God is time. But time is money.
Do you believe in God?
K. Alves G.
Karinna Alves Gulias | A arte do corpo
"How big is it? How long does it last? These are the most basic questions a scientist can ask about a thing. They are so basic to the way people conceptualize the world that it is not easy to see that they imply a certain bias. They suggest that size and duration, qualities that depend on scale, are qualities with meaning, qualities that can help describe an object and classify it.(...)
It is hard to break the habit of thinking of things in terms of how big they are and how long they last. But the claim of fractal geometry is that, for some elements of nature, looking for a characteristic scale becomes a distraction. Hurricane. By definition, it is a storm of a certain size. But the definition is imposed by people on nature.(...) Categories mislead. The ends of continuum are of a piece with the middle.
It happens that the equations of fluid flow are in many contexts dimensionless, meaning that they apply without regard to scale." - (Gleick, J., 1998 - p. 107-108)
"Still, Scholz considered the tools of fractal geometry indispensable.
'It's a single model that allows us to cope with the range of changing dimensions of the earth,' he said. 'It gives you mathematical and geometrical tools to describe and make predictions. Once you get over the hump, and you understand the paradigm, you can start actually measuring things and think about things in a new way. You see them differently. You have a new vision. It's not the same as the old vision at all--it's much broader.'" - (Gleick, J., 1998 - p. 107)
Comment:
The problem of bias. In every linear interpretation of reality, we are assigning discrepancies to nature. To think that dimensions are stable scales that you can fix on a linear equation is to dwell on illusions of reality. Even if we can explain how a rock rolls down a hill, doesn't necessarily mean we know how to start the movement of the rock rolling down the hill. We may have some idea, but not the whole picture. As, for example, we cannot even grasp the meaning of gravity. We can only assign discrepancies to it and hope we are getting closer to understanding the problem of space and time.
Reference: Gleick, James, 1998 - Chaos, The Amazing Science of the Unpredictable. Vintage Books.
"The poet is outside language." - Jean-Paul Sartre (in What is writing?)
Monetisation is, in spite of I am.
It is interesting that to get to fully understand how the society works structurally in regards to sexism, we need to undress ourselves of all our stocked prejudices, hoarded throughout our lives and hidden under the romanticised terms like naivety and innocence.
Women have long been capitalised as stock
for the maintenance of patrilineality. No wonder this has been the rule,
especially after the spread of Christianity, in which the Holy Trinity includes
only males (i.e. the father, the son and the Holy Spirit). Women have been relegated
to invisibility for millennia, even though their bodies are incredibly valuable
to human kind. However, for their invisibility, they could only be monetised
once, that is in marriage. After that, her body would become property of the
husband’s family, to do with her as they wished, and to produce males, of
course-- the real valuable being that can be monetised from for his whole life.
Honesty be told, men are not well treated
in this patriarchal society either. They have freedom, if they are free. They
have justice, if they are on the right side. Have they a true soul, however? Or
do they romanticise their own prison in innocence, by subjecting their selves
to grandiloquent circumlocution? When do they practice their humanism? Perhaps,
only individually, whenever they can gain the blessings of a God-like or an un-God-like
immortality in name.
No, I am not a man hater, although I do criticise them. How can I hate men, when I have a son I love? Do not confuse my
thoughts, when in truth all I despise is monetisation of human lives and thoughts. Monetisation of food and animals too, meanwhile many fellow humans die of
starvation. And that all comes from the same source, and it’s vile. Honour, greed
and hoarding. The unholy Trinity: the true sins of our patriarchal society.
The whole of the capitalist society has been created to fit men. All the health advances so far have been to treat the male body only. As for women, they are a mystery to be paid no attention, as long as they can keep their sole function, which is to care and breed.
Women can hardly keep up, dealing with period pains, children and parents to look after or even dealing with unsolved chronic illnesses that affect them more often than men. In addition, the more individualistic and fragmented the society is, surely the more the women will struggle, and I don’t think we can be more individualistic than we are to this day. On top of that, the super women that do keep up with men in the unfair work environment also have to be extremely strong mentally, to deal with social mining, sometimes for not being able to or not wanting a family. It seems almost impossible, if not a utopia, to be equal in this unfair society and women who want to feel as valuable as men, but in many ways cannot achieve this goal, end up with feelings of depression and self-loathe.
In the bare reality of things, the only real choice a woman has in her material life is either sacrifice or resignation. A choice that can only be consciously made if she removes the veil of innocence and naivety from her face. And whatever difficult path she finally chooses, she will definitely be criticised by her surroundings. It is the apogee of hellish individuality; that is for sure. Nothing really supports a woman but herself. Her solitary, dependant, unstable self. Even so, she still cares and men should be truly thankful for that. More so, because in her caring is the answer to all our troubles.
Care is not something that can be well monetised. Either because love can’t be bought, as they say, or because it is a stigmatised job, for women only. Even so, still here lies the way out of our individualistic self-impoverishment. Every individual in this world, either man or woman, can be and move forward because they have had someone who cared for them, in some way or another. We don’t have elderly people being abandoned in the streets like useless piece of equipment simply because someone chose to care for them. And, most of the time, this someone is a woman, for the greatest part because the patriarchal society believes it is her job, the un-monetised job, I mean. That way she cannot be materially free.
Although in many cases she is unfortunately dependant financially, I believe that by finding her value in the un-monetised world or paradigm and consequently fighting for this un-monetised world, without expecting moral support, the woman, and also the men who thereupon follows, can find the way out of this hellish paradigm of living, even though slowly. It is not resignation. It is the contrary. It is finding value not in what men do, but in what we as women do. Finding value in what the women’s body can give us and understanding the female body, instead of trying to follow men’s body as a universal model. The value we give ourselves matters, and that not counting on stock interests, bank interests or religious interests. Whether we can monetise our lives, or how much, does not influence on our value as a person. It may seem obvious to some people, but our capitalist society works by closely relating one to the other. And many people suffer for that.
Everything that cannot be monetised is so valuable, please believe me. An extract of a poem is much more valuable than any millionaire or billionaire businessman, who sold his soul to fit in the best he could and survive as the fittest, at the top layer of this horrible pyramid of self-oppression and dehumanisation.
The answer is to be, disregarding monetisation. Like a homeless man or a hermit, who duels in the home of his soul, but even better would be in a community of equals that support each other. We can always fight for a more hopeful future and it starts by looking for a different, counter-current path. Definitely not by competition, though. And I don’t want to compete with men, as I don’t want to sell myself for the highest bid, without thinking, and wait for a freedom in money that will never come. I don’t believe that work ennobles men, and even less women. What ennobles men and women is care. And I want to care. Care for myself, my family, and other women and be cared for.
By Karinna Alves Gulias
K. Alves G.
Um canto de juntas quentes. Talvez inchadas.
Analogia com dor, aleatória. Conservadora de algo.
Uma perna dobrando-se, devagar.
Aguenta-bico. Murcha.
Pior de cativeiro, sempre.
De Karinna A. Gulias
Dentro de qualquer conflito, seja contra outra pessoa ou contra si mesmo, seja uma batalla desleal e exagerada, a resposta de um deve ser sempre: humanizar. Humanizar.
Quem humaniza cultiva o bem ao mundo e a si mesmo.
E os desgostos transformamos em lágrimas e já está...
(Estou contigo Pedro Sánchez)
Há três
épocas na memória,
E ontem
mesmo, me parece, uma delas
Ocorreu.*
* Minha tradução de:
There are three epochs in the memory,
And only yesterday, it seems, the first
Ocorred. – translation by D.M. Thomas
Dos jardins que poderia fazer crescer, se esquece às vezes.
Ressuscitada do avesso. Avariada. Não se podia consumir sempre.
E pausa para fazer nada. A mulher.
A dieta dos deuses é sustentá-las e desvirtuando o espaço.
Medidas de uma erosão.
O espírito de um fóton sem tempo -- volva tempo. Volta, amor.
Seus dedos esticam junto com a luz
depois que já passou.
A dedicatória de todo um mito esquecido
a elas. Fica, por favor. Em uma foto.
de K. Alves G.
Cuida do
T Tempo
A velha abre a boca --
Calem-se todos: É
Um sopro sem ouro. Dura pesada
Para o sempre.
Um entre-mundos.
de Karinna Alves Gulias
I, too, dislike it.
***Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one discovers inDentro do pensamento Freireano da vocação do ser humano para o ser mais e a busca da liberdade, Israel e Palestina se deixam pecar.
Que existe lá uma relação doentia de opressor-oprimido é inquestionável. Seja de que ideologia um seja, negá-la é negar a realidade por uma falsa sensação de segurança e defesa de uma verdade política manca.
A política de desumanização é castradora, pois só cultiva o ser menos do ser humano. O agente opressor desumaniza o oprimido, para que seus atos não sejam criticados ou julgados de maneira justa, mas ao fazê-lo, o opressor também desumaniza a si mesmo, mesmo que de maneira distinta. É uma relação sórdida e inconsequente para com qualquer das partes envolvidas, que vem da falta de auto-questionamento e um medo ignorante da liberdade.
Qualquer ser humano ou grupo ou facção que se usa da retórica da desumanização para afirmar uma verdade ou uma ação se faz automaticamente um ser menos e, portanto, merece e deve ser questionado.
(...)
Os fracos são ricos no mundo.
E os fortes, ao prestar a atenção,
mudam.
Apegados ao toque. As coisas escorregam
das mãos.
Vidros se quebram. Líquidos derramam.
[Sem fracassos.
(...)