Dear PINK’s
Zury Asse (Mexico 1967) jest filozofem, artystą i komikiem. “Życie na różowo” to krótki essej, który napisał specjanie dla PND! w 2005. Wersja oryginalna po hiszpańsku, tłumacznie na angielski autor, wersja polska MG. Polecam spotkanie z niesfornym a błyskotliwym umysłem. ////// Zury Asse (Mexico1967) es filosofo, artista y comediante. Acá les va su corto ensayo el cual escribió especialmente para PND! en 2005. La traducción inglesa por autor, versión polaca MG. Disfruten sus pensamientos – necios, brillantes y honestos. ////// Zury Asse (Mexico 1967) is philosopher, artist and stand up comedian. Here goes his short essay written for PND! in 2005. Original text comes in Spanish. English translation by author himself, polish version by me. Enjoy the naughty and sparkly mind:)
Version espanola abajo / Tłumacznie poniżej.
PINK NOT DEAD!
maurycy
Living in Pink
“You’re seeing life through rose colored glasses?” is how you could warn a person who pretends to be too happy or is too optimistic. Someone naive who refuses to accept that there should also be pain, grays, blues, greens, (even yellows) in this world; and wants only Pink in her life. The phrase also leaves implicit that Pink is the sweetest and most agreeable of all colors (which is by itself quite an accomplishment (how did that happen?))
One might ask, however, why is that yearning so reprehensible?
1. Because it’s impossible and you might feel frustrated
2. Because it’s irresponsible towards other people
3. Because you loose the richness from the other colors
3. I took an Ecstasy pill yesterday with my wife and we went to a spa pool with nice warm water. Everything was so delicious, so perfect; we felt 110% fulfilled and there was no need or desire for anything else not present. I gave her continuous kisses while carrying her through the water, hugging her tightly. Then she would carry me and kiss me. Then, holding my breath, sank my head in the water (I had goggles) and searched for the cosmos, finding it.
At that moment, it was clear there was really no need for the other colors, for the other sensations, for pain. I wouldn’t loose anything valuable or important without them (nothing was really important!). Today, now sober, I still agree with all that, and so I say: not 3.
2. “Having a lot of pleasure is irresponsible” that’s something nobody says but everybody knows. “We have to be kept informed, there’s just so much trouble in the world” and if we can’t fix it (we can’t) at least we can suffer. Besides, one should always be ready to sacrifice himself for the ‘common good’ (which happens to always benefit the control system of the moment: nation, religion, family, etc.)
With experience however, we discover gradually that strangely enough, the happier one is, the better he is for others. More egoistic (well understood) ends up being more altruistic. It’s a curious quality of the cosmos. Therefore: not 2.
1. Its just impossible to live in a Pink world all the time. I’m afraid this one is true, or at least it’s not easy at all (I can’t). The fulfillment of Ecstasy fades, and the voids and shadows come back. Therefore, I say: yes 1.
Nevertheless…
If, albeit impossible (thus far), it is desirable (mmh, would you take a 100 years lasting Ecstasy pill?), then we may ask if it becomes more feasible, if we get closer to it, by seeking it, or by not seeking it. Pretending or conforming.
Let’s see. To pretend it, there are 3 possibilities:
a. Improve the world
b. Look at it better
c. By doing b, we get a (see point 2 above)
How do we manage b then (since c and therefore a depend on it)?
After the spa strolls, I took a relaxation massage with Montse. She was a bit sad because of her father?s recent death. I asked her what her personal death theory was. She didn’t know what to say, and didn’t seem to appreciate how would that help. That’s how I got to explain her my Ontological Voluntarism theory, or How to see the world Pink.
Parallel to the experience of living, there is a virtual space we carry on through life. A sort of spiritual, moral and cultural celestial vault, over which scenery, we develop our future projections and take our decisions. In this space we find gods, myths, heroes, stories, norms, sayings, fears, shames, likes, dislikes, prejudices, etc. It is continually changing, but an official normative structure always remains.
To replace this inherited vault, it is necessary to creatively develop your own personal virtual ontology, inhabited exclusively by good entities working for your own benefit. There’s no need to invent everything, of course, one can adopt other people’s ideas as long as they’re convenient.
The first step is to understand (postmodernly) that Truth doesn’t really exist. That in reality there are multiple realities. That the substance of the cosmos is infinitely complex and flexible, and ultimately nothing, the void. An ontological void that, unless it is filled by oneself, it will be filled by the mediocre, common, default ontology we inherited.
Besides, even if Truth does exist, it would have to be the best one (a deficient Truth just doesn’t make sense); and the best, we know already, is the Pink one.
In my current personal ontology, for instance, the world is Pink. From the passionate red of the Devil, always inebriated and inviting everyone to exotic sexual games, to the tranquil white of the Gods (one God alone felt too lonely), always seeking to improve the cosmos so I would like it better and be happier. Life loves me more every time. After death, something even better awaits us. I don’t yet believe in it 100%, but every-time more and more.
By believing (an active verb which takes time and discipline) in it, it becomes real, not just for me, but for the cosmos. In this cosmos, everyone has its own cosmos, and that doesn’t create any contradiction. Its just the way its architecture is. Just as there is gravity and diversity, there is also the very fortunate but scarcely profited possibility of Ontological Voluntarism, which says (I say (the cosmos says)): If You Want to, What You Want, Is.
Tomorrow I went to the optics store and bought myself a pair of new glasses. In this store you can choose the precise shade you want for your glasses. I asked for Double Pink. With them I will see the world more homogeneous, less contrasted, but, if I manage to notice how pretty it is, What do I need contrasts for? Why would I need the whole if I feel wholer with the part, and the part is infinite? I laid down on the green grass and watched the sky and the clouds in a wide range of beautiful tones of Pink. Give me your hand my love. Thank you.
Zury Asse, Barcelona 2005