Andrei Tarkovsky’s Message to the Young: “Learn to Be Alone” (2015)(openculture.com)
openculture.com
Andrei Tarkovsky’s Message to the Young: “Learn to Be Alone” (2015)
http://www.openculture.com/2015/03/andrei-tarkovskys-message-to-young-people.html
91 comments
I think people are too used to the "American style" of moviemaking which focuses solely on goal driven characters in a rules driven world. While the characters in Stalker have some goals it's not all that important.
There is no "explanation" as in a series of rules of the universe and character internal goals that together drive the plot. Why would one think there has to be? "Film is a mosaic made up of time."
There is no "explanation" as in a series of rules of the universe and character internal goals that together drive the plot. Why would one think there has to be? "Film is a mosaic made up of time."
Andrei Rublev felt like a slog until the last segment with the bell making. That segment really built tension for me and at its end it became clear to me that the entire film had been a set up. It established the vanity of Rublev's religious experience and his realization of that through his sudden exposure to the chaos of the world outside the monastary.
But to make Rublev's epiphany clear -that he could live for compassion, passion and the kindred spirit of a fellow creator- you had to be taken through this long process of seeing this crazy world through Rublev's naive eyes.
It was definitely one of my first experiences where I discovered that sticking with art that is challenging or difficult could truly pay off in a way immediately gratifying art sometimes cannot.
But to make Rublev's epiphany clear -that he could live for compassion, passion and the kindred spirit of a fellow creator- you had to be taken through this long process of seeing this crazy world through Rublev's naive eyes.
It was definitely one of my first experiences where I discovered that sticking with art that is challenging or difficult could truly pay off in a way immediately gratifying art sometimes cannot.
The bell-maker sequence is one of my favorites in all of cinema.
You'll be delighted to read this story in the Mughal emperor Babur's autobiography discussing the casting of a cannon and the emotions the cannon-maker felt when failing and, later, succeeding in casting it. It's a remarkable similarity. (These are from the "events of the year 933" section of W.M. Thackston Jr.'s version of the Baburnama.)
https://imgur.com/a/kUlNM7m
You'll be delighted to read this story in the Mughal emperor Babur's autobiography discussing the casting of a cannon and the emotions the cannon-maker felt when failing and, later, succeeding in casting it. It's a remarkable similarity. (These are from the "events of the year 933" section of W.M. Thackston Jr.'s version of the Baburnama.)
https://imgur.com/a/kUlNM7m
The cinematography of Andrei Rublev (and really all of Tarkovsky's films) feels almost magical.
I remember the first time I watched Andrei Rublev, it was in a university library, in one of those media carrols (on a laserDISC !). There's a scene in the middle of film depicting a pagan spring ritual where Rublev and the other monks were compelled to participate. Anyways, by the time that scene was over I turned around and noticed several other students standing behind me asking what the F was I watching, they were so mesmerized, they abandoned what they were watching and just started to watch Andrei Rublev.
One contemporary director in particular come to mind, that remind me at least in part of Tarkovsky. Apichatpong Weerasethakul, who directed "Uncle Bonmee who can recall his past lives" and others (https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=_bJdvNS4iRw). Like Tarkovsky films, this film and his others meander in plotless dreamy arcs with sumptuous camera work. Weerasethakul has even stated that he's OK with people falling asleep while watching his films.
I remember the first time I watched Andrei Rublev, it was in a university library, in one of those media carrols (on a laserDISC !). There's a scene in the middle of film depicting a pagan spring ritual where Rublev and the other monks were compelled to participate. Anyways, by the time that scene was over I turned around and noticed several other students standing behind me asking what the F was I watching, they were so mesmerized, they abandoned what they were watching and just started to watch Andrei Rublev.
One contemporary director in particular come to mind, that remind me at least in part of Tarkovsky. Apichatpong Weerasethakul, who directed "Uncle Bonmee who can recall his past lives" and others (https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=_bJdvNS4iRw). Like Tarkovsky films, this film and his others meander in plotless dreamy arcs with sumptuous camera work. Weerasethakul has even stated that he's OK with people falling asleep while watching his films.
I've been thinking about watching that for a while. Unfortunately finding the time for these kind of films with a family around is much harder.
I've never seen this movie, nor am I a movie buff of any sort, but this was the experience I had watching Mr Hollands Opus.
The entire movie you're left wondering what the hell the plot is. What is the point of this movie. And then the ending happens and you realize the entire movie was crafted for the ending, and it wouldn't have had much impact without the journey before it.
The entire movie you're left wondering what the hell the plot is. What is the point of this movie. And then the ending happens and you realize the entire movie was crafted for the ending, and it wouldn't have had much impact without the journey before it.
It’s worth reading the source material “Roadside Picnic” if you haven’t yet. It’s very different from the film in a way that I think lets you appreciate what Tarkovsky did with it even more.
Roadside Picnic is also the incredibly rare example of the book, the movie (Stalker), and the video game (S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) each being able to stand on their own merits. This is probably in part because they are so different thematically.
Roadside Picnic is also the incredibly rare example of the book, the movie (Stalker), and the video game (S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) each being able to stand on their own merits. This is probably in part because they are so different thematically.
As far as i know Tarkovsky wasnt really scifi fan. Maybe thats why Stalker is so unlike the book.
He made Solaris as answer to Kubrics Space Oddesay and after that he got big budget for another scifi.
Sadly the Stalker was disaster. Very unsafe poisonous conditions where many got sick. Movie almost didnt happen. Its suspected Stalker is reason why Tarkovsky died early.
He made Solaris as answer to Kubrics Space Oddesay and after that he got big budget for another scifi.
Sadly the Stalker was disaster. Very unsafe poisonous conditions where many got sick. Movie almost didnt happen. Its suspected Stalker is reason why Tarkovsky died early.
>It’s worth reading the source material “Roadside Picnic” if you haven’t yet. It’s very different from the film
add to that the original movie script by the Strugatski brothers which stands on its own and is different from the book as well as from the movie.
add to that the original movie script by the Strugatski brothers which stands on its own and is different from the book as well as from the movie.
I'm down that rabbit hole right now. The HBO series Chernobyl made me start up S.T.A.L.K.E.R. that's been sitting in my steam library for years. That game made me check out the film Stalker just last week and that made me pick up Roadside Picnic just the other day.
I totally agree. I find it very frustrating when upon watching a film, people attempt to place it into a box. A film does not have to be "about" a particular thing. It does not need a singular interpretation. One can watch a film and simply celebrate the interstitial, the ambiguous, the perplexing.
>If you are moved by it, you don't need to have it explained to you. If not, no explanation can make you moved by it.
And I think it is totally wrong.
If you are moved by something, you better explain to yourself why it is so. You lose a part of perception by not doing that. Rational mind is one of the ways we perceive world around us.
And you can be moved by an art if it has been explained to you. It happened to me many times in the past and is also wonderful experience. As if some gates are opened and I can feel more.
And I think it is totally wrong.
If you are moved by something, you better explain to yourself why it is so. You lose a part of perception by not doing that. Rational mind is one of the ways we perceive world around us.
And you can be moved by an art if it has been explained to you. It happened to me many times in the past and is also wonderful experience. As if some gates are opened and I can feel more.
> I don't like the idea of "understanding" a film. I don't believe that rational understanding is an essential element in the reception of any work of art.
I think it depends on the work. Take the tv show The Wire. There is a lot to understand and learn from it. I found doing so really worthwhile (for multiple reasons).
I think it depends on the work. Take the tv show The Wire. There is a lot to understand and learn from it. I found doing so really worthwhile (for multiple reasons).
Understanding can add a great layer to the experience of a movie (as you rightly demonstrated), however for many it seems to be a necessity to even consider finding it good. There is a whole class of people whi can't enjoy a film unless it is served with a 100% clear and unambigous explaination.
To me they feel a bit like people who watch a beautiful sunset and get mad that it is not beeing self explainatory. They cannot just see things, they have to understand in order to get satisfaction.
The good old "what wanted the artist tell us" is bullshit. I went to art school and graduated with a MA. The really interesting stuff often happens where the artists themselves cannot tell you what made them do it a certain way. Sometimes the work is more intelligent than the artist and you realize they have no clue what they did when they did it. Tarovsky however certainly knew what he did, but the whole point was precisely that which is hard to grasp.
To me they feel a bit like people who watch a beautiful sunset and get mad that it is not beeing self explainatory. They cannot just see things, they have to understand in order to get satisfaction.
The good old "what wanted the artist tell us" is bullshit. I went to art school and graduated with a MA. The really interesting stuff often happens where the artists themselves cannot tell you what made them do it a certain way. Sometimes the work is more intelligent than the artist and you realize they have no clue what they did when they did it. Tarovsky however certainly knew what he did, but the whole point was precisely that which is hard to grasp.
Oh, you touched a thing that bugs me sometimes. Some of people are so definitive, as in they need instant direct “tell me then” answers (which must fit their current level of understanding) and not explorative questions. I find being in a superposition and waiting for things to [not] happen much more insightful and learn-able than requesting explanations right here right now, as it doesn’t fixate your thinking. I don’t want to bait a flame here, but I came to a conclusion that widespread religion is a consequence of this. People are uncomfortable when things are unexplained and when thought experiments bring more and more hard questions to the table. God may exist or not, and that’s an interesting question, but for them it is not the question, but just a way to clear the table once and forever. (It’s not about all religious people, and I have enough counterexamples, but few of my close links fell to goddidit pit under heavy indoctrination pressure.)
I believe the "understanding" bit goes hand-in-hand with the fetishization of nerdy intellect by the modern upper-class (especially in the managerial and IT urban elite). Whereas one recurring theme of classical art had to do with the sacred, and the experience of the sacred - something you can feel, but not something you can understand.
I still remember the day I got lectured by someone on how I didn't really understand the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. Maybe not, but it spoke to me in a way no other anime ever did and it's easily the #1 for me.
I obviously understood SOMETHING about it, even if it was just my own understanding.
I obviously understood SOMETHING about it, even if it was just my own understanding.
The Wire felt like real people, in a way that 99.9% of media doesn't.
I've read that some/most of the actors were actual police force at some point. I may be getting the details wrong, but I think that's why it felt so real, because it was real even if the specific situations were fiction.
I've read that some/most of the actors were actual police force at some point. I may be getting the details wrong, but I think that's why it felt so real, because it was real even if the specific situations were fiction.
> If you are moved by it, you don't need to have it explained to you. If not, no explanation can make you moved by it.
I respectfully disagree. Watching Schindler’s List as an eleven year-old barely had an effect on me. After it was explained to me I found it tremendously heartbreaking.
I respectfully disagree. Watching Schindler’s List as an eleven year-old barely had an effect on me. After it was explained to me I found it tremendously heartbreaking.
You are right in the idea that context (down to the title of a film) matters. However I think they meant something else there. I make films myself and context matters for everyone. But there is a class of people who cannot enjoy a film if they don't get it. If there isn't a clear didactic lesson to be learned in the end or a unifying functional theory that explains all of the films elements they are unable to enjoy the thing.
Which is weird, because the same people usually enjoy watching a sunset without explaination, have no problems liking a Van Gogh without knowing why precisely he painted crows over the field and let's not even talk about music.
Some people see it as an insult if your film isn't 100% self explainatory or at doesn't at least pretend it by smuggling the more ambigous ideas in the guise of something else (like good hollywood films).
For people that watch films in that way, the whole enjoyment of a film is connected to the feeling of having it deciphered. However — this way they are missing a big part of what is possible with the medium. Like if you'd only listen to music you can rationally explain the existence of each note for. Some things have no valid explaination, they just are. Stalker is one of these. Like the crows on Van Goghs field, you don't really need to have them explained to you to have them touch your soul. Not every soul will be touched by the same thing — but let's at least try.
Which is weird, because the same people usually enjoy watching a sunset without explaination, have no problems liking a Van Gogh without knowing why precisely he painted crows over the field and let's not even talk about music.
Some people see it as an insult if your film isn't 100% self explainatory or at doesn't at least pretend it by smuggling the more ambigous ideas in the guise of something else (like good hollywood films).
For people that watch films in that way, the whole enjoyment of a film is connected to the feeling of having it deciphered. However — this way they are missing a big part of what is possible with the medium. Like if you'd only listen to music you can rationally explain the existence of each note for. Some things have no valid explaination, they just are. Stalker is one of these. Like the crows on Van Goghs field, you don't really need to have them explained to you to have them touch your soul. Not every soul will be touched by the same thing — but let's at least try.
Great response - thank you!
I think that a lot of the "understanding" part of these kind of films are quirks to do with constraints that the filmmakers had. I would contrast this with Annihilation, which was confusing because it's not properly thought out IMO and with Inception, which was not confusing but did sacrifice artistic expression for mainstream appeal (for example the scenes with a lot of gun fighting).
The immediate things about Stalker that bothered me are, in retrospect, solvable with a higher budget or better film support. Of course, some people prefer the authentic aura of such films. Bellflower would be another example of a good idea and story done on a budget of next to nothing.
The immediate things about Stalker that bothered me are, in retrospect, solvable with a higher budget or better film support. Of course, some people prefer the authentic aura of such films. Bellflower would be another example of a good idea and story done on a budget of next to nothing.
> I think that a lot of the "understanding" part of these kind of films are quirks to do with constraints that the filmmakers had.
This reminded me of one of my favourite (possibly apocryphal) tidbits about Solaris. People have differing theories about the significance of the very long highway scene, and Tarkovsky had an elaborate explanation for it when the film came out. [1] [2]
At some point he admitted that he and his camera operator mostly really wanted to visit Japan, so he included a suitably long scene to justify visas and a travel budget. I don’t recall where I read that, but it helped me to be comfortable taking my own meaning from a work of art and not worrying too much about discovering the author’s absolute intent.
[1] https://www.quora.com/In-Tarkovsky-s-film-Solaris-what-is-th...
[2] https://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/content/real-world-metropoli...
This reminded me of one of my favourite (possibly apocryphal) tidbits about Solaris. People have differing theories about the significance of the very long highway scene, and Tarkovsky had an elaborate explanation for it when the film came out. [1] [2]
At some point he admitted that he and his camera operator mostly really wanted to visit Japan, so he included a suitably long scene to justify visas and a travel budget. I don’t recall where I read that, but it helped me to be comfortable taking my own meaning from a work of art and not worrying too much about discovering the author’s absolute intent.
[1] https://www.quora.com/In-Tarkovsky-s-film-Solaris-what-is-th...
[2] https://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/content/real-world-metropoli...
I still need to watch the original Solaris!
It's funny how random things like that can obfuscate your impressions in so many things in life. I feel like this about a lot of computer science and mathematics: If you are not the author of a text, then your focus is easily distracted by peculiarities that have little to do with the core message.
I guess this would partly also be why a lot of high school students struggle with calculus. By the way, on that topic, if you consider dx and dy to be variables, then calculus's strange notation is easier to try to make sense of.
It's funny how random things like that can obfuscate your impressions in so many things in life. I feel like this about a lot of computer science and mathematics: If you are not the author of a text, then your focus is easily distracted by peculiarities that have little to do with the core message.
I guess this would partly also be why a lot of high school students struggle with calculus. By the way, on that topic, if you consider dx and dy to be variables, then calculus's strange notation is easier to try to make sense of.
I liked much more anihalation than inception in retrospective. There are many more questions in anihalation than in inception,where it can boil down to "is this real? ". Anihalation goes into how do I want to be part of the world, do I care if I live, or how important is that "me" is really "me". These stuff allows for very good existential questioning in the good way.
I feel that way about Synecdoche, New York - it's funny, gross, and horrifying and there's some deep truth there. I watched 3 times in a row at first. Every time I see it it puts me into a blue funk for a week.
Beyond the beautiful cinematography and sound design, the thing that blew me away when I saw it (on a big screen, I think I also dozed off for a few minutes) was how he stretches time almost to a hypnotic effect.
The scene when they are on the train tracks, slowly morphing from black and white into colour - so slowly that it takes a while for you to figure out what's going on, while being lulled into almost a trance like state. I did not realise film could elicit such experiences prior to seeing Stalker. It's beautiful
The scene when they are on the train tracks, slowly morphing from black and white into colour - so slowly that it takes a while for you to figure out what's going on, while being lulled into almost a trance like state. I did not realise film could elicit such experiences prior to seeing Stalker. It's beautiful
>Stalker is still the most beautiful film I've ever seen
It's my favorite movie of all time
It's my favorite movie of all time
What films are you talking about?
I discovered Tarkovsky only last year. I didn't "get" him until the death of my father. Roiling in ineffable grief, I struggled to find meaning, to sum up the arc of my father's life. The experience had (and still has) a timeless, absurd quality to it.
Tarkovsky's films seem to exist in a different type of time orthogonal to our own, and the experience of engaging with them is difficult to describe. They are both powerful and ineffable.
From his writings, he could be mistaken for a practitioner of Zen. I would like to share my favorite Tarkovsky quote:
"Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it. Take a watch into pieces, it doesn't work. Similarly with a work of art, there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it."
Tarkovsky's films seem to exist in a different type of time orthogonal to our own, and the experience of engaging with them is difficult to describe. They are both powerful and ineffable.
From his writings, he could be mistaken for a practitioner of Zen. I would like to share my favorite Tarkovsky quote:
"Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it. Take a watch into pieces, it doesn't work. Similarly with a work of art, there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it."
That is quite a beautiful quote! I suspect we search for meanings and interpretations mostly to communicate what we feel to others we may try to share the experience with, although it seems that the best way to do this might just be to be honest about it and describe the feeing rather than the interpretation.
(Also, I’m sorry for your loss. Losing a parent seems un fathomable to me although I know it will happen to me too).
(Also, I’m sorry for your loss. Losing a parent seems un fathomable to me although I know it will happen to me too).
>there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it.
Almost all art analysis I see has to penetrates my zone of not seeking it out. So maybe it's being done impeccably somewhere, but in the stuff I see, the "analysis" is really a lossy description of the person doing the analyzing.
It tells me their frame of reference. The parts of the work they'll care about, and their analytical blindspots. It tells me about their views on hot contemporary issues, their pet peeves and hobby horses. It shows me the types of conclusions they were taught to draw. Very rarely does the analysis tell me anything about the work beyond the unambiguous facts visible to every layperson.
Almost all art analysis I see has to penetrates my zone of not seeking it out. So maybe it's being done impeccably somewhere, but in the stuff I see, the "analysis" is really a lossy description of the person doing the analyzing.
It tells me their frame of reference. The parts of the work they'll care about, and their analytical blindspots. It tells me about their views on hot contemporary issues, their pet peeves and hobby horses. It shows me the types of conclusions they were taught to draw. Very rarely does the analysis tell me anything about the work beyond the unambiguous facts visible to every layperson.
papito(1)
Solo traveling is where I learned how to be alone. Turns out, I don't mind hanging out with myself. Not an insane revelation, but an important one.
Yet when I try to convince people to solo travel, I encounter so much hemming and hawing, so much resistance. I suppose there's a safety aspect. I'm male and can't speak about traveling as a woman or trans-man. But I do meet many female travelers. And I don't know significantly more guys who solo travel.
I'd imagine there's a fear of loneliness, of homesickness, of paralysis in face of being so untethered. Which, yes, can happen. It comes in waves. Some days I'd be horribly, terribly lonely. Some days I'd do almost nothing. It always passed.
Anybody who has the time, the money, the temptation to travel alone should do it. Which is often less than people imagine. Flights have gotten incredibly cheap. Hostels are acceptable for a few weeks. Food can be bought on the street or prepared from grocery stores. Every country, every city has low income people, and they still eat.
The lifestyle certainly suits the young more than the old. So then why do so many of my young friends delay traveling? Why are they so resistant to the idea of slowing down their education a little to see the world? I know, I know. They need the money. But I do have friends who aren't stuck in a hyper-competitive race to optimize their earnings by age 25. Who are fortunate to take the luxury of a break.
I shouldn't care this much. Yet I can't help but find it so odd that people require someone else to be with them while traveling. If I had to find a travel partner with the same time off, similar goals with traveling and who I wouldn't murder after a week or two, I'd probably be stuck at home.
Yet when I try to convince people to solo travel, I encounter so much hemming and hawing, so much resistance. I suppose there's a safety aspect. I'm male and can't speak about traveling as a woman or trans-man. But I do meet many female travelers. And I don't know significantly more guys who solo travel.
I'd imagine there's a fear of loneliness, of homesickness, of paralysis in face of being so untethered. Which, yes, can happen. It comes in waves. Some days I'd be horribly, terribly lonely. Some days I'd do almost nothing. It always passed.
Anybody who has the time, the money, the temptation to travel alone should do it. Which is often less than people imagine. Flights have gotten incredibly cheap. Hostels are acceptable for a few weeks. Food can be bought on the street or prepared from grocery stores. Every country, every city has low income people, and they still eat.
The lifestyle certainly suits the young more than the old. So then why do so many of my young friends delay traveling? Why are they so resistant to the idea of slowing down their education a little to see the world? I know, I know. They need the money. But I do have friends who aren't stuck in a hyper-competitive race to optimize their earnings by age 25. Who are fortunate to take the luxury of a break.
I shouldn't care this much. Yet I can't help but find it so odd that people require someone else to be with them while traveling. If I had to find a travel partner with the same time off, similar goals with traveling and who I wouldn't murder after a week or two, I'd probably be stuck at home.
I think solo travelling requires a specific type of say introvert personality. As you write, most people are scared of this. And when they do travel without a supporting group, they go... to see friends/family somewhere. I see it so many times around me. People literally rather abandon their dream vacation for a mediocre one with less than ideal companions just to not travel alone.
I am like you too. I am also an introvert. Also I don't travel to rest, but to have as intense experience as possible. Not necessarily only positive, intensity is more important. Often I feel like I need another vacation after a vacation, this time for resting. It is so fulfilling to challenge oneself a bit. There are great life lessons to learn - throw yourself into the trip, without precise plans, and let it unfold on its own.
That said, I just had a son, and I will gladly switch to family-only travel. But all of you, before you reject this form, try it at least once, in some less civilized place. I can recommend India. Just buy a return ticket and some guide book (this part ain't mandatory). You won't forget the experience till your last second on earth. This I can guarantee you.
I am like you too. I am also an introvert. Also I don't travel to rest, but to have as intense experience as possible. Not necessarily only positive, intensity is more important. Often I feel like I need another vacation after a vacation, this time for resting. It is so fulfilling to challenge oneself a bit. There are great life lessons to learn - throw yourself into the trip, without precise plans, and let it unfold on its own.
That said, I just had a son, and I will gladly switch to family-only travel. But all of you, before you reject this form, try it at least once, in some less civilized place. I can recommend India. Just buy a return ticket and some guide book (this part ain't mandatory). You won't forget the experience till your last second on earth. This I can guarantee you.
Want to note that a certain level of outgoingness is very beneficial when traveling solo. But that comes from self-appreciation. You want to be so comfortable by yourself that you're enjoying meeting new people.
Intensity is crucial for me too. I embark on an adventure, not just a sight-seeing exercise. And whatever happens, good or bad, is what I'm after.
Intensity is crucial for me too. I embark on an adventure, not just a sight-seeing exercise. And whatever happens, good or bad, is what I'm after.
I'm a young person and would like to travel solo, but there are still major obstacles. In my case debt. It's not like I'm just stuck in the rat race, I made some bad financial decisions when I was young and now if I froze the progress I've made and went on a long holiday it would be absolutely disastrous to me long term.
There is something to be said for optimizing your career rather than traveling when you are young. I chose to delay my career and education to travel and while it taught me to enjoy my own company and has given me great insight into a lot of things I still hesitate to recommend it to people.
Fact is that life is a 'choose your own adventure' kind of game and most people grow into that understanding slowly as they dive deep into their cultural norms. Traveling young exposes you to this idea when you are a bit too idealistic to make good use of it.
For example, having a shared context / assumptions is a prerequisite for successfully raising a child (nevermind that you brainwash it into your assumptions, at least you are in approximate agreement with you spouse and have relative confidence in your opinions).
What ends up happening to many travelers is that they return to find that their original culture isn't special but rather represents some arbitrary set of choices in the spectrum of possible cultures. Probably there will be a realization that some of these choices are less than optimal.
The idealist sets out to 'convince people' or believes they've now got the right idea about things, even if you are relatively pragmatic and just pick up some slight quirks it's still often enough to isolate you from the most boring part of society. The part that hands out 'normal jobs' and supports the dominant political party.
From there things go downhill because people start to associate 'quirky' or 'weird' with you and you silently become a cautionary tale of the dangers of traveling ("it will undo your conditioning", "you will become isolated from the herd and exposed to danger"), however on the surface the reasoning will always be: "it's so dangerous, there are all of these things that could go wrong.." or "I am this kind of person and elsewhere I will face prejudice" a.k.a. "here I have special status that I am unwilling to let go of".
This kind of situation eventually turns people off traveling and they recondition themselves to fit into some group (maybe expats maybe back home) vacation is spent on "holiday" not traveling but maybe they manage to leverage some small idea they gained on their travels and make a profit, others don't give up on traveling but do so at the cost of everything else until all they have left is bragging in some hostel, finally there are the grown up idealists that have sorted out their beliefs over multiple years of battling with the status quo, they live a somewhat reclusive lifestyle and if they know what they stand for and act with some conviction they sometimes manage to earn the respect of others and move the culture forward a cycle of computation but most will be ignored quietly so long as they don't upset anyone.
Meanwhile the people who optimized school and career are reaching the brink of breakdown from never giving themselves the time off to figure out what they are doing. However they have plenty of money to take that time off and their main struggle will be existential crisis, physical ailments, being a workaholic or some other stress related injury.
My belief is that the right path is more balanced, when I was traveling all over the place I was going too fast and I had no aim or reason, I was just there. Slowly I realized that everyone around me traveled for a purpose, they wanted to go skiing or to see something they attached importance to or meet someone they were good friends with etc.
The balance I was missing was the comfort of having a reason or support and the balance others often miss is the courage to face the unknown. The right idea is to travel in the place you are (stepping out of the comfort zone) and to live in the place you travel to, that is, always be constructing your home. Even if you only stay for a couple of nights, no matter how short the stay it is never an excuse to "put up with your environment" - of course you need to be realistic about what you can accomplish but never shut off this part of your mind that is making a home.
Fact is that life is a 'choose your own adventure' kind of game and most people grow into that understanding slowly as they dive deep into their cultural norms. Traveling young exposes you to this idea when you are a bit too idealistic to make good use of it.
For example, having a shared context / assumptions is a prerequisite for successfully raising a child (nevermind that you brainwash it into your assumptions, at least you are in approximate agreement with you spouse and have relative confidence in your opinions).
What ends up happening to many travelers is that they return to find that their original culture isn't special but rather represents some arbitrary set of choices in the spectrum of possible cultures. Probably there will be a realization that some of these choices are less than optimal.
The idealist sets out to 'convince people' or believes they've now got the right idea about things, even if you are relatively pragmatic and just pick up some slight quirks it's still often enough to isolate you from the most boring part of society. The part that hands out 'normal jobs' and supports the dominant political party.
From there things go downhill because people start to associate 'quirky' or 'weird' with you and you silently become a cautionary tale of the dangers of traveling ("it will undo your conditioning", "you will become isolated from the herd and exposed to danger"), however on the surface the reasoning will always be: "it's so dangerous, there are all of these things that could go wrong.." or "I am this kind of person and elsewhere I will face prejudice" a.k.a. "here I have special status that I am unwilling to let go of".
This kind of situation eventually turns people off traveling and they recondition themselves to fit into some group (maybe expats maybe back home) vacation is spent on "holiday" not traveling but maybe they manage to leverage some small idea they gained on their travels and make a profit, others don't give up on traveling but do so at the cost of everything else until all they have left is bragging in some hostel, finally there are the grown up idealists that have sorted out their beliefs over multiple years of battling with the status quo, they live a somewhat reclusive lifestyle and if they know what they stand for and act with some conviction they sometimes manage to earn the respect of others and move the culture forward a cycle of computation but most will be ignored quietly so long as they don't upset anyone.
Meanwhile the people who optimized school and career are reaching the brink of breakdown from never giving themselves the time off to figure out what they are doing. However they have plenty of money to take that time off and their main struggle will be existential crisis, physical ailments, being a workaholic or some other stress related injury.
My belief is that the right path is more balanced, when I was traveling all over the place I was going too fast and I had no aim or reason, I was just there. Slowly I realized that everyone around me traveled for a purpose, they wanted to go skiing or to see something they attached importance to or meet someone they were good friends with etc.
The balance I was missing was the comfort of having a reason or support and the balance others often miss is the courage to face the unknown. The right idea is to travel in the place you are (stepping out of the comfort zone) and to live in the place you travel to, that is, always be constructing your home. Even if you only stay for a couple of nights, no matter how short the stay it is never an excuse to "put up with your environment" - of course you need to be realistic about what you can accomplish but never shut off this part of your mind that is making a home.
Where did you go? Any wild stories
100% agree with you on solo travelling: I am not daunted in any way by the idea of days-long-trips alone with my thoughts, a notebook and my kindle. In fact, often I'll seek out long-distance travel by train over flying precisely to experience some alone-time.
I have travelled extensively alone as a woman - there is a safety aspect regardless of gender. It has its own benefits as well as the obvious downsides. For example I found home-stays or BnBs that more easily accepted a solo female and I was welcomed into many family's lives.
I have travelled extensively alone as a woman - there is a safety aspect regardless of gender. It has its own benefits as well as the obvious downsides. For example I found home-stays or BnBs that more easily accepted a solo female and I was welcomed into many family's lives.
> Why do we travel? Among other things so we meet people who don't think they know us once and for all; so we may again experience what is possible in this life.
-- Max Frisch
> Warum reisen wir? Auch dies, damit wir Menschen begegnen, die nicht meinen, daß sie uns kennen ein für allemal; damit wir noch einmal erfahren, was uns in diesem Leben möglich sei.
-- Max Frisch
> Warum reisen wir? Auch dies, damit wir Menschen begegnen, die nicht meinen, daß sie uns kennen ein für allemal; damit wir noch einmal erfahren, was uns in diesem Leben möglich sei.
There's one thing preventing me from traveling alone: a deadly allergy to sesame. This is an ingredient that gets into everything, and it's often very hard to communicate reliably to people how serious it is if I accidentally eat it. Do you know many solo travellers with obscure and serious allergies? Any tips?
Not the same, but I'm deathly allergic to yellow jackets and I travel alone in the woods all the time. My solution is to carry four Epipens and hope for the best.
I did get stung once, but luckily I was within a mile of a road and hitchhiked to the nearest ER.
I did get stung once, but luckily I was within a mile of a road and hitchhiked to the nearest ER.
[deleted]
Stick to Europe and North America and cook as much food for yourself as you can?
My wife looked at me like I had three heads the first time I said that I'd seen many films alone and that I enjoyed doing so. For her, movies are a social event, something enjoyed with friends. I'm not opposed to that and enjoy it as well, but it's not where I started.
There was a phase early in my adult life, before I learned how to make friends, where I'd go see most movies on my own, and I enjoyed it greatly. I got to think through my own reactions and come to my own terms with the films without having to filter through other people's thoughts and without having to filter what I watched on the behalf of the group. At this point in life, most movie watching for me is social, but there are some that I still make a point of seeing on my own. There's a wonderful place for sharing, but there's a wonderful place for solitude as well. Cheers to you wherever you are on that spectrum.
There was a phase early in my adult life, before I learned how to make friends, where I'd go see most movies on my own, and I enjoyed it greatly. I got to think through my own reactions and come to my own terms with the films without having to filter through other people's thoughts and without having to filter what I watched on the behalf of the group. At this point in life, most movie watching for me is social, but there are some that I still make a point of seeing on my own. There's a wonderful place for sharing, but there's a wonderful place for solitude as well. Cheers to you wherever you are on that spectrum.
He definitely meant a different type of healthy solitude, rather than the one on which newspapers and studies report when they assert loneliness and isolation among young people is at an all-time high.
> He definitely meant a different type of healthy solitude, rather than the one on which newspapers and studies report when they assert loneliness and isolation among young people is at an all-time high.
Maybe it's because people spend too much time exchanging msgs in forums such as this, instead of having meaningfull exchanges with real people. Even walking down the street, they have their noses buried in a device.
Maybe it's because people spend too much time exchanging msgs in forums such as this, instead of having meaningfull exchanges with real people. Even walking down the street, they have their noses buried in a device.
I think that's a symptom. Not a cause.
A lot has to do with how cultures perceive individuals and individuality. Traditionally, individuality has always been seen as something "bad". ingroup/outgroup, cultural norms to abide by, etc. etc. Sociology, anthropology,... there are entire research domains devoted to these questions.
The interesting part is how society has evolved over the past 200, 100 and 50 years. Industrialisation, mass media, the information age,... have all stripped away the traditional tribal or clan-like way of living which has kept us alive for hundreds of thousands of years.
Over the past 50 years, individual consumerism and producerism have come to dominate our societal framework. So, we are taught to look at relationships as affordances that help us to advance in a materialistic world; rather then to look at the deep intangible value they embody. And we are also taught that emotions are only really valid if they are useful or contributing to our well-being.
What I hear from younger people is this notion of suffering from social anxiety. I'm sure that's a real thing. It's not easy to approach another human being and try and befriend them; and it's harder as we become older.
But building meaningful relationships is also a learned skill which takes tons of time. And the journey starts first and foremost with learning to befriend yourself through self-aware kindness, compassion and empathy. For one, it starts by not beating yourself up over stuff you don't control. Or trying to adhere to an irealistic ideal.
And it also consists of calling out those who push ideals that nobody can ever hope to attain. (Yeah, sure, Elon does great stuff. But neither you nor I are like Elon. You do you, go for it if you want to give it a shot, but who are you to judge what I do with my life?).
The problem with social media is that they tie into our innate urge to connect with others; but at the same time push this idea that we all need to have our separate, successful materialistic lives. It's a disparity that only enhances the anxiety that's already there. And the only good way to deal with it is to wean yourself from your device as best as you can.
A lot has to do with how cultures perceive individuals and individuality. Traditionally, individuality has always been seen as something "bad". ingroup/outgroup, cultural norms to abide by, etc. etc. Sociology, anthropology,... there are entire research domains devoted to these questions.
The interesting part is how society has evolved over the past 200, 100 and 50 years. Industrialisation, mass media, the information age,... have all stripped away the traditional tribal or clan-like way of living which has kept us alive for hundreds of thousands of years.
Over the past 50 years, individual consumerism and producerism have come to dominate our societal framework. So, we are taught to look at relationships as affordances that help us to advance in a materialistic world; rather then to look at the deep intangible value they embody. And we are also taught that emotions are only really valid if they are useful or contributing to our well-being.
What I hear from younger people is this notion of suffering from social anxiety. I'm sure that's a real thing. It's not easy to approach another human being and try and befriend them; and it's harder as we become older.
But building meaningful relationships is also a learned skill which takes tons of time. And the journey starts first and foremost with learning to befriend yourself through self-aware kindness, compassion and empathy. For one, it starts by not beating yourself up over stuff you don't control. Or trying to adhere to an irealistic ideal.
And it also consists of calling out those who push ideals that nobody can ever hope to attain. (Yeah, sure, Elon does great stuff. But neither you nor I are like Elon. You do you, go for it if you want to give it a shot, but who are you to judge what I do with my life?).
The problem with social media is that they tie into our innate urge to connect with others; but at the same time push this idea that we all need to have our separate, successful materialistic lives. It's a disparity that only enhances the anxiety that's already there. And the only good way to deal with it is to wean yourself from your device as best as you can.
> It's not easy to approach another human being and try and befriend them; and it's harder as we become older.
Anecdotal, and not to dismiss that reality, but I find the opposite to be true. It is easy to befriend people, with no strings attached. We have a lot in common with almost everybody.
Anecdotal, and not to dismiss that reality, but I find the opposite to be true. It is easy to befriend people, with no strings attached. We have a lot in common with almost everybody.
>Over the past 50 years, individual consumerism and producerism have come to dominate our societal framework. So, we are taught to look at relationships as affordances that help us to advance in a materialistic world; rather then to look at the deep intangible value they embody.
Marx noticed this in the 19th century, and he called it alienation, caused (in part) by commodity fetishism, in which we tend to confront others not as humans but as bearers of goods.
Marx noticed this in the 19th century, and he called it alienation, caused (in part) by commodity fetishism, in which we tend to confront others not as humans but as bearers of goods.
> Maybe it's because people spend too much time exchanging msgs in forums such as this, instead of having meaningfull exchanges with real people.
What does "meaningfull" mean? For example, I learn a lot more from fora such as Hacker News, so I'd argue that in-person interactions tend to be less meaningful.
What does "meaningfull" mean? For example, I learn a lot more from fora such as Hacker News, so I'd argue that in-person interactions tend to be less meaningful.
>What does "meaningfull" mean?
Meaningful means more according to several hundred millennia of evolution as social animals that need actual proximity.
It means the person on the other end of the conversation will come to your house and help you when you're sad, desperate, sick, and not just be some alias in some other city/country who'll forget all about you just after you've stopped chatting (or give total priority to his real world friends and family).
It means common shared friendship building experiences - not just the sharing, via talk, of experiences each had in isolation in a totally different place, in another context.
It means having you back and you having theirs, which is rarely if ever the case from people in forums.
And a few other things besides.
Meaningful means more according to several hundred millennia of evolution as social animals that need actual proximity.
It means the person on the other end of the conversation will come to your house and help you when you're sad, desperate, sick, and not just be some alias in some other city/country who'll forget all about you just after you've stopped chatting (or give total priority to his real world friends and family).
It means common shared friendship building experiences - not just the sharing, via talk, of experiences each had in isolation in a totally different place, in another context.
It means having you back and you having theirs, which is rarely if ever the case from people in forums.
And a few other things besides.
>the person on the other end of the conversation will come to your house and help you when you're sad, desperate, sick
People really have to grow out of this. This is what in my understanding learning being alone exactly is about. Once you are sad, desperate, sick you have to come out of it as quick as possible with what is available to you. It is your responsibility before yourself and the world, like taking shower or brushing your teeth.
I say to grow out - because as children most of us learned the trick to pretend sad to get attention and it developed into all sorts of manipulations. When you don't get what you want, for whatever reasons - that is just it, to become sad or joyful is your reaction, it just shows your level of maturity in this world. Children would cry to get attention, grown-ups would keep going.
But you can cry for attention only if there are people around you. If you stay alone you will quickly realize all bullshit you are creating and stop it, because anyway it has no effect. In this way being alone is a powerful way to bring one down to reality. And parents use it sometimes when they feel kids are crying to manipulate - they ignore it all-together.
This is relevant to I would say 90% of mental issues, of course in case of physical sickness you need to see a doctor, not someone to calm you down, but someone to fix your body.
People really have to grow out of this. This is what in my understanding learning being alone exactly is about. Once you are sad, desperate, sick you have to come out of it as quick as possible with what is available to you. It is your responsibility before yourself and the world, like taking shower or brushing your teeth.
I say to grow out - because as children most of us learned the trick to pretend sad to get attention and it developed into all sorts of manipulations. When you don't get what you want, for whatever reasons - that is just it, to become sad or joyful is your reaction, it just shows your level of maturity in this world. Children would cry to get attention, grown-ups would keep going.
But you can cry for attention only if there are people around you. If you stay alone you will quickly realize all bullshit you are creating and stop it, because anyway it has no effect. In this way being alone is a powerful way to bring one down to reality. And parents use it sometimes when they feel kids are crying to manipulate - they ignore it all-together.
This is relevant to I would say 90% of mental issues, of course in case of physical sickness you need to see a doctor, not someone to calm you down, but someone to fix your body.
>People really have to grow out of this.
Actually, they should grow to the opposite direction. They're not "rebellious teenagers" who "don't need nobody". And delivery food + home alone, with "relations" mainly on the web is not a lifestyle.
That's how you end with this:
https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/loneliness-epidemic-c...
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-loneliness-epidemic-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2019/05/03/millennials...
And how people end up discovered dead in their apartment for weeks, with nobody caring earlier, and their pets having chewed on them...
>Once you are sad, desperate, sick you have to come out of it as quick as possible with what is available to you. It is your responsibility before yourself and the world, like taking shower or brushing your teeth.
If you mean people should stop abusing others when they don't need help, sure.
If you mean it as stated above, that's as far removed from humanity as possible. Some loner animals, sure, they might do this. We built society and civilisation to do better than that.
Actually, they should grow to the opposite direction. They're not "rebellious teenagers" who "don't need nobody". And delivery food + home alone, with "relations" mainly on the web is not a lifestyle.
That's how you end with this:
https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/loneliness-epidemic-c...
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-loneliness-epidemic-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2019/05/03/millennials...
And how people end up discovered dead in their apartment for weeks, with nobody caring earlier, and their pets having chewed on them...
>Once you are sad, desperate, sick you have to come out of it as quick as possible with what is available to you. It is your responsibility before yourself and the world, like taking shower or brushing your teeth.
If you mean people should stop abusing others when they don't need help, sure.
If you mean it as stated above, that's as far removed from humanity as possible. Some loner animals, sure, they might do this. We built society and civilisation to do better than that.
Where exactly in my post you've read about "rebellious teenagers who don't need anybody" or "removed from humanity"?
The idea that having someone help you when you are "sad, desperate, sick" is something people "really have to grow out of".
The rest is like a naive self-help book, heal yourself style. Yes, some people play sad to manipulate others. But it's not like everybody is like some unique snowflake who can't get what they want and use that trick.
No, there are tons of actual sadness, sickness, depression (situational and pathological), need, etc out there, and there's nothing wrong in asking or giving help in such cases, in fact, it's what makes us human (or at least social animals, since other social animals will help their own too).
People needed help, asked for it, and (sometimes) got it, from friends, community, etc, even back when they survived horrible threats, witnessed (or even fought) in 2-3 wars each, and had self-reliance skills up the wazoo. It's not just the case with unique snowflakes who can't get what they want and throw a tantrum, as implied ("I say to grow out - because as children most of us learned the trick to pretend sad to get attention and it developed into all sorts of manipulations. When you don't get what you want, for whatever reasons - that is just it, to become sad or joyful is your reaction, it just shows your level of maturity in this world.")
Let's put it this way:
I agree that many people should learn to appreciate being alone, do things for themselves, not bother others for minor stuff and cry wolf, and depend on others for their whims, grow up and mature in this regard, etc.
But that's not all the people, all the time. All the people includes totally mature and otherwise self-reliant people, who do need help, assistance, empathy, etc. That's part of being human, not a sole trait of being a parasite to others.
Heck, even marines ask for help, depend on each others, and even share their feelings and help cheer up the other - and without those things they'd be far less effective.
The rest is like a naive self-help book, heal yourself style. Yes, some people play sad to manipulate others. But it's not like everybody is like some unique snowflake who can't get what they want and use that trick.
No, there are tons of actual sadness, sickness, depression (situational and pathological), need, etc out there, and there's nothing wrong in asking or giving help in such cases, in fact, it's what makes us human (or at least social animals, since other social animals will help their own too).
People needed help, asked for it, and (sometimes) got it, from friends, community, etc, even back when they survived horrible threats, witnessed (or even fought) in 2-3 wars each, and had self-reliance skills up the wazoo. It's not just the case with unique snowflakes who can't get what they want and throw a tantrum, as implied ("I say to grow out - because as children most of us learned the trick to pretend sad to get attention and it developed into all sorts of manipulations. When you don't get what you want, for whatever reasons - that is just it, to become sad or joyful is your reaction, it just shows your level of maturity in this world.")
Let's put it this way:
I agree that many people should learn to appreciate being alone, do things for themselves, not bother others for minor stuff and cry wolf, and depend on others for their whims, grow up and mature in this regard, etc.
But that's not all the people, all the time. All the people includes totally mature and otherwise self-reliant people, who do need help, assistance, empathy, etc. That's part of being human, not a sole trait of being a parasite to others.
Heck, even marines ask for help, depend on each others, and even share their feelings and help cheer up the other - and without those things they'd be far less effective.
>No, there are tons of actual sadness, sickness, depression (situational and pathological), need, etc out there
Ok tell me where is this all sadness and depression originated from? Is "my life does not go the way I want it to go" not the only reason for it? Can you name any other reason?
>People needed help, asked for it
I'm not saying you should not ask for help, nothing wrong with it. What I am talking about is at least genuinely try to see if you can handle it by yourself. Not through rejection or denial, but actually introspecting into why am I in this state? what happened? what did I expect? why it did not happen the way I expected? why do I give this so much importance? and so on. It won't happen in 5 minutes, even "naive self-help" needs to be learned and exercised to start working.
See how you learned to walk, you fall down so many times but kept trying, your parents helped you, they hold your arms and so on. But you genuinely kept trying until it worked one day. If you would not genuinely try and force parents to carry you around you wouldn't be able to walk today. Now people in their 30es are still not even trying to learn how to handle basic emotions and forcing others to help, when are they going to start? This is what I mean by growing up.
One more thing about asking help - one must see that's it in a way a trap because one day help might not come. In this sense it is better to learn to do what is most important by yourself. And I see my own thoughts and feelings as extremely important aspect of my life. Maybe I can not handle cooking or riding a car but I make sure I can handle the way I feel.
Ok tell me where is this all sadness and depression originated from? Is "my life does not go the way I want it to go" not the only reason for it? Can you name any other reason?
>People needed help, asked for it
I'm not saying you should not ask for help, nothing wrong with it. What I am talking about is at least genuinely try to see if you can handle it by yourself. Not through rejection or denial, but actually introspecting into why am I in this state? what happened? what did I expect? why it did not happen the way I expected? why do I give this so much importance? and so on. It won't happen in 5 minutes, even "naive self-help" needs to be learned and exercised to start working.
See how you learned to walk, you fall down so many times but kept trying, your parents helped you, they hold your arms and so on. But you genuinely kept trying until it worked one day. If you would not genuinely try and force parents to carry you around you wouldn't be able to walk today. Now people in their 30es are still not even trying to learn how to handle basic emotions and forcing others to help, when are they going to start? This is what I mean by growing up.
One more thing about asking help - one must see that's it in a way a trap because one day help might not come. In this sense it is better to learn to do what is most important by yourself. And I see my own thoughts and feelings as extremely important aspect of my life. Maybe I can not handle cooking or riding a car but I make sure I can handle the way I feel.
>Ok tell me where is this all sadness and depression originated from? Is "my life does not go the way I want it to go" not the only reason for it? Can you name any other reason?
That's so broad a reason to cover everything. Since any kind of "need help" situation would be automatically also a "my life does not go the way I want it to go" situation, no matter how legitimate it is.
But a phrase like "my life does not go the way I want it to go" makes it sound like people would ever need help, feel depressed etc for frivolous reasons -- like "my life does not go the way I want it to go, I wanted to be rock star and I'm not", or "my life does not go the way I want it to go, I want to sit at home, play videograms, and not have to work", or "my life does not go the way I want it to go, I want all the women to want me" etc.
There's also unemployment, disease (including cancer), loss of somebody, accident, and all kinds of other things people need help to get over.
Can some get over them by themselves alone? Sure. But having to do, and considering asking for help a weakness, makes for a worse society, of selfish distrustful loners, with no compassion for others, no solidarity, and ultimately, just a bunch of individuals, not a community or a society.
Does that mean that people should also try all their best to help themselves (and not just expect all the help from others)? Of course.
That's so broad a reason to cover everything. Since any kind of "need help" situation would be automatically also a "my life does not go the way I want it to go" situation, no matter how legitimate it is.
But a phrase like "my life does not go the way I want it to go" makes it sound like people would ever need help, feel depressed etc for frivolous reasons -- like "my life does not go the way I want it to go, I wanted to be rock star and I'm not", or "my life does not go the way I want it to go, I want to sit at home, play videograms, and not have to work", or "my life does not go the way I want it to go, I want all the women to want me" etc.
There's also unemployment, disease (including cancer), loss of somebody, accident, and all kinds of other things people need help to get over.
Can some get over them by themselves alone? Sure. But having to do, and considering asking for help a weakness, makes for a worse society, of selfish distrustful loners, with no compassion for others, no solidarity, and ultimately, just a bunch of individuals, not a community or a society.
Does that mean that people should also try all their best to help themselves (and not just expect all the help from others)? Of course.
>and considering asking for help a weakness
Did I say something like this?
Did I say something like this?
First, sadness is normal human emotion and not just attempt to manipulate others to get attention. The feeling of sadness is not childish or immature.
Second, isolation does not make people more resistant to anything. Isolated people are more depressed, more passive rather then trying to change things and have more mental health problems. More likely to develop problem with alcohol or drugs.
That holds true for stay at home moms who have to often deal with long term isolation. It holds truth in extreme cases, such as in isolation in prison, where people go crazy.
Second, isolation does not make people more resistant to anything. Isolated people are more depressed, more passive rather then trying to change things and have more mental health problems. More likely to develop problem with alcohol or drugs.
That holds true for stay at home moms who have to often deal with long term isolation. It holds truth in extreme cases, such as in isolation in prison, where people go crazy.
>sadness is normal human emotion and not just attempt to manipulate others to get attention
It is a human emotion, I never said it is not human or not normal. What I am saying is you are the one who creates emotions. Growing up means to realize it and to get charge of it instead of being reactive as children do.
>Second, isolation does not make people more resistant to anything
I am not talking about resistance or isolation, I am talking about paying attention to how your emotions and thoughts work, the less external noise you have the better you can do it. The more you pay attention - the better you understand it, the better you understand it the better you can handle it. Not resilience, but learning the way one learns to handle legs and walk or to handle hands and write. That's that simple.
>Isolated people are more depressed, more passive rather then trying to change things and have more mental health problems
That is exactly about learning how to be alone, it's like if one is accidentally got into deep water they can drown but if you do it slowly, consciously, you become more and more comfortable, stop worrying and start enjoying it. It can also be done with support, like they do in retreats and some monasteries.
Unfortunately in western culture this was not understood and denied on many levels, and I see how that links to current epidemic of loneliness.
It is a human emotion, I never said it is not human or not normal. What I am saying is you are the one who creates emotions. Growing up means to realize it and to get charge of it instead of being reactive as children do.
>Second, isolation does not make people more resistant to anything
I am not talking about resistance or isolation, I am talking about paying attention to how your emotions and thoughts work, the less external noise you have the better you can do it. The more you pay attention - the better you understand it, the better you understand it the better you can handle it. Not resilience, but learning the way one learns to handle legs and walk or to handle hands and write. That's that simple.
>Isolated people are more depressed, more passive rather then trying to change things and have more mental health problems
That is exactly about learning how to be alone, it's like if one is accidentally got into deep water they can drown but if you do it slowly, consciously, you become more and more comfortable, stop worrying and start enjoying it. It can also be done with support, like they do in retreats and some monasteries.
Unfortunately in western culture this was not understood and denied on many levels, and I see how that links to current epidemic of loneliness.
Literally all adults I know react to their emotions. Including those who hide them, they are still reactive to own emotions.
> That is exactly about learning how to be alone, it's like if one is accidentally got into deep water they can drown but if you do it slowly, consciously, you become more and more comfortable, stop worrying and start enjoying it.
That is not how long term isolation work. Yes, your social skills will go down and you will start avoiding people - it will be too tiring to talk to them. That is not the same as being happy isolated tho. That is more of being unhappy no matter what.
> Unfortunately in western culture this was not understood and denied on many levels, and I see how that links to current epidemic of loneliness.
It is quite common situation of temporary stay at home moms. Few years in mostly isolation. That is not exactly lost or unusual situation at all.
> It can also be done with support, like they do in retreats and some monasteries.
There is way more in being nun then just isolation. There is also complete control over pretty much everything you do, who you talk with and what emotions you show. Obeissance and routine.
Not that I would see that as super healthy tho.
> That is exactly about learning how to be alone, it's like if one is accidentally got into deep water they can drown but if you do it slowly, consciously, you become more and more comfortable, stop worrying and start enjoying it.
That is not how long term isolation work. Yes, your social skills will go down and you will start avoiding people - it will be too tiring to talk to them. That is not the same as being happy isolated tho. That is more of being unhappy no matter what.
> Unfortunately in western culture this was not understood and denied on many levels, and I see how that links to current epidemic of loneliness.
It is quite common situation of temporary stay at home moms. Few years in mostly isolation. That is not exactly lost or unusual situation at all.
> It can also be done with support, like they do in retreats and some monasteries.
There is way more in being nun then just isolation. There is also complete control over pretty much everything you do, who you talk with and what emotions you show. Obeissance and routine.
Not that I would see that as super healthy tho.
>Literally all adults I know react to their emotions
If they can react consciously I'd expect them not to get into sadness or depression like at all.
>There is way more in being nun then just isolation
I'm not talking about extreme isolation, more like buddhist places where you can stay for a week or month without talking and not knowing other people and just face how it is to be alone. Not isolated alone, but "socially" alone and all arrangements are made so you don't worry about stuff like food and can fully go into it.
If they can react consciously I'd expect them not to get into sadness or depression like at all.
>There is way more in being nun then just isolation
I'm not talking about extreme isolation, more like buddhist places where you can stay for a week or month without talking and not knowing other people and just face how it is to be alone. Not isolated alone, but "socially" alone and all arrangements are made so you don't worry about stuff like food and can fully go into it.
> and all arrangements are made so you don't worry about stuff like food and can fully go into it
Then you have help of people who do arrangements and even complete dependence on them. If you get sick, they will take you to doctor. If you will have mental breakdown, they will take you out.
Being alone as in without "help you when you're sad, desperate, sick" means that if you are sick, you go to store and you cook and you have to pick up kids from school no matter how bad it feels. It means that if your close one dies or you loose job, you are still alone and with no one to talk with.
> where you can stay for a week or month without talking and not knowing other people and just face how it is to be alone
That will not teach you to be alone. Week or month of being alone is like ... nothing. It is comfortable holidays, everything is arranged so that no external event have even possibility to influence you. Even if you lost job during this time, you would not know.
> If they can react consciously I'd expect them not to get into sadness or depression like at all.
Oh they do. And they do go to anger too. And to frustration.
Then you have help of people who do arrangements and even complete dependence on them. If you get sick, they will take you to doctor. If you will have mental breakdown, they will take you out.
Being alone as in without "help you when you're sad, desperate, sick" means that if you are sick, you go to store and you cook and you have to pick up kids from school no matter how bad it feels. It means that if your close one dies or you loose job, you are still alone and with no one to talk with.
> where you can stay for a week or month without talking and not knowing other people and just face how it is to be alone
That will not teach you to be alone. Week or month of being alone is like ... nothing. It is comfortable holidays, everything is arranged so that no external event have even possibility to influence you. Even if you lost job during this time, you would not know.
> If they can react consciously I'd expect them not to get into sadness or depression like at all.
Oh they do. And they do go to anger too. And to frustration.
>If you get sick, they will take you to doctor. If you will have mental breakdown, they will take you out.
They will take you to the doctor but no mental help as this is exactly what you have to learn to handle there.
>Being alone as in without "help you when you're sad, desperate, sick" means that if you are sick, you go to store and you cook and you have to pick up kids from school no matter how bad it feels. It means that if your close one dies or you loose job, you are still alone and with no one to talk with.
So if this happens and you haven't found how to handle loneliness it will be much more devastating than if you have had some similar experience before. I am talking about doing it in a "safe" but still real atmosphere which will develop certain qualities. Of course, real-life staff will be different, but it's better to have some idea of how it is.
>That will not teach you to be alone. Week or month of being alone is like ... nothing. It is comfortable holidays, everything is arranged
This depends on you if month is a holiday for you - go for 1 year. If you don't like comfort - there are places where you have to cook, you have to clean, wash and so on.
>Oh they do. And they do go to anger too. And to frustration.
To me, this means they don't know how to manage their emotions. I don't know what you mean when you say "they all can".
They will take you to the doctor but no mental help as this is exactly what you have to learn to handle there.
>Being alone as in without "help you when you're sad, desperate, sick" means that if you are sick, you go to store and you cook and you have to pick up kids from school no matter how bad it feels. It means that if your close one dies or you loose job, you are still alone and with no one to talk with.
So if this happens and you haven't found how to handle loneliness it will be much more devastating than if you have had some similar experience before. I am talking about doing it in a "safe" but still real atmosphere which will develop certain qualities. Of course, real-life staff will be different, but it's better to have some idea of how it is.
>That will not teach you to be alone. Week or month of being alone is like ... nothing. It is comfortable holidays, everything is arranged
This depends on you if month is a holiday for you - go for 1 year. If you don't like comfort - there are places where you have to cook, you have to clean, wash and so on.
>Oh they do. And they do go to anger too. And to frustration.
To me, this means they don't know how to manage their emotions. I don't know what you mean when you say "they all can".
>Literally all adults I know react to their emotions
>> If they can react consciously I'd expect them not to get into sadness or depression like at all.
This feels backwards. Sometimes depression is the correct response to what is happening in the world. Just because you are conscious of what is transpiring within really isn't going to stop true depression.
What do you say to someone who recently lost a loved one in a brutal senseless manner? Oh, you should just like react consciously and not be sad...
>> If they can react consciously I'd expect them not to get into sadness or depression like at all.
This feels backwards. Sometimes depression is the correct response to what is happening in the world. Just because you are conscious of what is transpiring within really isn't going to stop true depression.
What do you say to someone who recently lost a loved one in a brutal senseless manner? Oh, you should just like react consciously and not be sad...
>Sometimes depression is the correct response to what is happening in the world. Just because you are conscious of what is transpiring within really isn't going to stop true depression.
The response is what you choose. If you choose depression - ok, that's your choice. But don't call it correct and don't force other people to feel bad when they choose another response.
>What do you say to someone who recently lost a loved one in a brutal senseless manner?
If it was very recent I would say some supportive things. But otherwise, I would show them that life still goes on, because the only way to end suffering is to accept the reality whichever way it is.
The response is what you choose. If you choose depression - ok, that's your choice. But don't call it correct and don't force other people to feel bad when they choose another response.
>What do you say to someone who recently lost a loved one in a brutal senseless manner?
If it was very recent I would say some supportive things. But otherwise, I would show them that life still goes on, because the only way to end suffering is to accept the reality whichever way it is.
> But don't call it correct and don't force other people to feel bad when they choose another response.
Why not? Why is depression not a correct response? I don't think you know much about depression or psychology
Why not? Why is depression not a correct response? I don't think you know much about depression or psychology
Think it’s more likely that it’s normal and healthy for social animals to seek each other in times of stress. This casting of social survival behaviour (including seeking attention, which social animals need from each other their whole lives to feel happy and secure) as “manipulative” and “immature” “bullshit” seems very odd to me. Sounds like a coping mechanism for your expressions of emotion having, as you say, no effect on people around you. No one cares. So you play all the roles yourself - you comfort yourself, you be your own support network. That doesn’t sound like a normal or good situation though.
The socially normalized buried nose produces an interesting effect when passing by someone in a hallway or sidewalk - the deferred acknowledgement:
I rarely have my device out while walking in order to indicate that I am receptive to an approach. When I see an incoming buried nose, I assume they are too busy and keep my gaze past them as they are clearly not going to be available for a nod or pleasantry exchange.
The thing is, after the acknowledgement window has passed and we are closing proximity, I perephrially see them look up at me at the very last second before passing.
Not sure if it's just me misinterpreting social circumstances, or if there's a new standard of interaction that I need to figure out.
I rarely have my device out while walking in order to indicate that I am receptive to an approach. When I see an incoming buried nose, I assume they are too busy and keep my gaze past them as they are clearly not going to be available for a nod or pleasantry exchange.
The thing is, after the acknowledgement window has passed and we are closing proximity, I perephrially see them look up at me at the very last second before passing.
Not sure if it's just me misinterpreting social circumstances, or if there's a new standard of interaction that I need to figure out.
I don't think you are misinterpreting anything. I think those glances are part of survival instinct, assessing whether the moving object they registered out of the corner of their eyes (you), that is getting near them, is dangerous or if it can be safely ignored.
Perhaps experiencing solitude as something other than isolation is part of the learning process he was advising.
I think the difference between "alone" and "lonely" is usually clear and he is talking about being alone.
It's about CHOICE
Like so many things, when you have a choice partaking an experience is positive; or else you'd go do something else.
Voluntary is to Forced as Alone is to Lonely
Like so many things, when you have a choice partaking an experience is positive; or else you'd go do something else.
Voluntary is to Forced as Alone is to Lonely
Knowing how to be alone and being social is not a rigid dichotomy. I think it’s clear what Tarkovsky means: that there is immense value in self-discovery. I’ve heard similar sentiments from other great artists.
Grothendieck famously attributed his mathematical confidence to a long period of solitude in his youth where he independently recreated some major results.
The late Harold Bloom used to say that reading is ultimately a solitary endeavor—that its purpose is to learn to have a conversation with yourself.
However I think for reflective people there is a “danger” on the side of being too entangled in this conversation. Socialization can start to seem banal and unambitious in comparison. But I’ve found that this just suggests that you haven’t found people who aren’t in the habit of talking with themselves.
I find this story apropos: There was a screening at the Yale Humanities Center of Tarkovsky’s “Ivan’s Childhood” that my roommate wanted to take me to when we were undergrads. I only reluctantly agreed—it was freezing outside and I had been cooped up in my room wrestling with a statistical mechanics problem set. Frankly I didn’t feel like we got along. But my decision to go became the beginning of one of the deepest friendships I continue to have and my endlessly enriching relationship with film and literature.
Grothendieck famously attributed his mathematical confidence to a long period of solitude in his youth where he independently recreated some major results.
The late Harold Bloom used to say that reading is ultimately a solitary endeavor—that its purpose is to learn to have a conversation with yourself.
However I think for reflective people there is a “danger” on the side of being too entangled in this conversation. Socialization can start to seem banal and unambitious in comparison. But I’ve found that this just suggests that you haven’t found people who aren’t in the habit of talking with themselves.
I find this story apropos: There was a screening at the Yale Humanities Center of Tarkovsky’s “Ivan’s Childhood” that my roommate wanted to take me to when we were undergrads. I only reluctantly agreed—it was freezing outside and I had been cooped up in my room wrestling with a statistical mechanics problem set. Frankly I didn’t feel like we got along. But my decision to go became the beginning of one of the deepest friendships I continue to have and my endlessly enriching relationship with film and literature.
I spent a fair bit of time alone, and bored, while growing up (I was born in the late 70s, so this was primarily in the 80s). I felt it helped me to get comfortable with my own thoughts and to be able to think for myself.
It is of course difficult, on the basis of memory and introspection, to tell how much it helped in that regard.
I'm not saying that being alone will help someone get comfortable with their thoughts and be able to think for themselves. It just seems like it can be conducive to that.
It is of course difficult, on the basis of memory and introspection, to tell how much it helped in that regard.
I'm not saying that being alone will help someone get comfortable with their thoughts and be able to think for themselves. It just seems like it can be conducive to that.
> "Every person needs to learn from childhood how to spend time with oneself. That doesn’t mean he should be lonely, but that he shouldn’t grow bored with himself."
This is something that has helped me a lot. Some of the best creative ideas and stuff I came up as a young person were due to my spending this time on self-learning and trying to do something or the other. Learnt never to get bored just being with myself.
And to this day whenever I am alone, either I put myself in a learning/exploring/thinking mode; or I work on doing something creative/practical. There's no passive mode.
I think the key to not getting bored alone and spend this 'me time' in some meaningful way is to actively engage oneself instead of passively passing the time.
This is something that has helped me a lot. Some of the best creative ideas and stuff I came up as a young person were due to my spending this time on self-learning and trying to do something or the other. Learnt never to get bored just being with myself.
And to this day whenever I am alone, either I put myself in a learning/exploring/thinking mode; or I work on doing something creative/practical. There's no passive mode.
I think the key to not getting bored alone and spend this 'me time' in some meaningful way is to actively engage oneself instead of passively passing the time.
The problem with being very comfortable being alone is that there’s not actually a lot of opportunity for it once you have a family, then it’s quite stifling and builds frustration over time.
I guess like everything, healthy moderation is needed. But when you’re truly comfortable being alone for long periods of time it’s like opium- and I don’t mean that in a sardonic way; it’s addictive, peaceful, free and makes you start to resent lack of control.
At least in my single user experience.
I guess like everything, healthy moderation is needed. But when you’re truly comfortable being alone for long periods of time it’s like opium- and I don’t mean that in a sardonic way; it’s addictive, peaceful, free and makes you start to resent lack of control.
At least in my single user experience.
I find camping/hiking a good outlet
Yes, it can be stifling at times when you yearn to be alone and have other pressing/family needs.
I try to work out my priorities in time and 'am able to clearly communicate with my spouse and children that I need some time out to think/sort/do stuff. Luckily it works most of the time.
I try to work out my priorities in time and 'am able to clearly communicate with my spouse and children that I need some time out to think/sort/do stuff. Luckily it works most of the time.
One of my favorite effects of spending extended periods in solitude is how much more I appreciate being around people afterwards.
It's akin to how nice a hot shower feels after spending a week backpacking in the wilderness.
It's akin to how nice a hot shower feels after spending a week backpacking in the wilderness.
I can relate to this so much. Spending time alone feels like recharging my social battery. There is a weird contradiction I enjoy being around people, but at the same time long to be alone and enjoy the solitude. Now with kids, social obligations and a plethora of distractions these moments alone get fewer and fewer by the day.
Here is a poem by William Wordsworth that has always reminded me of what I thought Tarkovsky is trying to tell me ("The World is Too Much with Us"):
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45564/the-world-is-to...
(Copying and pasting multi-line text on HN is an exercise in horror.)
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45564/the-world-is-to...
(Copying and pasting multi-line text on HN is an exercise in horror.)
BTW:
Andrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky, Russian filmmaker, writer, and film theorist. (1932 – 1986)
The title about his message is from 2015, but he must have said that three decades earlier.
Andrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky, Russian filmmaker, writer, and film theorist. (1932 – 1986)
The title about his message is from 2015, but he must have said that three decades earlier.
[deleted]
Reminds me of a complementarity I sometimes see between being in society, which allows to share, collaborate, etc., and being in solitude, which allows to think, contemplate, etc., and of a south american indigenous tribe I forgot the name of, where the elders somehow transcend this opposition: for important deliberations, they gather in a dark hut and whisper their views, for those who speak not to be
identified, as if they formed a single mind.
I would appreciate if anyone could remind me the name of this tribe.
I would appreciate if anyone could remind me the name of this tribe.
I like Criswell's take on Tarkovsky - https://youtu.be/ak6rI-j07QU
With Stalker I turn to Fellini - I don't like the idea of "understanding" a film. I don't believe that rational understanding is an essential element in the reception of any work of art. Either a film has something to say to you or it hasn't. If you are moved by it, you don't need to have it explained to you. If not, no explanation can make you moved by it. That's why I don't think my films are misunderstood when they are accepted for different reasons. Every person has his own fund of experiences and emotions which he brings to bear on every new experience-whether it is to his view of a film or to a love affair; and it is simply the combination of the film with the reality already existing in each person which creates the final impression of unity. As I was saying, this is the way the spectator participates in the process of creation. This diversity of reaction doesn't mean that the objective reality of the film has been misunderstood. Anyway, there is no objective reality in my films, any more than there is in life.