Everybody likes fun. And fun, like anything, can be nuanced; not all fun is created equal.

But it wasn’t until June 2001, while bushwhacking through thickets of Alaskan devil’s club—home to hungry grizzly bears—that I learned of the Fun Scale. Fun, it turns out, is quantifiable.

The bushwhacking came about because my friend Peter had invited me to join him on a low-key outing: a boat ride across a gorgeous bay to climb a small, mellow mountain. It sounded like the perfect finish to my trip, as I’d spent the previous month climbing in the Alaska Range. My climbing partner, Scott, and I had had a terrific trip. Though we were often terrified while actually climbing, we loved it later.

I tried to keep up with Peter as branches whacked me in the face.

“You know that there are three types of fun,” Peter said, bushwacking onward.

“Hey, bear!” I responded. We were trying to return to his sailboat—home to a cooler of cold beers.

Peter kept going, and described the Fun Scale. Here it is:

Type I Fun

Type 1 fun is enjoyable while it’s happening. Also known as, simply, fun. Good food, 5.8 hand cracks. Sport climbing, powder skiing, margaritas.

Type II Fun

Type 2 fun is miserable while it’s happening, but fun in retrospect. It usually begins with the best intentions, and then things get carried away. Riding your bicycle across the country. Doing an ultramarathon. Working out till you puke, and, usually, ice and alpine climbing. Also surely familiar to mothers, at least during childbirth and the dreaded teenage years.

I remember that very trip to Alaska, just a week before learning about the Fun Scale, when Scott and I climbed Mt. Huntington. Huntington might be the most beautiful mountain in the Alaska Range, but the final thousand feet was horrifying—steep sugar snow that collapsed beneath our feet as we battled upward, unable to down-climb, and unable to find protection or anchors. On the summit, with the immaculate expanse of the range unfolding in every direction, Scott turned to me and said, in complete seriousness, “I want my mom so bad right now.”

By the time we reached Talkeetna his tune changed: “Ya know, that wasn’t so bad. What should we try next year?”

Type III Fun

Type 3 fun is not fun at all. Not even in retrospect. Afterward, you think, “What in the hell was I doing? If I ever come up with another idea that stupid, somebody slap some sense into me.” Many alpine climbs. Failed relationships that lacked Type I fun. Offwidths. Writing a book.

Into which category a given experience falls, of course, is highly subjective and highly subject to shifts (particularly from III to II) born of the rosy reflections afforded us by the passage of time.

Which is probably a good thing. After all, as alpinists and mothers both know: It doesn’t have to be “fun” to be fun.

Voir aussi The Fun Scale | Kelly Cordes

Décidément, un rien vous habille !

Petit éloge de la nudité

Si j’apprécie le fait de nager ou de faire un sauna tout nu, le naturisme ne m’avait jamais réellement attiré. Sans juger ceux qui le pratiquaient, je considérais que ce n’était tout simplement pas pour moi.

Jusqu’au jour où un couple d’amis est parti vivre à l’étranger. Depuis trente ans, ils passent toutes leurs vacances dans un centre naturiste. Ils nous ont invités à les rejoindre une semaine.

J’ai tout d’abord rechigné. Mes plus bas instincts patriarcaux, dont j’ignorais jusqu’à l’existence, se sont rebellés à l’idée que mon épouse soit nue au milieu d’étrangers. Mais elle a argué que nous n’aurions plus beaucoup d’opportunités de revoir nos amis, que je n’étais pas obligé de l’accompagner, que ce n’était que quelques jours, qu’au pire, cela ferait une expérience intéressante.

J’ai opposé un mâle refus catégorique. C’est ainsi que, quelques mois plus tard, nous avons débarqué en famille avec armes et (trop de) bagages au sein d’un gigantesque complexe naturiste.

La première chose qui m’a rassuré fut de constater que beaucoup de gens étaient bel et bien habillés. Si la nudité est obligatoire à la plage et à la piscine, le reste du camp est entièrement libre.

Force est de constater que, durant les premières heures, mon regard fut irrémédiablement attiré par ces corps nus marchant, faisant du mini-golf, du vélo ou de la pétanque. Mon esprit y voyait quelque chose d’anormal, de choquant. Moi-même, je ne me déshabillais que pour accéder à la plage.

Et puis, bien plus rapidement que tout ce que j’avais pu imaginer, mon sentiment de normalité a basculé. Ces jeunes, ces vieux, ces vieilles, ces hommes, ces femmes, ces enfants, ces ados, ces gros·ses, ces maigres. Tou·te·s sont devenu un brouillard couleur chair bronzée dans lequel je me mouvais sans avoir à faire attention à ma propre apparence, à l’image que je véhiculais.

Une nudité normale, respectueuse et déconnectée

Depuis les zones de campings de tentes Décathlon aux larges chalets devant lesquels sont garées des Tesla flambant neuves, le camp naturiste fédère un panaché de catégories sociales. Pourtant, une fois dégagées de l’incontournable apparat des vêtements, les classes ne se distinguent plus. Une sensation d’égalité se dégage.

Très vite, mon propre corps m’est apparu comme parfaitement normal, banal. Ni le plus gros, ni le plus maigre, ni le plus musclé, ni le plus malingre. J’ai acquis la conviction particulièrement reposante qu’il n’intéressait personne. Ce fait est particulièrement important pour les femmes habituées à être reluquées. Mon épouse m’a confié l’étonnant sentiment de confiance de se sentir nue sur la plage avec un respect naturel des hommes. Car, dans un camp naturiste, un homme indélicat ne va pas s’attarder sur un corps comme il peut le faire en temps normal sur un décolleté ou un string. Les corps nus sont la normalité.

Il faut avouer que cette ambiance respectueuse est rendue possible par l’organisation d’une sécurité impressionnante. De jeunes jobistes patrouillent en permanence. Tout comportement indélicat est immédiatement sanctionné et, en cas de récidive, peut mener à l’exclusion.

La liberté de la nudité n’est pas simplement psychologique. Elle est également matérielle. Mon épouse et moi-même avons découvert que nous avions prévu beaucoup trop de linge pour la semaine. Pas de linge, pas de lessive, pas d’usure, pas de besoin de renouveler une garde-robe. Outre l’égalité, la nudité offre une contre-mesure incroyable au consumérisme.

Nous qui ne supportons pas le tabac, nous avons également rarement été aussi peu dérangés par la cigarette. Si certains fument, ils m’ont semblé moins nombreux que dans les endroits que je fréquente habituellement. Philosophiquement, le refus du tabac et le l’alcool font partie des fondements historiques du naturisme. Il est d’ailleurs interdit de fumer sur l’île naturiste du Levant, dans le Var.

Une règle évidente d’un camp naturiste est l’interdiction de prendre des photos sur lesquelles peuvent apparaitre d’autres membres. Cela semble logique, mais cela a un impact profond : l’immense majorité des vacanciers se déplace sans smartphone. Sans poche, c’est d’ailleurs peu pratique. À quelques rares exceptions près, je n’ai vu personne rivé sur son écran durant toutes la semaine. En croisant des bandes d’adolescents qui se retrouvaient ou se déplaçaient, je fus plus frappé par la disparition totale des smartphones que par l’absence de vêtements.

En les voyant faire du surf ou des concours de poirier, la nudité souriante de ces corps élancés m’est apparue comme une métaphore de la déconnexion.

La contre-sexualisation de la nudité

L’une de mes craintes inconscientes avant de pratiquer le naturisme était certainement l’aspect sexuel. Je ne supporte ni le voyeurisme ni l’exhibitionnisme et j’avais peur de me retrouver au milieu d’une population pratiquant une forme douce des deux.

Je m’étais totalement fourvoyé.

Ce n’est pas la nudité qui sexualise. C’est nous qui sexualisons la nudité en la cachant, en la rendant honteuse.

Nous avons tellement peur que nos enfants soient confrontés à la violence de la pornographie en ligne que nous en oublions que c’est l’une des seules occasions durant laquelle ils seront confrontés à la nudité. Le corps est alors irrémédiablement associé au sexe, à la violence, à l’humiliation.

L’hyper sexualisation de la nudité est poussée à l’extrême par les religions qui cherchent à camoufler le corps des femmes. Mais, d’une manière générale, toutes les religions monothéistes rejettent violemment la nudité. En cachant le corps, on génère artificiellement la honte et la violence. On transforme le corps en marchandise tout en soumettant l’esprit aux dictats religieux.

À l’inverse, l’ostentation si prisée par le consumérisme est également délétère. Sur tout le séjour, une seule personne m’a négativement impactée. Une femme sur la plage qui, bien que nue, portait de lourds bracelets aux poignets et aux chevilles, un collier, des lunettes de soleil de marque, un chapeau compliqué. Marchant avec des sandales aux talons surélevés, elle fumait de longues et très fines cigarettes. Il m’a fallu quelques secondes avant de comprendre pourquoi j’avais été choqué. Contrairement aux milliers d’autres naturistes, cette personne mettait sa nudité en scène. Elle perpétuait, probablement sans en être conscient, le jeu capitaliste de la marchandisation des corps. Le fait qu’elle ait été la seule de tout mon séjour à fumer sur la plage n’est probablement pas anodin.

La maladie de l’anti-nudité

Le souvenir d’un ancien voisin m’est un jour revenu. Il y a quelques années, cet homme, avec qui j’échangeais jusque là de simples « Bonjour », avait commencé à m’injurier en hurlant, en me traitant de malade mental. Il m’avait fallu de longues minutes de palabres pour comprendre qu’il m’avait un jour vu nu dans mon jardin.

Il faut reconnaitre que lorsqu’il faisait nuit noire, persuadé que personne ne pouvait me voir, j’allais parfois me plonger nu dans le bac d’eau qui nous sert de piscine.

Mes explications et excuses n’ont en rien atténué sa colère. Le simple fait que je puisse être nu chez moi m’avait transformé définitivement en monstre abject mentalement dérangé.

Ma brève expérience du naturisme m’a permis de me rendre compte à quel point ce rejet de la nudité est une maladie. Car nous sommes tous nus sous nos vêtements. Nous avons tous un corps. Il n’y a rien de plus naturel que la nudité. Que ce voisin soit entré dans une colère aussi noire pour un événement aussi anodin en dit long sur sa propre haine inconsciente du corps humain.

En rejetant et sexualisant la nudité, nous traumatisons le regard de nos enfants sur leur propre corps, nous générons artificiellement de la violence, de la souffrance, de la honte.

À toutes les personnes qui sont complexées vis-à-vis de leur propre corps, je ne peux que conseiller de passer quelques jours dans un camp naturiste.

Cela demande du courage, c’est réellement étrange. Ce n’est certainement pas pour tout le monde.

Mais c’est un avant-goût d’une liberté que nous avons trop souvent camouflée. C’est un remède contre la marchandisation et la bigoterie qui étouffent nos corps et nos esprits.

Être nu, c’est une lettre d’amour à la vie, à l’humanité. Nues, les personnes sont belles. En se croisant au détour d’une promenade, leurs regards se disent :

« Vous êtes beaux, vous êtes belles ! Décidément, un rien vous habille ! »

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life.

If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent — which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society — at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

“It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others...” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no”, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and put as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles — which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

I'm not talking about paperback romance novels or the YA equivalents, like Twilight, because that makes sense to me -- those are written only with women readers in mind. I'm talking about examples like the Jim and Pam storyline in The Office. Watching something like that unfold can be so exciting for me, and I doubt that it's the same for guys. But maybe it is. But if not, why not?

I'm asking this question just as much to see if guys actually do enjoy a well-written love story as to understand why they don't, if that's the case.

To generalize for the purpose of an easy answer, let's think in stereotypically gendered terms. When it comes to love, men have an active role while women have a passive one.

What are the implications of this? It means that what a woman feels as the ups and downs, the mystery, the unknown, the excitement, etc., all things that define "blossoming" love, are things that happen to her. She is passive, she is the recipient. Her agency is contained in her response to these things.

But for a man, anything that makes "love" progress (or regress) pretty much directly stems from one of his actions. He does something or initiates and a woman responds/reciprocates. Because he does not have the gendered luxury of taking a backseat or passive role and watching things happen (if he does, nothing will; the woman will lose interest), he begins, by necessity, to view love as the cause and effect relationship that it more accurately is in reality (he does something, woman responds).

Seeing something like this takes a ton of the "magic" out of it. Compare it to seeing the sun rise every day. It becomes a lot less mystical, exciting, and dramatic when you know exactly why it happens and can simply see it for the cause and effect relationship that it truly is... you may even begin to take it for granted.

This is why romance eventually becomes well... unromantic for men. Romance is not a phenomenon, but instead a verb; it's a series of actions carried out by a man to earn a woman's affections... it's labor.

So when women or their SO makes romantic gestures to men, do they like it? Do men that were heavily pursued by women feel this way? What would be some good romantic gestures for men they would appreciate?

I wonder if this is true in same sex male couples too. Does one do the work over the other? Do they view romance the same or different?

Your answer is fantastic but it raises so many other questions

So when women or their SO makes romantic gestures to men, do they like it?

You're a little bit off the mark—you're actually describing an inversion of the gendered roles here (i.e. the woman is an active contributor while the man is a passive recipient or responder). While a man will appreciate such a gesture, it's not quite what composes the male romantic fantasy (more on this later).

Do men that were heavily pursued by women feel this way?

Men who aren't used to being pursued are usually confused or thrown off by the reversal of gendered roles. The result is the prevailing idea that men do not respond well to being approached first by women or even the autobiographical accounts from men describing instances where they couldn't respond well even if they were attracted to the woman approaching them. This is the men being shocked out of the traditional "script" of romance.

Secondly, when you talk about women pursuing men, that usually happens in a markedly different fashion than the way in which men pursue women (hint: it's more passive). A woman "aggressively" pursuing a man looks more like said woman going to extensive lengths to make it clear that she is available for pursuit rather than actively pursuing; the man is still usually leading things forward in some manner by handling the logistics of this romance. This is where you get those autobiographical stories from men about missing signals; "aggressive" pursuit from women is (usually) a set of passive signals that are clear to men who are experienced, but unclear to men not used to being "pursued."

I wonder if this is true in same sex male couples too.

I do too. I talk with a homosexual friend about stuff like this a lot, maybe I'll bring it up next time I see him.

The Male Romantic Fantasy

I'd say that men usually feel most loved when this normal state of affairs is negated; when they are made to believe that a woman's love is not conditional in the cause-and-effect manner described in the parent post. Love is work for men, but it can be rewarding work when things are going smoothly and the woman is happy as a result. But the male romantic fantasy is to be shown that the woman feels the same way and stands by him when he's down on his luck, when the money's not there, or when he's not feeling confident. He wants to know that the love he believes he's earned will stay even when the actions that feed it wane (however temporarily). A good woman can often lift a man up in his times of need and desperation and weather the storm even when things aren't going well. The male romantic fantasy is an enduring and unconditional love that seems to defy this relationship of labor and reward. A man wants to be loved for who he is, not for what he does in order to be loved.

An interesting way to examine this is to look at what women often call romantic entitlement. An entitled guy is a dude who maintains an unrealistic notion of men's typically active role in love. Before acknowledging reality, this boy uncompromisingly believes that he shouldn't have to do anything or change anything about himself to earn a woman's love; he wants to be loved for who he is, not what he does.

All men secretly want this, but there comes a day when they eventually compromise out of necessity. After that day, they may spend years honing themselves, working, shaping themselves into the men they believe women want to be chosen by. A massive part of what causes boys to "grow up" is the realization that being loved requires hard work. This impetus begins a journey where a boy grows into a man by gaining strength, knowledge, resources, and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world might harden and change him into a person his boyhood self wouldn't recognize. He might adopt viewpoints he doesn't agree with, transgress his personal boundaries, or commit acts he previously thought himself incapable of. But ultimately, the goal is to feel as if his work is done.

When he can finally let go of the crank he continually turns day after day in order to earn love and, even if only for a moment, it turns by itself to nourish him in return, that is when he will know he is loved.

Maintaining a free software project is spending years of your life to solve a problem that would have taken several hours or even days without the software.

Which is, joke aside, an incredible contribution to the common good.

The time saved is multiplied by the number of users and quickly compound. They are saving time without the need to exchange their own time.

Free software offers free time, free life extension to many human living now and maybe in the future.

Instead of contributing to the economy, free software developers contribute to humanity. To the global progress.

Free software is about making our short lifetimes a common good instead of an economical product.

1. Est-ce vraiment nécessaire ?
2. Quels sont les risques ?
3. Est-ce qu'il existe d'autres options ?
4. Que se passera-t-il si je ne fais rien ?

Pour réfléchir un peu sur notre place dans l'univers

On dirait que je suis libéral en lisant ça

Un article intéressant sur les étapes pour devenir un Maître.

So true

CLIMB THAT GODDAMN MOUNTAIN
Because in the end, you won't remember the time you spent working in the office or mowing your lawn.

The best things in life aren't things

Tellement vrai. Il est temps de se séparer de certaines choses.

Inspirant. Tout n'est pas encore perdu :)

Collect moments. Not things.

Finalement ce poème n'est pas de Pablo Neruda mais de Martha Medeiros

Il meurt lentement
celui qui ne voyage pas,
celui qui ne lit pas,
celui qui n’écoute pas de musique,
celui qui ne sait pas trouver grâce à ses yeux.

Il meurt lentement
celui qui détruit son amour-propre,
celui qui ne se laisse jamais aider.

Il meurt lentement
celui qui devient esclave de l’habitude
refaisant tous les jours les mêmes chemins,
celui qui ne change jamais de repère,
Ne se risque jamais à changer la couleur de ses vêtements
Ou qui ne parle jamais à un inconnu.

Il meurt lentement
celui qui évite la passion et son tourbillon d’émotions
celles qui redonnent la lumière dans les yeux
et réparent les coeurs blessés

Il meurt lentement
celui qui ne change pas de cap
lorsqu’il est malheureux au travail ou en amour,
celui qui ne prend pas de risques pour réaliser ses rêves,
celui qui, pas une seule fois dans sa vie,
n’a fui les conseils sensés.

Vis maintenant !
Risque-toi aujourd’hui !
Agis tout de suite !
Ne te laisse pas mourir lentement !
Ne te prive pas d’être heureux !

Martha Medeiros

This weekend, I enjoyed reading Andrew Bisharat’s blog post called “The Games We Play.” Among other things, it talks about risk—in climbing, in more mundane activities like driving, and in life.

Andrew’s perspective on luck resonated with me. “It’s sometimes hard to know whether it’s working against you or actually on your side,” he writes, and then gives a series of examples to make his point. One in particular, about his alpinist friend’s knee injury potentially keeping him from a dangerous season in the mountains, read like a contemporary version of the old Chinese folk tale about a farmer and his horse…

One day, the horse escaped into the hills and when the farmer’s neighbors sympathized with the old man over his bad luck, the farmer replied, ‘Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?’ A week later, the horse returned with a herd of horses from the hills, and the neighbors congratulated the farmer on his good luck. His reply was, ‘Good luck? Bad luck? Who knows?’

Then, when the farmer’s son was attempting to tame one of the wild horses he fell off its back and broke his leg. Everyone thought that was bad luck. Not the farmer, whose only reaction was, ‘Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?’

Some weeks later, the army marched into the village and conscripted every able-bodied youth they found. When they saw the farmer’s son with his broken leg, they let him off…

Which of these events was lucky and which was unlucky? It’s impossible to tell at the time and a waste of psychic energy to worry about it much. We create our own burdens when we curse and celebrate every event through which we pass.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try hard. Work is critical—hard work doubly so—but there’s no need to see it as a burden. Instead it’s a privilege that we might try to perfect ourselves and work through the challenges life presents us.

Another example: In the late 90s, a dedicated climber named Josh was injured and had to sit out a season bouldering in the Gunks. It was an important moment for climbing in the area, relatively speaking, and Josh wouldn’t get to be a part of it. Bad luck, of course! But then Josh picked up a camera and made a video about his friends bouldering in the Gunks. The video was called Big UP, and it was the first step in what has become a very accomplished career behind the lens.

“One dream may hide another,” wrote the poet Kenneth Koch. When he was in full health, Josh’s dream of climbing might well have hidden the dream of telling climbing stories through video—a related but very different dream. His pain and injury uncovered this other dream, which perhaps was the more significant of the two.

It’s something to keep in mind the next time your project is chewing you up and spitting you off. Forego the wailing wobbler and instead consider falling as a sign that the climb still has something valuable to teach you. Therefore, the most appropriate response is to smile—because you have this chance to improve, because you’re climbing, because you’re alive at all, damnit!

Without fail, life will throw the kitchen sink at every one of us—how we see this and respond is what creates the “good” and the “bad” of it. On the one hand, this means we have much less control over our lives than we might think. On the other, we have much more control over ourselves than we care to admit.

Now is this good luck or bad luck?

Consommation ou création : c'est votre choix