flight, curajosnicie or courajealousy

In a recent (semi-)transatlantic flight, while reading the airline magazine, I stumbled upon a bit on courage and machismo, which contrasted sharply with Andre Gide’s preface to an Antoine de Saint-Exupery (you know, the guy who wrote Le Petit Prince) book I was also (re)-reading. Let me present it for you.

IMG_20130904_172224(Versiunea romaneasca pe Meta.) The weather was perfect above the clouds, which was great, because down on the ground it was raining like the piss of a boozer.

And there it was, in the pocket of the chair in front of me, the airline magazine and hidden within it, a two page story about the Sagas and Viking courage.

quasicrash

Before getting to the actual quote, I gotta tell you that I am still in convalescence after an early 2000s incident when I felt like my plane was crashing. I wouldn’t go as far as saying I’m a PTSD sufferer (really!), but although the plane recovered, my fragile psyche was left somewhat traumatized.

Back then, in a fully transatlantic flight, I was seated next to a dude who was reading “Why We Love Women” by Mircea Cartarescu. We started talking and I learned that he was a surgeon in LA. I told him about my dissatisfaction with the current state of medicine and much to my surprise, not only that he shared it (or was polite enough to pretend so), but he even taught me something new. He said that while other sciences, such as physics, progressed greatly, (i.e., from Newtonian physics, to Einstein’s theory of relativity, to quantum physics and string theory) and it’s all about energy, medicine still has a Newtonian view, rejecting any talk of energy, placebo effect or Oriental influences. He even recommended I read a book by another M.D., a book with a title I can no longer remember. And just as our conversation was heating up, the plane started falling down.

There was no warning, no red flag, no seatbelt sign, no prior turbulence. All of a sudden, on sunny skies, I felt we were in free fall. I looked down the isle, to the cockpit, in dead silence, much like everybody else in the plane, waiting for a sign, for a visual cue, anything, but nothing changed. And a few long seconds later, the plane seemed to recover. We were still above the clouds, but my heart was in my shoes, which were not on, but under the seat in front of me. We laughed about it, seconds later the seat belt lights lit up, then minutes later, an announcement that we were entering a zone of turbulence.

The worst part of it was the feeling that I was a prisoner of my own fate, that there was absolutely nothing I could do to improve my chances of survival should the plane crash. Yes, I knew where the emergence exits were, I knew what the best position to adopt was, I am a trained lifeguard and I pick seats closer to the front, where chances of survival are highest, but all this increases my survivability only slightly if the plane crashes in the middle of the ocean.

Since then, I tried to figure out what exactly has happened. I learned about the Microburst, but we were high in the sky. I also learned about a study claiming that global climate change due to increased carbon levels in the atmosphere will also increase turbulence frequency and severity published in April 2013 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Which is ironic, since aviation is proportionally one of the biggest sources of carbon dioxide emissions.

Using computer models of the atmospheric jet stream, the authors predicted the possible effects on the busy North Atlantic flight corridor, where some 600 commercial aircraft travel daily between Europe and North America.

The study revealed that the chances of aircraft encountering significant turbulence will increase between 40 percent and 170 percent. Meanwhile, the average intensity of turbulence will rise between 10 percent and 40 percent.

The study provided a grim look at the worsening flight conditions transatlantic passengers will have to face aside from the other inconveniences associated with long-distance air travel, like lost luggage and jet lag.

"Air turbulence does more than just interrupt the service of in-flight drinks," read a statement from lead study author Paul Williams, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Science, at the University of Reading. "It injures hundreds of passengers and aircrew every year -- sometimes fatally. It also causes delays and damage to planes."

"Flight paths may need to become more convoluted to avoid patches of turbulence that are stronger and more frequent, in which case journey times will lengthen and fuel consumption and emissions will increase," the authors wrote.

The study placed the total price tag of such disruptions at about £100 million ($150 million dollars) annually.

“Aviation is partly responsible for changing the climate in the first place. It is ironic that the climate looks set to exact its revenge by creating a more turbulent atmosphere for flying," Williams said.

Prior to this event I didn’t care much about the dangers of flying – at most, I was afraid of reacting violently to poor customer service. Apart from the vagaries of security theater, this new-found fear came on top of a certain tardiness propensity. I tried to temper it with some left-over protein bars I had become accustomed to during my previous long drives.

styrkur and hreysti with orange juice in the plane

heroism

So I’m still flying, but the thrill is somewhat gone, baby. I don’t look like I’m afraid, I don’t fidget, I usually read something calmly, detached and serene and I might even comfort people around me if the situation calls for it. But deep inside, I’m peeing my pants. I am fully aware of the total and complete helplessness of my situation and how much I am at the mercy of elements and entities completely outside my control.

So I was reading the airline magazine, when I stumbled upon this small paragraph, in a segment about the old Sagas.

brave and fearless Vikings

RG: I think most of the Viking females were [feminist], to be honest. One person we interviewed says the sagas are the Shakespeare for us, it’s our literature. We look at the Vikings as our heroes and are proud of them even though they were killing people and perhaps it’s a very strange kind of hero image.

MA: What qualities do you think they had that makes them heroes?

RG: They were brave and fearless. (…)

MA: Can you think of any misconceptions that people have about the sagas, things people think are true but aren’t?

RG: That’s probably true of about half of the sagas. The fight scenes, for example – it’s very unlikely they were all true. You read a fight scene and one guy wins against twenty.

MA: So, in reality it probably wasn’t like that?

RG: Probably not.

LE: I added links for the Sagas. Fore more, consider reading Guardian's review, listening to the BBC's debate, watching BBC's episode by Valdimar Vilhjalmsson, Monty Python's spoof entitled Njorl's Saga and Outlaw - an Icelandic movie filmed in 1981 based on the Saga of Gisli. Today, Iceland has the highest book output and consumption per capita.

And that got me thinking: is courage such an important trait, when it always involves some implicit posturing and acting? Isn’t courage stupid when you are not aware of the risks, and fake when you are fully conscious?

It so happened that one of the books I had with me had a preface written by Andre Gide, where he seemed to reflect my thoughts while quoting de Saint-Exupery.

It pleases me here to find that selfsame “dark sense” which inspired my Prometheus to his paradox: “Man I love not; I love that which devours him.” This is the mainspring of every act of heroism. “ ‘We behave,’ thought Riviere, ‘as if there were something of higher value than human life. …But what thing?’” And again: “There is perhaps something else, something more lasting, to be saved; and perhaps it was to save this part of man that Riviere was working.” A true saying.

book1In an age when the idea of heroism seems likely to quit the army, since manly virtues may play no part in those future wars whose horrors are fore-shadowed by our scientists, does not aviation provide the most admirable and worthy field for the display of prowess? What would otherwise be rashness ceases to be such when it is part and parcel of an allotted task. The pilot who is forever risking his life may well smile at the current meaning we give to “courage.” I trust that Saint Exupery will permit me to quote an old letter of his dating from the time when he was flying on the Casablanca-Dakar air-route. (..)

“I have just pulled off a little exploit; spent two days and nights with eleven Moors and a mechanic, salving a plane. Alarums and excursions, varied and impressive. I heard bullets whizzing over my head for the first time. So now I know how I behave under such conditions; much more calmly than the Moors. But I also came to understand something which had always puzzled me- why Plato (Aristotle?) places courage in the last degree of virtues. It’s a concoction of feelings that are not so very admirable. A touch of anger, a spice of vanity, a lot of obstinacy and a tawdry ‘sporting’ thrill. Above all, a stimulation of one’s physical energies, which, however, is oddly out of place. One just fold one’s arms, taking deep breaths, across one’s opened shirt. Rather a pleasant feeling. When it happens at night another feeling creeps into it-of having done something immensely silly. I shall never again admire a merely brave man.”

book2By way of epigraph I might append to this quotation an aphorism from Quinton’s book (which, however, I cannot commend without reserve). “A man keeps, like his love, his courage dark.” Or, better still: “Brave men hide their deeds as decent folk their alms. They disguise them or make excuses for them.”

Now, I plan to write about the main trip else where, soon. For now, let me tell you how I got to visit Boston. LE: Next article, actually.

In any event, I’m hardly the only one to ever suffer turbulence or decry increased security. Jonathan Goldstein does it better (or does he?).

6:05 p.m. In line for airport security, my thoughts are these: As a species, we’ve grown past nomadism. We are safe from danger within our homes. We know what we are going to eat for dinner and how it will affect our digestion. What’s the point of flushing all that evolution down the toilet?

7:20 p.m.  On the plane, I refute the world’s imagined rebuttals.

The world: Travel helps us get out of our comfort zone!
Me: I like my comfort zone. It’s comfortable and it smells like me.
The world: Travel reawakens us to the beauty of life!
Me: That’s what pills and poetry are for.
The world: Travel gives us a rush!
Me: That’s for adrenalin junkie feral cats sunbathing on the railroad tracks.

8:00 p.m. During turbulence, I ruminate. I am a ruiner. I ruin things. Especially my own experience. So indeed, why travel?

At the Grand Canyon, my own gloom was the black veil hanging before the sunrise. At Ayer’s Rock, the voice in my head constantly asked: Are you sure you left your passport in the hotel? Didn’t that chambermaid seem shifty? Is this the same tour bus you came on?

My ambivalence about travel probably began in childhood with our family’s summer road trips. For my father, there was always something that ruined each trip. A broken room thermostat. A sarcastic concierge. And the price of everything! Each purchase was an agony and an insult, and so to compensate — to fight back! — we would keep a quart of milk on the air conditioner overnight so we needn’t be robbed at the local diner in the morning. We’d spoon our sad corn flakes seated on the edge of the unmade bed, all in a row, my father repeating all the while, “I’m not so sure about this milk.”

And could we be sure of anything? That the effort was worth it? That we wouldn’t have all been better off — been happier — at home, in our own rooms, left to our own company?

9:00 p.m.  More turbulence. Couldn’t they have just Skyped me in?

And here's Boston, if you're curious.

Sources / More info: Icelandair Info, NightFlight@amazon.ca, cbc-co2, cbc-violenT, rt-co2, np-co2, wiki-micro, np-why

17 comments:

  1. Citat:

    "...I’ll tell you more about what happened in Paris..."

    Nu te mai osteni; băgăm noi seama unde bați - începând cu andrei jid ăla, marele filozof francez comunist pedofil.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This article is not about Gide, and he's mostly quoting de Saint-Exupery. Nonetheless, you're once again BS-ing and I'm gonna call u on it.

    He was a great French philosopher, you got that right and got the 1947 Nobel Prize for Literature. He repudiated communism after taking a trip in 1936 to Soviet Union - unlike other fuckers, I should add. He wrote a book on pederasty (which, again, is not just pedophilia but rather pedagogy + pedophilia) and had a child with a much younger woman who lived with him for most of his settled life, even after they stopped having sex.

    De altfel, pedophilie e peste tot (vezi si http://asa.zamo.ca/2009/02/canada-taramu-ma-sii-pedofilie-fraude.html ) - if it happens in Ontario, you no longer travel here?

    Methinx that you're just jealous on someone who achieved far more than you could ever achieve. And yeah, you might say communism is bad today, but back then it was something everyone placed their hopes in. Kinda like owning a Jeep for people who like to ride the realm of ideas (to use a comparison you're more apt to understand) :D

    ReplyDelete
  3. And @Blegoo, please don't transform this in another pedophilia debate - we already had it: http://asa.zamo.ca/2010/04/pentru-g-ponderea-homosexualilor.html and you still haven't realized the error of your ways :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Băi... dacă ejți bun la ceva... ejti la revizuirea istoriei și (re)interpretarea rezultatelor. Ar trebui să te faci pulitician, ceva gen.
    Ăla-i harticolu' unde te-ai făcut de băcănie susținând că în engleză "men" și "young men" e tot aia, fin'că de fapt înseamnă "males"?
    Mai răsfiră și tu, ce dreaq'... încearcă și cu "boys" și young boys" - că e de la NAMBLA citire...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Esti nitel pe invers cu intelegerea articolului (si ala, si asta) :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dacă nu-i despre Jid, de ce l-ai băgat la înaintare?
    Ca să mă ademenești pă mine?
    Cu cîrnați otrăviți franțozești? D-aia mai tinerei, mai proaspeți?

    Mare filozof... ce pla mea mare filozofie a produs el, filozofia curlangismului? Aia nu-i filozofie, aia-i propovăduire.

    Daaa... ce să zic... s-a dezis dă comunism după ce-a vizitat URSS și ăia nu i-au oferit ceva Volodea și Kolea mai proaspeți.
    Pedagogia folosirii găurii greșite, într-adevăr.

    Premiu Nobăl... ce să zic... micționez pă el; se dă la care e corect pulitic, ce dreaq', nu te ții la curent? Arafat, Obama, IPCC, Al Gore, Wangari Muta Maathai, Rigoberta... dacă nu s-ar da parale, ai zice că-s glume proaste.

    Mare contribuție la literatură... dac-ar fi s-o iau la bani mărunți, cine dreaq' evaluează "contribuția"? Alți pedofili?
    Și cum se "evalueză"? Pă bază dă câți cititori?

    Băi TATĂ! Rush Limbaugh e mai citit decât Jid... asta îl califică la premiu'?

    Jid e doar un furuncul trecător pă obrazu' pseudo-filozofiei... să-l numești "filozof" înseamnă să defechezi pă Zeno, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein...

    Ce să spun... a făcut un copil c-o fimeie... mare zmecherie! Tu nu realizezi ce ridiculos ești când avansezi un astfel de argument?
    Păiii... io știu țigani care-au făcut 4-7-10 puradei... așa, și?

    Singuru' tău punct valabil e că la vremea aia, comunismu' era o speranță a multora.

    Cum știm cu toții, speranța moare prima - c-așa-i în comunism!
    Cam ca la Kmer Rouge - altă producție filozofică dă sorginte franceză.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mai încearcă odată aia cu "men" și "young men" - ca să ne râdem nițel. Hai, cu copipeist, că se poate, să te autocitezi nu-i un păcat dă moarte dăcât în medii cacademice, alde dom/ profexxsor, ăia.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There's a major difference between the Nobel for Peace - a political enterprise - and the one for Literature - none of yr examples is with Lit. The prize is not based on the number of readers, though that might be one of the criteria. Read more on their website. :)


    I mentioned he had a child not as a counterargument, but in an attempt to understand where you came from with the accusation of pedophilia, which has not been leveled against him (and, again, it's not subject of this article).


    Your ideology blinds you, young Gide-y :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is Karl Rove's strategy: take your weak point, make it strong through a lie, then repeat it ad nauseam. Most people have short memories and no time to figure it out, so they'll remember your fallacy.


    Now, do you have anything to say re: the article, other than the fact that you don't allow Gide to quote St Exupery b/c he didn't find you attractive and as a result you're jealous? :D

    ReplyDelete
  10. My point is the same as always: you wanna write about sumthin' - fine, be it St Exupery, Andy Jid, homos, NAMBLA, your fear of flying on commercial airlines... whatever.
    Stick to the f•••ing subject, don't start speaking in tongues while shacking an Ouija board - you're not channelling anything but your own confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I made my point AND also used ample quotes in support. Why would that confuse you (or r u concerned that others get confused)?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Momentul în care ai scris că premiul Nobel de Literatură nu e influențat politic, la fel ca ăla de pace, e momentu' în care e cazu' să te ștergi de murdărie pă bărbie.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Camilo José Cela.
    Lauretu' pul... pardon, premiului Nobăl în '89, vreau să zic.
    Hai, spune c-ai citit ceva scris dă el?
    Hai, explică cum admiri declarația lui:

    "...boasted in a TVE interview with Mercedes Milá about his capability to absorb a litre of water via his anus, offering to demonstrate..."

    Hai, mai mult:
    "Cela's best known work, La colmena (The Hive) was published in 1951, featuring more than 300 characters and a style showing the influence of both Spanish realism (best exemplified by Miguel de Cervantes and Benito Pérez Galdós) and contemporary English and French-language authors, such as Joyce, Dos Passos, and Sartre. Cela's typical style—a sarcastic, often grotesque, form of realism—is exemplified in La colmena. It should be also noted that, as with some of his other works in this period, La Colmena was first published in Argentina, as Franco's Roman Catholic Church-affiliated government banned it because of the perceived immorality of its content."

    MuoamăăĂĂĂ...! Un fel dă Sadoveanu, să muară Fram, frigideru' comunist!
    Comportament identic - inclusiv pupat în cur de comuniști. Anti-religios, anti-guvern (dă dinafară, normal), tot tachîmu'.

    "...he wrote Cristo versus Arizona (Christ versus Arizona), which tells the story of the duel in the OK Corral in a single sentence that is more than a hundred pages long..."


    Impresionant...

    Și acest amator de absorbții dă apă prin cur, acest autor de "dicționar secret", această zdreanță deghizată în om... acceptă piz... pardon, premiu' nobîl dă literatură... fin'că - și citez:

    "...a rich and intensive prose, which with restrained compassion forms a challenging vision of man's vulnerability..."

    Clar premiu' Nobîl se dă pă merit.
    Cervantes?
    Cine-i ăla?

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Blegoo: you're making the same mistakes in several commentaries.


    1. Someone's personality / flaws are not a reason to ignore their work. Just like the fact that Van Gogh was odd and cut his own ear off does not make him a bad painter, neither is that dude who's able to absorb water in an unorthodox manner necessarily a bad writer. That information is superfluous.


    2. When I said the Nobel for Peace is political, as opposed to that for Literature, my point is that you attempted to nullify Gide's prize by examples of Nobel for Peace, which is a completely different, more political category. Sure, the Literature prizes are also debatable, no question about it, but they are less "political", in that the people who get them are less politicians than they are writers. You can call the decision "political" but it's not the same thing. Furthermore, offering the Peace prizes are counterexamples to the Literature one suggest you may not be familiar with the difference between them.


    3. You're dumping the list of controversies in a comment without properly disclosing the source and seemingly w/o realizing that most are not furthering your point.


    4. None of your points has anything to do with the article. You are simply going off a tangent, in an effort to bolster an initial erroneous comment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I responded in a separate comment. Really, it feels like all this time I tried to educate you and open your eyes, was wasted like orzul pe azor. You're still so far from debating.. :(

    ReplyDelete
  16. E aiurea să dezbați subiectul intitulat:
    "Premiu' Nobăl dă Literatură NU se dă pă criterii politice"
    Asta în condițiile în care am dovedit că "...SE DĂ PĂ CRITERII POLITICE!"
    Ce dreaq' bre, tu ne crezi tâmpiți doar dîn cauză că ești rezident dă vest?
    Tu chiar crezi că poți să ne prostești la genu':"Uite luna... uite marea... uite aia mea ca stâlpu' dă telegraf?"


    M-ai regulat cu filozofia lu' Jid.
    Am întrebat... care filozofie? Filozofia sulii'n gaura nepotrivită? Jid filozof?!? Ți-am dat exemple de FILOZOFI - oameni care chiar au avansat gândirea umană... comparat cu ei, Jid e o bubiță pă bărbie, o storci și dai cu spirt.


    Ai dat-o'n literatură...
    Am întrebat care literatură? Cea mai celebrată literatură a lu' Jid e ceva pedagogie de apărat ideea de pederastie, aka, homosexualitate.
    Ai citit ceva de Jid?
    (nu minți, că-ți crește nasu'...!)


    Ai prezentat premiu' Nobel ca o mare scofală.
    În realitate, e un kkat preaslăvit. Gen, Premiu' Stalin pentru realizări mărețe în ce vrem noi să zicem că e măreție.


    Am dat exemple de premii date aiurea.
    Ai zis că alea dă pace e politice, da' alea dă literatură nu-s.


    Ți-am exemplificat puliticizarea la premiu' dă literatură.
    Tu răspunzi că io nu dezbat, și că tu strici orzu' pă gâște.
    Oricine citește discuția concluzionează că nu ești onest, joci pă cinci tablouri și încerci să fușerezi topicul.


    Nici măcar n-ai decența curajului să răspunzi la punctele pe care le ridic, apropo de punctele tale.
    Doar pîrțîi dîn buze, cu superioritate.


    Regret, da' asta nu se contează ca notă dă trecere la bacaloriat, nici măcar la profesională dă seral, cu 3 clase.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That was nothing. THIS is turbulence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5FrIDwq-qE

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for commenting, but comments entered in this version may not appear.
Felicitări pentru decizia de a comenta! Orice comentariu este bine-venit :).
Din moment ce vezi acest mesaj, accesezi pagina printr-o metoda alternativa si este posibil sa comentezi neobservat(a). Metoda preferabila este prin pagina normala, care contine Disqus; odata inregistrat, acesta iti permite sa comentezi prin reply la email.
Dacă ai intrebări, există răspunsuri - FAQ.
Baftă!