că-s pe punctul să prind rădăcini de tot şi să nu mă mai mut. Nu că ar trebui neapărat să faci ceva cu toate îndrăgostirile 🙂 …

musings on thought systems

I am (almost) full of admiration for people who can take a very clearly definite position in the world. In connection to… well, pretty much everything social. It seems that they have to be either very, very intelligent (as in, they have thought of everything that plays a part in every single equation of their world model and made up their minds) or else, and I’m trying really hard not to make this sound mean, but… quite misguided.
While trying to decide how I feel (think) about all sorts of social topics, I have come accross the same type of mind-numbing complexity.
For instance, on one side of the possible ideological field, it seems very well-intended to want to change skewed relations in society in order to give people who are being treated unfairly a better chance to realise their potential – yet that means that a) the efforts of the people who have managed to overcome the income crookedness/glass ceiling/education gap/ (fill in any of tens of topics divided along this line) become irrelevant the minute the rules change; b) that the stimulus (for people on both sides of the normal distribution) to make any effort gets seriously reduced – and people are nothing if not lazy; c) that, eventually, excellence levels out. It’s hardly worth illustrating this point with politics, therefore I’ll depict this puzzlement of mine within other topics of potential interest. I read this post the other day which, to me (and I apologise for the need for labels), falls under `feminism`. And I felt, for one part, as if I was ready to stand on a barricade for the right to behave like a girl, to accept one’s emotions and live one’s – socially successful – life within the framework of one’s own gender (and nevermind, for the purpose of this discussion, how much of that is social anyway). Yes, it felt unfair and crooked that you’d have to `man up` about everything („stel je niet aan”, „nu-ţi pişa ochii”) instead of being allowed to be in tune with yourself. Yet, for another part, it seemed as if, if that rule changed, then half of how I, personally, and many women with me, define themselves would become worthless. The ability to play `as men` and to perform within the crooked framework – it would be irrelevant as soon as everything got redefined to make the playing field level. As for what it would all look like as soon as we structurally embraced emotionality, I dare not formulate any thoughts on that matter…
Another example: University entrance exams – in my generation, they were still the rule. Luckily, Romania still being a postcommunist country, the divide between extreme incomes had not yet systematically become so large that some would always be able to get preparation for a superior education and some never (although I am sure there will always have been people in whose horizon of expectation school didn’t play a part to begin with). It was, quite often, a matter of working hard (or at least, so it felt). People whose parents earned little worked extra hard, without private lessons, to pass this entrance exam. And there were fewer places. Today, everyone is welcome, on the basis of their highschool exams (SAT-like) and a tuition fee. Democratisation, in a way, although there are much fewer scholarship places and much more tax places – more students in general (because more people should be schooled), but also more students that can afford it without particularly having to make a dramatic effort. And yes, although the system of the small elite may be unfair, it seems unfair to one who couldn’t afford many things, but went to university in a time when it was a bitter struggle to get in, that their diploma is worth much less, through sheer inflation.

This is not, by the way, a post about rather sympathising with right (see, I said it, it seems impossible to get out of the left-right paradigm, however much you try). On the other end of the ideological paradigm, it makes perfect sense to me to assume that people will be more motivated to produce and make an effort when they embrace their self-centeredness – therefore a liberal economic and social system based on people’s self-driven `pursuit of happiness` sounds correct to me. But then, again, there have to be some rules so that one’s freedom shouldn’t impede on someone else’s freedom. And that’s where I start seeing flaws on this side as well: a) it is difficult to make sure that the freedom of people with more resources doesn’t become more important than the freedom of those with few resources – because man is nothing if not corruptible, especially when distribution of wealth becomes very skewed; b) this sort of system, without in-built (and therefore, unfortunately, state-built) holdbacks, will always choose money over quality of life – on a societal level: there is always the question of how economic motivation stops being the motivation of gaining a certain quality of life – because, well, in the process of attaining it, you relinquish the momentary quality of life (you hardly see your kids, due to the long hours you have to put in to pay for the dream-house that you hardly live in) and after a certain ceiling of wealth, the accumulation no longer simply sustains the very high standard of life, but becomes self-driven – because man is nothing if not greedy, as well; c) not everything is as profitable and therefore the market system reduces potentialities because not enough people are interested in them, although the input of different points of view/cultural products/niches may be very fertile for the evolution of the mainstream – it’s as if you chose (oh wait, that has already happened!) sweet corn as the corn that everybody likes and stopped producing regular corn other than for livestock, thereby losing large portions of food culture relying on a taste that isn’t there anymore, sweetening `general preference` in a way that subsequently requires the sweetening of all sorts of other varieties of food and – oh, surprise! falling into the pit of a structural body weight problem; d) not all external effects can be quantified, therefore the market system overuses resources… and, of course, one can go on for a long time. (I know, by this point it really is purely political 🙂 ) .
Coming back to where I started: I can very well imagine society as an organism that needs persuasions the way our body needs hormones. THe moetaphor is, to spell it out, that a group of people of one persuasion is an organ secreting a cetain type of hormone and, on the big scale of things, hormones keep each other in balance – right-wing governments follow left-wing governments, some push one way, some the other, public opinion on… say, body image gets formed at the intersection of beauty industry-generated models and people militating to step away from photoshop representation of bodies and so on. It seems fair enough, if that’s how you represent the whole thing in your mind, to strategically pick a place to stand in one organ or another because you feel it needs reinforcement. But there are so many unquestioned, well-rooted beliefs in our heads that it seems to me almost impossible to make a well-informed choice on this matter – and sometimes on any matter. And then I wonder (especially at times when the level of alert in the world reached boiling point) – does any single neuron of this organism-thingy know, at any given time, how it ought to work? Is there anyone with a firm position about everything which is actually based on something?

new motto

A couple of friends of mine got married a couple of weeks ago. Their (other) friends published an interview with each of the `parties`. Among the questions was `your motto is…?` (I know I don’t have to/maybe even shouldn’t tell you all these contextual things, but where I come from, this is how stories are told, even when they actually consist of `I found a needle on the floor.` You first HAVE to know who had been there the day before and what their children are doing nowadays for a living, which mood grandma was in when she found the needle and why, what was the temperature of the room and which tablecloth was on the table – so be happy, this is really-really short and to the point!). Aaaanyway, the gentleman friend’s answer was `I don’t know how, but definitely not this way`. I love it, I think I’m going to adopt it.