Gaudeamusul de la care lipsesc

Noua ne plac mai mult cartile vechi. Consideram ca o carte nu e un simplu obiect inanimat, ci fiecare carte are o viata a ei, castigand ceva de la fiecare cititor, de la fiecare rasfoire, de la fiecare cafea varsata peste paginile ei sau de la fiecare dupa-amiaza lenesa in care a fost arsa de soare alaturi de cititorul ei care-a abandonat-o putin favoarea unei motaieli linistite. Cartile vechi sunt mai intelepte. Cartile noi, sunt ca niste nou-nascuti, pline de promisiuni si de potential, dar depinde de noi sa le implinim menirea. Cand cumperi o carte noua, primesti o noua viata fata de care ai raspunderea sa o ingrijesti si sa o dezvolti. Cand cumperi o carte veche, castigi pur si simplu un prieten. Un prieten care, pe langa povestea asternuta pe hartie, mai are de spus o poveste, ascunsa, pe care n-o poti citi nicaieri, ci trebuie sa o asculti in timpul pe care-l petreceti impreuna. O pagina indoita, o subliniere, o adnotare cu creionul pe margine, fiecare sunt intamplari din viata cartii care isi stabileste astfel cu povestea scrisa in paginile ei aceeasi legatura care exista intre un autor si opera lui.

A intalni din intamplare o carte

Am trecut astazi pe la Libraria Humanitas Kretzulescu. Stiu ca locul ala e rau. Foarte rar pot sa plec de acolo fara sa cumpar ceva si, in general e ca un fel de vale a plangerii, locul in care ma uit in timp ce in lumea de afara timpul incepe sa-si accelereze curgerea. Si totusi, asemenea printului din Tinerete fara Batranete, e un loc la care tanjesc, asa ca-l vizitez des. "Doar putin, sa vad ce-a mai aparut, daca e ceva nou" mi-am spus. "In plus, vreau sa mai arunc o privire la carea aceea, Istoria filosofiei limbajului, e ceva cu ea."

De cum intru, in dreapta usii, Dalai Lama.

- Buna seara, Sfintia Ta, ii zic. Cu ce ocazie pe-aici?

- Tashi delek, imi raspunde el zambind. Uite, a mai scos Humanitas o carte, am trecut sa ti-o arat.

- Ah, inca un ziarist care Te-a intervievat? am zambit condescendent.

- Uita-te si tu.

- Oh, Universul intr-un singur atom. Dar, Sfintia Ta, asta este o carte de referinta!

- Este, nu? Hu, hu!

- Trebuia tradusa de mult. Ma bucur ca in sfarsit s-a gandit cineva s-o faca. Bravo, Humanitas! Pusa cam prost, chiar langa Russell, dar asta tine mai degraba de gusturi. Stii ca nu prea-l am la suflet pe Russell...

- Ei...

- Bun, Sfintia Ta. Ma bucur ca te-am vazut. Abia astept sa citesc tonele de maculatura pe care-o sa le gasesc la Waterstone. Sau cine stie, poate ne mai vedem zilele astea pe-aici.

- Cine stie...

M-am mai invartit putin, fastacit de intalnirea asta neasteptata. Daca Dalai Lama incearca sa-mi transmita ceva?  Uff... astazi am vazut la anticarii de la Universitate si Logica cercetarii a lui Popper... inainte de admiterea la master am cautat-o ca nebunul degeaba. Ah, uite si Istoria Filosofiei Limbajului. De la inceputuri pana la Rousseau. Eh, ramasesem cu impresia ca pana la emipristi. Locke... destul de aproape. Sa vina volumul doi, ala e miezul. In fine, hai sa mergem. Salut, Michnik!

Ies din librarie. Arunc o privire in stanga usii. Masa pisicii, de Ondaatje. Frate, voi aveti ceva cu mine? Cartea asta abia a aparut in august. Cum de-ati tradus-o asa repede? Nu, nu si nu! Am zis ca nu cumpar nimic, nu cumpar nimic! Lasati-ma dracului in pace! 

Hmmm... Gaudeamus... lista...

Ethics 1/0

Bucharest Conference in Applied Ethics 2011, 4th edition, "Ethical Aspects in New and Emerging Technologies", 2010-10-28, Amfiteatrul Mircea Florian, Facultatea de Filosofie, Universitatea din Bucuresti

Just like Cristi Ducu promised, the 4th edition of Bucharest Conference in Applied Ethics (BCAE) went big. It had international attendance and the promise that over the years BCAE will grow in importance as the event gathering ethicians from all across Europe (maybe even the whole world?) and establishing a communication and partnership network between them. This time the use of English all throughout the conference was a must, as almost half of the audience was foreign. This blog post is also in English to respect and reflect the international aspect of the conference.

Just like every year, I attended less than I would've liked of the conference, so I will only speak about the panels I've witnessed. Also, since a few days have passed already and since I would not be able to compile a consistent and unitary report, my coverage will only consist of very specific ideas I found worthy of mentioning.

The first panel I attended, "Privacy vs. Democracy" addressed the ethical dilemmas arisen from the moral obligation of granting free access to information and the right to free speech and the need of maintaining control over the level of privacy for the information shared. I was quite surprised no one brought up WikiLeaks, it is probably the most illustrative case on the matter. Instead, the panel opened up with Adrian Florea's presentation of the NetCity project of providing underground broadband internet coverage to the whole of Bucharest. No ethical dilemmas here, as it was rightfully pointed out from the audience, but somehow the discussion was drawn towards sensible topics such as: how does NetCity establishes the rental cost of its network or whose responsibility is to fix the glitches in the internet coverage provided to the end user.

It is possible that Mr. Florea felt a bit cornered, since he rather swiftly directed the conversation towards more neutral topics, such as online's corporations attitude towards individual privacy. And so we got to facebook, the port of choice for internet moralists, and to the way in which user data can be used either by facebook or by third party applications without user consent. And this is a tricky one: the user consent is there, embedded in the terms and conditions of subscribing to the service that nobody reads. While this is true, one might say, it serves the corporation just right to hide such sensible points inside a 20-page document that nobody will ever read. My take on this is that, whatever the default settings are, the service you subscribe to will make some decisions for you via these default settings. The internet service, has thus two options: either getting awfully boring by forcing the user to make all the privacy (and usage) choices required and to lose business by this decrease of usability or go into the ethical grey area. The business choice is obvious. However, the moral and responsible company will strive to clean the ethical aspect of its business which, in this case, can be done by increasing users' awareness on the service provided. This can indeed be costly and, while it may look like a bad economic solution on the short term, on the medium and long term the benefits of having more and more educated clients creates a basis of trust and healthy economic choices that I think is essential for a sustainable economic environment. And this is true for all industries and all segments of the product supply chain, not only online enterprises.

It has also been discussed what attitude governments should have towards the online information flow and the risks attached to it and the auditorium seemed to agree on the fact that somehow, the government should interfere. I tend to disagree, or at most concede that, should a governmental intervention appear as necessary, this should be minimal, at most. My view is that the governments, the corporations and the civil society share the decision power on the market, and any increase in the authority of one of these actors means a decrease in the authority of another, or of both others. It is thus natural that an increase in authority of the civil society, of the individual (obvious after the informational boom and obvious in the online environment) is perceived as a threat by the government, so the government tends to interfere to preserve its status quo. If it does it by enforcing any kind of laws over communication, this is, in my opinion, censorship. Instead, should the government be sincere about wishing nothing but the well-being of its citizens (which equals a quantity of bullshit the size of Himalaya in my opinion), it should strive for increasing the educational level, the (computer) literacy of the individual. This way, the market regulates itself. Again, this is true for a lot more aspects of the economy (as well as politics, for that matter) than the ICT.

An interesting parallel has been drawn between the way the banks are managing customer money and the way the online corporations are managing user data. While each of the two has its specifics, it is true they confront a common set of risks associated with asset management. Therefore, management of this risk should be their concern, with the governments as the watch dog making sure the corporations don't lose sight of the customer's best interest. When the corporations will realize the risk decrease brought about by a more educated pool of clients, increasing education will be a very viable business decision, and the proactive stance will be the new competing environment Warren Buffet predicted.

Professor Vasile Baltac was the next speaker, speaking about a digital agenda for Europe which is apparently a current EU concern. He touched some interesting theoretical points, such as the four pillars of internet usability (infrastructure, affordability, content quality and ability to use, or knowledgeability), or the four user skills levels (awareness, literacy, competence and expertise). I feel the need to alter professor Baltac's view on "good" and "bad" content and to adjust his affirmation that the Bible is a "good" book, while Mein Kampf is a "bad" book. Beyond the highly debatable sentence, I strongly believe the valuation of things as "good" or "bad" is always subjective and should be the exclusive concern of the affected group (the stakeholders). Online ethics and the privacy issues have been reiterated, with a short glimpse at professor Baltac's belief that low quality online content should be "moderated". Whilst I agree to the freedom of an online enterprise to keep or throw away the content that it sees fit (including user-generated content), I will say again that moderation is a form of control and the first step towards downright censorship, and should only be used with great caution.

Last panel of the day had the building of an ethical infrastructure as a starting point, with an emphasis on the health care organizations. Led by a very pessimistic professor Valentin Muresan, the panel showed the increasing preoccupation of addressing the ethical issues in health care and research. It was the foreign guests who were the most active here, pointing to either the increasing importance of bioethics and the increasing number of bioethicians in the US, to the increasing request for ethical expertise in fields such as nanotechnology or to the development of the interdisciplinary academic programs providing both medical and ethical qualifications. Professor Muresan's pessimism looked a bit out of place in this context. There is, I agree, a lack of interest towards ethics, and the applied areas of philosophy in general, and a philosophical project, as applied as it might be, is a harder sell than the more lucrative ones. But this went on for some millennia already and complaining about it will do little to change it. Should be noted here that when forming bioethicians, the path followed is usually by giving ethical training to a biologist rather than giving biology training to an ethician. This is another source of frustration for ethicians, but the matter will fade along with the establishment of bioethics as a distinct domain, equally distanced from both biology and ethics. Religion would also have something to say to the future bioethics specialist. Emanoel Roman noted as bad the influence of a strong Romanian Orthodox Church over the field, as the church claims some sort of monopoly over deciding between good and bad. However, I believe a responsible bioethics study program should be closely related to axiology, and the official opinions of the churches should not be neglected. By the way, but for some semester courses in the first philosophy years, I have no idea about axiology being studied anywhere in Romania, which I think is a real shame.

The panel ended with Mirela Nemtanu's presentation on L'Oreal best practices. I thought it was a great intervention, both dense with information and with an easy to follow dynamics, supported by a very well-documented and carefully crafted presentation and delivered in the most corporate correct manner. Here's the points I extracted:

• "not knowing the law is not an excuse for not applying the law"
• Mrs. Nemtanu said - and probably believes - L'Oreal has a healthy organizational culture. I am just curios on how or if this is tested in any way
• the concepts of green chemistry, label ethics and ecodesign and the Ethisphere Institute
• L'Oreal's strive to stop tests on animals and the obstacles that, paradoxically enough, come from the legislative framework of some countries
• L'Oreal ethical department is ISO9001 certified (!) I find this both admirable and a waste of money.

On Saturday I only attended one of the four afternoon panels, namely the one started by Diana's presentation on Privacy vs. Sharing in Online Mentoring. I've met Diana at last year's BCAE and during the year passed my admiration for her has grown exponentially. I am proud to be able to call her a friend, and I didn't want to miss her presentation by any means. My view will therefore be biased, more biased than usual, as I never pretended objectivity anyway.

Now, compared to Diana's last year presentation - which was truly great, this one is quite disadvantaged. The thesis is weaker and it looks like a particular case of an ampler area, the documentation was less adequate and one could read between the lines that it was an ad-hoc, hastily compiled intervention. Plus the corporate smell that came with the WYGU logo, Diana's tribute to her employer. Nevertheless, it was the best presentation of the panel and, although I felt the need to challenge Diana's take on things almost every step of the way, there was plenty to learn from it. The ethical issue: how much you need to share, how much you want to share and how much you should want to share both as a mentor and as a mentee for an online mentoring relation to be functional and gain maximum efficiency.

Sursa foto

Then came the porn guy. Marco Annoni, from the University of Milan, who felt the need to pull a high-school prank by bringing forth a subject provocative enough in itself (pornography), so that there will be no real need for a strong thesis or a crafted argumentation. He was even half right, as his presentation drew quite some discussions around the subject. Here's why I thought it was weak, though:

• one of the strong arguments in defending pornography was that it can grow money for charitable causes. While this is true in theory, I'm guessing the possibility to actually happen is very low, as pornography entrepreneurs have quite a different profile than people engaging in charities. Also, charity does very well without porn. Also, Mr. Annoni couldn't name one case of a pornographic enterprise fueling money to charity. Rare as it might be, I'm sure it exists and his inability to name one shows a lack in documentation. I see nothing wrong with charities being funded by the porn industry. I just doubt it will become common ground.
• In defense of porn, Mr. Annoni invoked the harm principle. Quite handy, the utilitarian view in this case, quite inconsistent as well. It is hard to say if there is any harm done by porn consumption to children, psychically unstable adults and porn actors or how much, but this is a task for psychology, that Mr. Annoni made no mention of, like a good corporate marketeer of the early corporate era.
• Saying "porn is just as bad as a lot more socially accepted industries" is a highly flawed argument in defense of porn. If nothing else, it is an argument against the other industries. Yet this is how most of the body of Mr. Annoni's presentation was built.

I believe myself to be fairly open-minded. I have nothing against porn (on the contrary) and I'm an occasional consumer. I have quite a libertarian stance on it. But there are plenty of moral issues to be addressed in regards to the porn industry. The ethicians should bring porn to the ethical debate table, but it should be done in a serious and responsible manner. If, from the ethics standpoint, we treat porn like horny teenagers, we will get the results horny teenagers do. Namely, chuckles.

Quite appropriate, the presentation on porn was followed by one from a military background. Mr. Victor Greu from the Military Technical Academy. I will be harsh on him, and this should not be taken the wrong way, but his presentation was one of the most boring I've ever seen, checking most of the items on the list of things to avoid when making a presentation. All throughout what seemed an infinite number of slides the same static, standard layout template was used. All slides were made up of walls of text so long that it was hard enough to read them entirely at the speed of Mr. Greu, and any attempt in doing so would have resulted  in at least double the amount of time reserved for the presentation. This is way a big part of the presentation was simply skipped. Oddly enough, the most intelligible parts were leapfrogged, the ones not containing formulas with insufficiently detailed variables. The subject of the presentation, if I understood correctly, was the paradigm shift brought about by the information age, when information is becoming an essential commodity, substituting the fixed means of the industrial age. This leads to a so-called Knowledge Based Society (KBS), which will eventually require every individual to increase his technical abilities to fit in this new scheme. That's pretty much all I could extract from Mr. Greu's PowerPoint, I stopped following somewhere between slides 3 and 4.

The last presentation of the panel belonged to Mr. Vlad Niculescu Dinca and talked about a case study for the implementation of a Geo-spatial Information System in a local police department and the challenges arisen in the process. It was the most interesting subject, and it was well worth knowing more about how new technologies are accepted and gain their place in our daily lives or in our professional lives. It is the encounter between "the way it has always been done" and "the way it could be done better, but with some additional effort", always a fierce one. It was maybe Mr. Greu's anticlimactic presentation that almost emptied the room and sucked all of the attendance focus, or maybe Mr. Niculescu Dinca's way of speaking about his subject, but somehow the subject, albeit interesting, didn't stir the amount of debate it would normally have stirred. Me, for one, I was dying for a break. I got the parts of a script, I liked the idea of a script of any kind being composed of description, inscription and prescription, all of which cannot be normative.

I want to draw attention on one very interesting article from Mr. Niculescu Dinca that I've just found here. This is in line with the Post-phenomenology and Technology Ethics presentation that Robert Arnautu held last year in the Phenomenology and Ethics conference and, given that Mr. Niculescu Dinca and Mr. Arnautu were together, I would assume technology ethics and design-embedded ethics are subjects of a common research program.

That was it for me, I'm sure I've missed some very interesting presentations but it was impossible to see them all, as Saturday's 8 panels, went on simultaneously in two separate halls. One solution to this would be recording of the entire conference and uploading it online. This is a promise Cristi Ducu made last year as well, but so far I haven't seen any podcast of any of the presentations from last year.

As a general impression, the conference was bigger and better than all the previous ones. It had real depth and amplitude and it showed. The variety of speakers increased and the international coverage was real this time. The logistics part was flawless, and even the dialogue ethics, a shortcoming last year, was resolved. The start and end times were respected and the Q&A sessions were a lot more organized than last year. The subject of the conference drew plenty of interest, as well. It looked, overall, a grown-up and mature event, organized in the highest professional manner. From here on, there is only place for growth.

My sincere congratulations to Cristian Ducu, professor Muresan and the ethics department of the Faculty of Philosophy for this event. For me it is another confirmation that a combination between the right drives and an appropriate amount of passion is unstoppable on the way to success.

Marketing si comunicare

Am scris treaba de mai jos. Nu stiu ce inseamna, e in engleza. Nu stiu nici ce sa fac cu ea. Asa ca o pun pe blog:

As a marketing man, of course I would like you to buy my product. But this is not why I’m here. I am here to identify what you needs are, what your wishes are, and if my product can satisfy any of that or help you in any way. I do not want to trick you into buying my product. I will advise you against it and would not agree to you buying it if I would think it is not suited. Also, I would be the first one to recommend you a product of our competitors if it fits you better. My product will also have a different price depending on whether it satisfies a need – in which case it would be cheaper, or a wish – in which case it will be more expensive. I would do my best to have my product customized to your needs and wishes as much as possible. And I’m not just saying these. I fully believe in what I’m saying to you right now and I do it because I’m fully confident of the product I am selling.  Also, should it be the case that you will eventually not purchase my product, two things will happen:  

1. I will learn how to make the product better, which eventually will bring me more customers;

2. I will have earned your trust, which makes it very likely that we will do business together at some point in the future. 


I am an ethical marketer. Now, if you would be so kind to let me begin…

Mi-ar placea ca toti oamenii de vanzari sa fie asa. O parte chiar sunt.

Six and the City

Bineinteles ca voiam sa inscrie catralioane de goluri si sa joace cu verva si trairea a unsprezece George Best, dar asta n-avea sa se intample, in orice caz nu in viitorul imediat. Nu eram in stare sa apar neajunsurile echipei mele in fata lui tata - le vedeam si eu, si le uram - asa ca dupa fiecare tentativa slaba de a inscrie, dupa fiecare pasa gresita, ma invartosam in asteptarea oftaturilor si mormailelilor venite de pe locul de langa mine. (Nick Hornby - Febra Stadioanelor)

Manchester United - Manchester City 1-6 (Fletcher '81 - Balotelli '22 '60, Aguero '69, Dzeko '90 '90, Silva '90), Barclays Premier League 2011-2012, Matchday 9, 2011-10-23, Old Trafford, Manchester

Cred cu tarie in karma in fotbal. Cred ca bucuria fiecarei victorii e anulata de tristetea urmatoarei infrangeri si invers, ca tristetea unui sir de infrangeri, oricat de lung si de umilitor, e rascumparata cu varf si indesat la urmatoarea victorie, sau macar la urmatoarea victorie importanta.

Dupa meciul asta, sentimentele mele sunt destul de confuze. Ma uit peste pozele cu tabela de marcaj pe care scrie Manchester de doua ori si scorul de 6-1 pentru City si ma gandesc imediat la 8-2-ul impotriva lui Arsenal.  In general ma doare mai tare o infrangere in fata lui Arsenal sau Liverpool decat in fata lui Chelsea si mai ales City. Asta tine probabil de momentul la care am inceput sa urmaresc United, iar in momentul ala Arsenal erau echipa de batut. Dupa ce generatia de invincibili ai lui Wenger a disparut, United n-a mai avut decat de luptat cu recordul de titluri al lui Liverpool, care a cazut abia in vara asta. In afara de scurtul moment Mourinho, United a fost de cand o stiu eu cea mai buna echipa din Anglia, iar principalul rival i-a fost istoria mai mult decat  vreo alta echipa. Chelsea n-o sa ajunga la palmaresul lui United in timpul vietii mele, City cu atat mai putin. In plus, cand vine vorba de infrangeri in fata lui City, primul lucru la care ma gandesc e magnificul calcai al lui Dennis Law si povestea din spatele lui mai mult decat la milioanele seicului Mansour, la mercenarii din fotbalul mare sau la tampeniile lui Super Mario.

Mai mult, dupa rapida lor ascensiune m-am uitat la City condescendent, exact atitudinea pe care a incercat s-o induca Ferguson de cand cu faimosul noisy neighbours. Si, chiar daca am sustinut de mult, aproape imediat dupa ce-a venit seicul, ca asta va fi anul in care City va fi in sfarsit o echipa demna de luat in serios, in continuare nu ma pot abtine sa ma uit la City altfel decat condescendent. La fel de adevarat e insa si ca atunci cand pierzi atat de categoric in fata unei rivale, atitudinea e dictata strict de ce se intampla in teren, de bragging rights-urile de a doua zi, nicidecum de istorie, implicatii, clasamente sau orice altceva.

O metoda prin care putem sa incercam sa indulcim amaraciunea acestei infrangeri ar fi contextualizarea. Am putea sa spunem ca la pauza era abia 1-0, ca fara greselile lui Evans City n-ar fi dat primele doua goluri iar United n-ar fi jucat o repriza in 10, ca in minutul 90 era doar 3-1 etc.

Dar toate astea suna a scuze si dincolo de ele pentru istorie ramane doar scorul. Pentru United, ar trebui sa ramana in plus cateva lectii importante, macar pentru c-au fost invatate in cel mai dureros mod cu putinta: City a organizat excelent apararea, iar United doar a mimat patrunderile; Welbeck a fost absent aproape total din meci; jumatatea de sus a echipei e speriata de ideea de a trage la poarta (asta s-a vazut cel mai bine la golul lui Fletcher, destul de intamplator: uneori e suficient sa incerci, nu trebuie sa cauti pozitia perfecta, unghiul perfect, pasa perfecta); Evans nu e deloc ce-ar trebui sa fie, iar un fundas nu are voie sa fie atat de nesigur. Practic, dincolo de meritele evidente ale lui City, Johnny Evans le-a cam facut cadou victoria asta.

Iar daca vrem sa fim in totalitate cinstiti si sa recunoastem meritele celor care le au, ar trebui sa spun ca am fost impresionat astazi de Richards si de Silva, care au jucat fabulos. Super Mario are si el niste merite, dar inainte de a i le recunoaste ar trebui sa reusesc mai intai sa-l identific cu o creatura cat de cat apropiata de om pe scara evolutiei, ceea ce deocamdata nu se intampla. Cat despre mesajul lui ("De ce intotdeauna eu?"), printat cu fontul oficial al tricourilor lui City, mi s-a parut cel putin la fel de rizibil ca stirile pentru care o gramada de ziaristi prosti castiga bani de pe urma lui.

Si nu in ultimul rand, Mancini merita o runda de aplauze la scena deschisa, si pentru mine el e eroul zilei. Nu l-am crezut in stare sa duca in spate o sarcina atat de mare ca cea de a transforma City intr-o forta in Anglia, nu l-am crezut un antrenor bun si am crezut ca titlurile castigate in Italia au fost doar rezultatul unei conjuncturi favorabile. Dar locul unde United a pierdut azi meciul a fost apararea lui City, organizata atat de bine si de ermetic incat ai nostri au fost vizibil descumpaniti. Iar asta e in totalitate meritul lui Mancini.

Ei, dar asta n-a fost nici pe departe vreo finala de Champions League. A fost doar o etapa si, dupa ce o sa se aseze praful peste poza aia cu tabela o sa ramana faptul ca mai e inca destul din campionat, ca United sta mult mai bine decat anul trecut si ca e nevoie doar de un mic declic mental pentru a ne intoarce la scorurile ravasitoare din debutul de sezon.

Eu sunt mandru de echipa mea, mandru de faptul ca dupa golul lui Fletch, la 3-1 in minutul '83, credeam realmente ca meciul nu e pierdut si ca United are forta sa revina si deocamdata nu am nevoie de scuze sau de indulcitori. Tristetea infrangerii asteia va fi rascumparata cu siguranta la un moment dat si am invatat pana acum sa gasesc consolare in propria-mi tristete in situatii ca asta. Sufletul va mai plange putin, dar gura a inceput deja sa zambeasca fals, ca antrenament pentru victoriile ce vor veni si dupa care vom rade cu gura pana la urechi.

"Toate isi au vremea lor, si fiecare lucru de sub ceruri isi are ceasul lui [...] Plansul isi are vremea lui, si rasul isi are vremea lui; bocitul isi are vremea lui, si jucatul isi are vremea lui." (Eclesiastul, 3:1,3)

PS: Poanta cu Six and the City e inceputa de un pusti de-al lui Arsenal pe twitter, iar poza de deasupra exprima perfect o incertitudine cu care-am trait si eu pe tot parcursul meciului. :)

United

United (UK, 2011), Regia: James Strong

Avand in vedere ca in perioadele in care ma visam scenarist, unul din cele doua filme nefacute pe care le aveam in cap era transpunerea cinematografica a povestii marii echipe a lui Matt Busby din 1956-1958, aparitia filmului United ar fi trebuit sa ma entuziasmeze. N-a fost asa partial din cauza faptului ca BBC-ul s-a hotarat sa produca acest film – ceea ce inseamna ca nu se poate compara cu mega-productia cinematografica pe care-o visam – si partial pentru ca ma temeam ca nu cumva filmul sa se indeparteze prea mult de la versiunea pe care o aveam in cap. Atat pentru ca orice scapare in banal, derizoriu sau poveste imi pare o impietate la adresa memoriei fotbalistilor care au murit la Munchen cat si pentru ca am transformat oarecum tragedia acestor fotbalisti in povestea MEA, iar o indepartare prea mare as fi resimtit-o ca un furt.

In filmul meu, drama e a lui Matt Busby, fotbalistul intors din razboi cu misiunea sa ridice o echipa de fotbal din cenusa si molozul celui de-al doilea razboi mondial. Si spun la propriu cenusa si moloz, United a jucat primele meciuri de dupa razboi pe Maine Road, Old Trafford fiind distrus de bombardamente, iar cei care-au trait acele vremuri au multe povesti despre antrenamentele tinute pe un teren plin de bucati de ciment. Actiunea ar incepe asadar in ’45, ar avea corpul actiunii format din inchegarea echipei care-a uimit Anglia si Europa, ar culmina cu tragedia de la Munchen si s-ar incheia cu un flash forward pe Wembley, in 1968, cand Busby ar simti ca in locul lui Law sau Best ar trebui sa se afle Tommy Taylor sau Big Dunc Edwards.

Ei bine, United e destul de diferit. Povestea pe care o urmarim e a lui Bobby Charlton, de la debutul in prima echipa in 1956 pana la finala cupei din 1958. Asta se intampla probabil datorita restrictiilor cinematografice, dar si pentru ca in Sir Bobby producatorii au avut probabil o sursa documentara la indemana si de maxima autoritate. Celalat protagonist al povestii este Jimmy Murphy, antrenorul secund, jucat dupa parerea mea magistral de David Tennant, pe care l-am mai vazut si in ultimele versiuni de Dr. Who.

Si totusi, ambele filme spun in mod esential aceeasi poveste. In ciuda accentelor puse in locuri diferite, momentele cheie sunt transmise su claritate, iar emotia e acolo din plin. Probabil e si greu sa fie altfel, atata timp cat tragedia de la Munchen a fost un eveniment atat de puternic si de socant incat absoarbe toata atentia si toate emotiile celor care iau cunostinta de povestea baietilor lui Busby.

Am fost surprins sa vad ca accidentul se dupa doar vreo jumatate de ora de film, si curios de dezvoltarea epica ulterioara. Si totusi, dupa cum imi dau seama, filmul are dreptate sa se concentreze mai mult pe efectele tragediei de la Munchen decat pe momentele care au dus la producerea ei. Cea mai mare drama – imi dau seama acum – nu este cea a tinerilor care au murit in acel avion, ci tocmai a celor care le-au supravietuit. Pentru ca pana la urma, asta este tot ce este tragic in moarte, nu disparitia unui om, ci constrangerea celorlalti de a-si continua existenta in absenta lui.
Si-am plans in hohote – nu-mi amintesc vreun alt film la care sa fi plans asa – si-am resimtit din plin (evident, la scara mult mai mica), tristetea lui Bobby Charlton, obligat sa intre pe teren intr-o echipa care dintr-o data nu-i mai continea pe Duncan Edwards, pe Tommy Taylor sau pe Eddie Colman. Iar asta s-a intamplat nu in momentele in care filmul incearca sa explice cat de mari au fost acesti fotbalisti (nici nu prea incearca, de fapt, iar Tommy Taylor nu e nici macar mentionat), ci tocmai in momentele in care supravietuitorii incearca sa negocieze cu forul lor interior disparitia victimelor dezastrului.

Am fost alaturi de Jimmy Murphy (probabil, repet, si datorita interpretarii foarte bune) in momentele imediat urmatoare dezastrului, i-am simtit socul si uluirea la aflarea vestii, tristetea nespusa in momentul in care opt dintre fotbalistii lui au fost inlocuiti de niste sicrie si forta de a duce mai departe o echipa care tocmai si-a pierdut mare parte din componenta.

Sigur, filmul nu e o realizare cinematografica extraordinara, si sunt multe lucruri care lipsesc, multe lucruri care s-ar fi putut face altfel. Nu mi-a placut reprezentarea lui Matt Busby, nu mi-a placut ca Tommy Taylor, Dennis Viollet sau Billy Foulkes nu apar deloc, nu mi-a placut ca se spun prea putine despre cat de mare a fost Duncan Edwards, nu mi-a placut ca filmul incearca sa gaseasca un vinovat pentru tragedia din 6 februarie. Dar dincolo de asta, pentru mine acest film va deveni unul de referinta.

Nu stiu cum se vede filmul asta pentru cineva care nu-i fan United (desi cred ca trebuie sa fii doar fan umanitate pentru a simti tragicul din moartea a 8 fotbalisti tineri si talentati) si nu cred ca o sa pot sa-mi dau seama. Dar stiu, inca o data, ca n-am vazut vreun film care sa ma fi emotionat mai tare (chiar daca Isus-ul lui Zefirelli si Mizerabilii cu Jean Marais sunt probabil aproape) si ca momentul in care Duncan Edwards il intreaba pe Jimmy Murphy “La ce ora incepe meciul cu Wolves sambata, Jimmy? Nu vreau sa pierd meciul ala!” m-a emotionat probabil mai tare decat daca as fi fost in spital in momentul in care Big Dunc a spus asta in realitate.

Lumea, cazul, limbajul si necazul

A.C. Grayling - Wittgenstein, Editura Humanitas, Bucuresti, 2006

Traducere de Gheorghe Stefanov dupa editia Oxford University Press, 1988

Probabil ca cineva care citeste ceva despre o carte se asteapta sa dea peste o recenzie, o prezentare sau o dare de seama din care sa intelega cam in ce masura i-ar placea sa citeasca respectiva carte, eventual alaturi de cateva consideratii subiective. E foarte greu insa sa vorbesti despre Wittgenstein fara sa faci filosofie, cu atat mai mult despre gandirea lui Wittgenstein. Asa ca, desi Grayling spune ca aceasta este o carte adresata nespecialistilor, ne trece si prin formalismul lui Russell, si prin logica lui Frege, si prin rationalismul lui Descartes. Pentru ca pur si simplu, a intra direct in gandirea lui Wittgenstein este ca si cum ai chema pe cineva in podul casei fara a-i da acces la vreo scara (metafora scarii e imprumutata de la Wittgenstein). Asta nemaipunand la socoteala consideratiile lui Wittgenstein despre filosofia limbajului (practic, intreaga filosofie tarzie), care nu urmeaza cursul firesc al vreunui curent de gandire de pana la el si care se cer analizate in profunzime inainte de a capata coerenta.

Biografia lui Wittgenstein este tratata destul de expeditiv, cu toate ca dupa parerea mea ar fi cea mai potrivita introducere la filosofia lui Wittgenstein. Dar Grayling se grabeste spre scrieri, iar pana la sfarsitul cartii mi-a devenit clar ca face asta pentru a sustine ceea ce banuiesc a fi temeiul cartii: reducerea rolului care se acorda de obicei lui Wittgenstein in cadrul filosofiei secolului XX si punerea in context a importantei ideilor lui. Este, asadar, o abordare critica mai mult decat o opera de popularizare. Si, in timp ce nu simpatizez cu ideile lui Grayling, inteleg valoarea demersului lui. Si nu, nu este o scriere anti-Wittgenstein, pentru ca se respecta intocmai cononul filosofiei formale, in care sunt reliefate doar problemele si limitarile tezelor criticate, evitandu-se judecatile de valoare.

Acum, daca il interpretam pe Wittgenstein strict literar, am putea obtine imaginea unui autor care a scris o singura carte si si-a petrecut restul vietii straduindu-se sa o contrazica. Forta cu care Wittgenstein isi neaga Tractatusul genereaza poate tentatia intrebarii cand a avut Wittgenstein dreptate: este limbajul o structura monolitica si rigida, sau o multitudine de jocuri de limbaj? Cuvantul este denotare sau folosire? Ei bine, in timp ce acestea sunt intrebari deschise, nu cred ca se poate pune problema "dreptatii" sau "intaietatii" operei tarzii fata de Tractatus. Pur si simplu, cele doua au domenii de aplicabilitate diferite. Structura logica a limbajului se aseaza bine in interiorul unui joc de limbaj in timp ce univocitatea limbajului ca denotare se aseaza si ea destul de potrivit peste fragmentarul formelor de existenta. Lumea este totalitatea cazuistica a faptelor, dar cunoasterea nu poate cuprinde decat cazuri, iar la plenitutdinea unitara a lumii nu putem raspunde decat cu pulsiuni contingente.

Fiind filosofie si abordare critica, descrierea facuta de Grayling Tractatusului ar trebui si ea abordata critic, iar asta ar insemna un exercitiu filosofic de la care, din decenta, voi incerca sa ma abtin. O sa remarc doar ca principalul argument folosit impotriva lui Wittgenstein, atat cand e vorba de Tractatus cat si de filosofia tarzie, este inconsistenta premiselor. Practic, Grayling ii reproseaza lui Wittgenstein faptul ca isi lasa neexplicate axiomele. In timp ce e adevarat ca asta il plaseaza pe Wittgenstein intr-o paradigma si limiteaza aplicabilitatea ideilor lui, faptul nu afecteaza in nici o masura validitatea tezelor (evident, in cadrul paradigmei in care trebuiesc incadrate). De exemplu, cand diseca propozitia "Pisica este pe pres", Grayling spune ca "pisica" nu poate fi considerata obiect in sensul compozitiei atomare a lumii presupusa ca subinteleasa in Tractatus. Dar este evident ca "obiectele" in sensul in care Wittgenstein le numeste ca atare se raporteaza la planul de observatie si analiza in discutie, nicidecum la vreun fel de compozitie a lumii ca in teoria monadelor a lui Leibnitz (de altfel cred ca Wittgenstein nici n-are recunoaste unitatea materiala a lumii, care este presupozitia fundamentala a Monadologiei).

De ce mai apoi, mi se pare ca incearca sa induca Grayling, Wittgenstein nu si-a structurat filosofia tarzie in forma unui sistem? Un asemenea demers ar fi relevat fara indoiala insuficientele teoriei limbajului ca folosire. Mi se pare ca si aici raspunsul e relativ la indemana. Wittgenstein trebuie sa-si fi dat si singur seama de problemele ridicate de acest fel de a interpreta limbajul, si probabil ca tentativele de clarificare a acestora au fost cele care l-au impiedicat si sa isi structureze gandirea, dar si sa mai publice ceva. Dar respingerea posibilitatii unei forme unitare de cunoastere este o consecinta foarte valoroasa a insuficientei filosofiei limbajului comun, iar Wittgenstein a fost mai curajos decat cei mai multi dintre filosofi in a trasa cu forta si claritate limitele posibilitatilor cunoasterii.

La fel, Wittgenstein este destul de clar si despre propriul fel de a scrie: "Cand gandesc pentru mine, fara sa fiu fortat sa scriu o carte, eu sar in jurul temei; acesta este singurul fel de gandire natural pentru mine. Este un chin sa fiu fortat a gandi in mod liniar."

Eh, si dupa cum banuiam, m-am departat usor-usor de cartea lui Grayling si m-am transformat intr-un apologet al lui Wittgenstein. Asta poate si pentru ca Grayling isi precizeaza cu claritate teza abia in incheiere, dar - evident - in principal pentru ca apropierea mea de Wittgenstein are baze emotionale, nicidecum intelectuale.

Inchei cu citatele. Pana la urma, consider ca satisfactia estetica pe care ne-o da filosofia este cel putin la fel de valoroasa ca cea intelectuala.

23: "Tractatusul este lucrarea unui geniu, dar altminteri satisface cerintele pentru un doctorat in filosofie." (G.E. Moore)

33: "Propozitiile mele explica lucrurile in asa fel incat cel care ma intelege le recunoaste la sfarsit ca absurde, daca prin intermediul acestora - pe baza lor - a reusit sa le depaseasca.(El trebuie, ca sa spunem asa, sa arunce scara pe care s-a urcat)" (Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, 6.54)

65: "starile de lucruri care exista stabilesc care stari de lucruri nu exista. [...] De vreme ce, in acest mod, felul in care sunt lucrurile determina felul in care ele nu sunt, realitatea ca intreg este totalitatea starilor de lucru existente, impreuna cu tot ceea ce existenta lor exclude ca non-existent."

78: "Filosofia nu este un corp doctrinar, ci o activitate." (Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, 4.112)

84: "Cum sunt lucrurile in lume este perfect indiferent pentru ceea ce este divin. Dumnezeu nu se arata in lume."(Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, 6.432)

147: "cand invatam cum sa folosim cuvantul 'durere' invatam de fapt practica experimentarii recunoasterii si vorbirii despre durere."

150: "faptul ca cineva spune 'ma doare' este o manifestare a durerii sale; nu este un semn exterior pentru altceva care are loc pe dinauntru, ci este in sine o parte din comportamentul sau pentru durere."

154: "putem sa cunoastem doar lucrurile de care are sens sa ne indoim"

176: "daca e sa vorbim de 'alte forme de viata', trebuie sa fim in stare sa le recunoastem ca atare."