How Noah denkt overcame its futility trap !
« Cela dit survivre [comme poète] est extrÃªmement difficile. On pourra penser à adopter une stratégie à la Pessoa : trouver un petit emploi ne rien publier, attendre paisiblement la mort. En pratique on ira au-devant de difficultés importantes : sensation de perdre son temps, de ne pas être à sa place, de ne pas être estimé à sa vraie valeur … tout cela deviendra vite insoutenable. L’alcool sera difficile à éviter. En fin de compte l’amertume et l’aigreur seront au bout du chemin, vite suivies par l’apathie, et la stérilité créatrice complète. Cette solution a donc des inconvénients, mais c’est en générale la seule. Ne pas oublier les psychiatres, qui disposent de la faculté de donner des arrêts de travail. Par contre, le séjour prolongé en hôpital psychiatrique est à proscrire : trop destructeur. On ne l’utilisera qu’en dernier ressort, comme alternative à la clochardisation. »
Michel Houellebecq : Restant Vivant méthode, Chapitre 3 : Survivre, Éditions Flammarion 1997, rééditer dans Michel Houellebecq, Poésie, J’ai lu, 2000, pages 21, 22
Noah denkt has been quite open about the Buddhist and Schopenhauer inspired creativity hole that it had recently dug itself into. It now feels though as if we are slowly growing out of it again. Why is that?
Well, it is dawning on us that what we are doing in this project really needs to be done. Someone out there does indeed have to demonstrate that wisdom can still impose itself and break through without having to hawk itself, to market itself or otherwise make some noise about itself. Because this is what our hysteric and overcrowded digital marketplace truly demands. After all, there are too many talented people out there that have lost faith in the self-imposing quality of wisdom. And hence it is this lack of hope that drives too many of them into all sorts of destructive and addictive behavior, be it of the narcotic or the extremist kind.
If we are therefore serious about minimizing the level of violence and despair that our hyper-competitive world creates evidence is required that convincingly demonstrates that sensible philosophic and poetic proposals can still break through even if they are proffered by otherwise inconspicuous and unlikely creators.
Standard wisdom, obviously, has it that serious, market-relevant proposals of the non-technical kind can only come from sources that have major academic credentials to back them up. Poetic souls, however, who strive for existential wisdom can rarely boast of said stellar academic recognition. After all, it is in the very nature of existential wisdom that the limits of institutional conformity, professional career building and standard approaches need to be challenged and explored in order to come to itself. In other words, many of these uniquely talented poetic souls are simply too shy, too caught up with themselves or too much in a cloud of their own to perform with ease and confidence in the standard structures that society has provided them with to find their livelihood. A large majority of wisdom seekers consequently finds itself sooner or later in a dead-end professional street where there is seemingly no viable exit left to live a full creative life and be successful with it. This is why many of them end up in violent despair.
Of course, one can only always argue that a talented mind who cannot find a creative way to overcome his predicament is not worth his salt. After all, it is the inevitable confrontation with existential barrenness and nothingness and the original resolution of that which produces meaningful truth. Subject argument however downplays the sheer unsurmountable weight which a highly pervasive science-based culture places on the shoulders of an existential philosophic project. Never before has the science-based risk calculation been more pervasive than a in the age of the Human Genome Project and the Hadron Super Collider. Decision makers, opinion leaders and even spiritual authorities everywhere are therefore hard pressed to find reasonable philosophical arguments that could sustain a sanity threatening contradiction of the consensus view in the pertaining expert community. In other words, it has effectively become a near-suicidal undertaking to reach the depth of reasoning that can sensibly voucher for an existential and poetic risk taking of â€œthe hope against all hopeâ€ kind (Romans 4:16). In any case all encouragement along the way is highly welcome. And this is especially true if the latter should come from a fellow and congenial mind.