Lately I've been following the renowned Polish poet Szymborska on the net, and happened to come across this article the other day. It was her Nobel Lecture delivered on Dec 10, 1996, a speech packed with thorough observations and thoughts with no shortage of wisdom, humor and feminine sensitivity. She is the living legend in my eye, a true cool-headed creature that is so rare to be found on this planet. Enjoy!
=====================================
The Poet and the World
by Wislawa Szymborska, Polish Poet/Nobel Literature Prize 1996
They say the first sentence in any speech is always the hardest. Well, that one's behind me, anyway. But I have a feeling that the sentences to come - the third, the sixth, the tenth, and so on, up to the final line - will be just as hard, since I'm supposed to talk about poetry. I've said very little on the subject, next to nothing, in fact. And whenever I have said anything, I've always had the sneaking suspicion that I'm not very good at it. This is why my lecture will be rather short. All imperfection is easier to tolerate if served up in small doses.
Contemporary poets are skeptical and suspicious even, or perhaps especially, about themselves. They publicly confess to being poets only reluctantly, as if they were a little ashamed of it. But in our clamorous times it's much easier to acknowledge your faults, at least if they're attractively packaged, than to recognize your own merits, since these are hidden deeper and you never quite believe in them yourself ... When filling in questionnaires or chatting with strangers, that is, when they can't avoid revealing their profession, poets prefer to use the general term "writer" or replace "poet" with the name of whatever job they do in addition to writing. Bureaucrats and bus passengers respond with a touch of incredulity and alarm when they find out that they're dealing with a poet. I suppose philosophers may meet with a similar reaction. Still, they're in a better position, since as often as not they can embellish their calling with some kind of scholarly title. Professor of philosophy - now that sounds much more respectable.
But there are no professors of poetry. This would mean, after all, that poetry is an occupation requiring specialized study, regular examinations, theoretical articles with bibliographies and footnotes attached, and finally, ceremoniously conferred diplomas. And this would mean, in turn, that it's not enough to cover pages with even the most exquisite poems in order to become a poet. The crucial element is some slip of paper bearing an official stamp. Let us recall that the pride of Russian poetry, the future Nobel Laureate Joseph Brodsky was once sentenced to internal exile precisely on such grounds. They called him "a parasite," because he lacked official certification granting him the right to be a poet ...
Several years ago, I had the honor and pleasure of meeting Brodsky in person. And I noticed that, of all the poets I've known, he was the only one who enjoyed calling himself a poet. He pronounced the word without inhibitions. Just the opposite - he spoke it with defiant freedom. It seems to me that this must have been because he recalled the brutal humiliations he had experienced in his youth.
In more fortunate countries, where human dignity isn't assaulted so readily, poets yearn, of course, to be published, read, and understood, but they do little, if anything, to set themselves above the common herd and the daily grind. And yet it wasn't so long ago, in this century's first decades, that poets strove to shock us with their extravagant dress and eccentric behavior. But all this was merely for the sake of public display. The moment always came when poets had to close the doors behind them, strip off their mantles, fripperies, and other poetic paraphernalia, and confront - silently, patiently awaiting their own selves - the still white sheet of paper. For this is finally what really counts.
It's not accidental that film biographies of great scientists and artists are produced in droves. The more ambitious directors seek to reproduce convincingly the creative process that led to important scientific discoveries or the emergence of a masterpiece. And one can depict certain kinds of scientific labor with some success. Laboratories, sundry instruments, elaborate machinery brought to life: such scenes may hold the audience's interest for a while. And those moments of uncertainty - will the experiment, conducted for the thousandth time with some tiny modification, finally yield the desired result? - can be quite dramatic. Films about painters can be spectacular, as they go about recreating every stage of a famous painting's evolution, from the first penciled line to the final brushstroke. Music swells in films about composers: the first bars of the melody that rings in the musician's ears finally emerge as a mature work in symphonic form. Of course this is all quite naive and doesn't explain the strange mental state popularly known as inspiration, but at least there's something to look at and listen to.
But poets are the worst. Their work is hopelessly unphotogenic. Someone sits at a table or lies on a sofa while staring motionless at a wall or ceiling. Once in a while this person writes down seven lines only to cross out one of them fifteen minutes later, and then another hour passes, during which nothing happens ... Who could stand to watch this kind of thing?
I've mentioned inspiration. Contemporary poets answer evasively when asked what it is, and if it actually exists. It's not that they've never known the blessing of this inner impulse. It's just not easy to explain something to someone else that you don't understand yourself.
When I'm asked about this on occasion, I hedge the question too. But my answer is this: inspiration is not the exclusive privilege of poets or artists generally. There is, has been, and will always be a certain group of people whom inspiration visits. It's made up of all those who've consciously chosen their calling and do their job with love and imagination. It may include doctors, teachers, gardeners - and I could list a hundred more professions. Their work becomes one continuous adventure as long as they manage to keep discovering new challenges in it. Difficulties and setbacks never quell their curiosity. A swarm of new questions emerges from every problem they solve. Whatever inspiration is, it's born from a continuous "I don't know."
There aren't many such people. Most of the earth's inhabitants work to get by. They work because they have to. They didn't pick this or that kind of job out of passion; the circumstances of their lives did the choosing for them. Loveless work, boring work, work valued only because others haven't got even that much, however loveless and boring - this is one of the harshest human miseries. And there's no sign that coming centuries will produce any changes for the better as far as this goes.
And so, though I may deny poets their monopoly on inspiration, I still place them in a select group of Fortune's darlings.
At this point, though, certain doubts may arise in my audience. All sorts of torturers, dictators, fanatics, and demagogues struggling for power by way of a few loudly shouted slogans also enjoy their jobs, and they too perform their duties with inventive fervor. Well, yes, but they "know." They know, and whatever they know is enough for them once and for all. They don't want to find out about anything else, since that might diminish their arguments' force. And any knowledge that doesn't lead to new questions quickly dies out: it fails to maintain the temperature required for sustaining life. In the most extreme cases, cases well known from ancient and modern history, it even poses a lethal threat to society.
This is why I value that little phrase "I don't know" so highly. It's small, but it flies on mighty wings. It expands our lives to include the spaces within us as well as those outer expanses in which our tiny Earth hangs suspended. If Isaac Newton had never said to himself "I don't know," the apples in his little orchard might have dropped to the ground like hailstones and at best he would have stooped to pick them up and gobble them with gusto. Had my compatriot Marie Sklodowska-Curie never said to herself "I don't know", she probably would have wound up teaching chemistry at some private high school for young ladies from good families, and would have ended her days performing this otherwise perfectly respectable job. But she kept on saying "I don't know," and these words led her, not just once but twice, to Stockholm, where restless, questing spirits are occasionally rewarded with the Nobel Prize.
Poets, if they're genuine, must also keep repeating "I don't know." Each poem marks an effort to answer this statement, but as soon as the final period hits the page, the poet begins to hesitate, starts to realize that this particular answer was pure makeshift that's absolutely inadequate to boot. So the poets keep on trying, and sooner or later the consecutive results of their self-dissatisfaction are clipped together with a giant paperclip by literary historians and called their "oeuvre" ...
I sometimes dream of situations that can't possibly come true. I audaciously imagine, for example, that I get a chance to chat with the Ecclesiastes, the author of that moving lament on the vanity of all human endeavors. I would bow very deeply before him, because he is, after all, one of the greatest poets, for me at least. That done, I would grab his hand. "'There's nothing new under the sun': that's what you wrote, Ecclesiastes. But you yourself were born new under the sun. And the poem you created is also new under the sun, since no one wrote it down before you. And all your readers are also new under the sun, since those who lived before you couldn't read your poem. And that cypress that you're sitting under hasn't been growing since the dawn of time. It came into being by way of another cypress similar to yours, but not exactly the same. And Ecclesiastes, I'd also like to ask you what new thing under the sun you're planning to work on now? A further supplement to the thoughts you've already expressed? Or maybe you're tempted to contradict some of them now? In your earlier work you mentioned joy - so what if it's fleeting? So maybe your new-under-the-sun poem will be about joy? Have you taken notes yet, do you have drafts? I doubt you'll say, 'I've written everything down, I've got nothing left to add.' There's no poet in the world who can say this, least of all a great poet like yourself."
The world - whatever we might think when terrified by its vastness and our own impotence, or embittered by its indifference to individual suffering, of people, animals, and perhaps even plants, for why are we so sure that plants feel no pain; whatever we might think of its expanses pierced by the rays of stars surrounded by planets we've just begun to discover, planets already dead? still dead? we just don't know; whatever we might think of this measureless theater to which we've got reserved tickets, but tickets whose lifespan is laughably short, bounded as it is by two arbitrary dates; whatever else we might think of this world - it is astonishing.
But "astonishing" is an epithet concealing a logical trap. We're astonished, after all, by things that deviate from some well-known and universally acknowledged norm, from an obviousness we've grown accustomed to. Now the point is, there is no such obvious world. Our astonishment exists per se and isn't based on comparison with something else.
Granted, in daily speech, where we don't stop to consider every word, we all use phrases like "the ordinary world," "ordinary life," "the ordinary course of events" ... But in the language of poetry, where every word is weighed, nothing is usual or normal. Not a single stone and not a single cloud above it. Not a single day and not a single night after it. And above all, not a single existence, not anyone's existence in this world.
It looks like poets will always have their work cut out for them.
- posted on 08/30/2007
inspiration is really much important,but most of us have lost it and even we cannot finish a short daily dairy.
disagree with the praise for "i donot know".
in modern time,overdevelopment has been an ailment that cannot be cured,so all the humankind should slow the step of all findings.
i donot think all improvement or development is necessary.
for the poets in cafe,
show great respect for benben ,mengran,xw and others who have taken kindness and elegancy here.:)
- posted on 08/30/2007
qinggang wrote:
disagree with the praise for "i donot know".
翻过一本教育心理学的书,记得一点,说教师的主要任务并不是传授知识,而是挑战学生现有的知识结构。每个人都有一个自圆其说的知识结构,文盲、教授、小孩儿、诗人都一样。一个人如果没有意识到自身知识结构的缺陷,不可能学习任何新知识。教师的责任就是去挑战学生的知识结构,一旦教师能够成功的让学生意识到“I don't know”,教师的任务就基本完成了。学生在这个状态下,学习任何知识都不难,不需要老师也能完成。
我们这些没有老师督着的,只有靠自己努力让自己知道“I don't know ”。
show great respect for benben ,mengran,xw and others who have taken kindness and elegancy here.:)
Where is benben? - posted on 08/30/2007
qinggang wrote:
disagree with the praise for "i donot know".
in modern time,overdevelopment has been an ailment that cannot be cured,so all the humankind should slow the step of all findings.
i donot think all improvement or development is necessary.
Qinggang, if you ever ask me, is this "I don't know" a valid and healthy statement at all? My sincere answer to you is, I don't know ;))
However if you read this very thought within the context, I guess her seemingly dismissive expression "I don't know" is actually overcome by her admiration for the tenacious human inquisitiveness, such as that of Newton, Curie and the like. As far as the notion of overdevelopment goes, I don't think we can effectively challenge that without a rightful and desirable distribution in place first. I toyed with my thought in another posting some time earlier, that the real trouble we face nowadays is not about production but distribution among all inhabitants on earth. Ironically sad, isn't it?
- posted on 08/30/2007
WOA wrote:
Qinggang, if you ever ask me, is this "I don't know" a valid and healthy statement at all? My sincere answer to you is, I don't know ;))
However if you read this very thought within the context, I guess her seemingly dismissive expression "I don't know" is actually overcome by her admiration for the tenacious human inquisitiveness, such as that of Newton, Curie and the like. As far as the notion of overdevelopment goes, I don't think we can effectively challenge that without a rightful and desirable distribution in place first. I toyed with my thought in another posting some time earlier, that the real trouble we face nowadays is not about production but distribution among all inhabitants on earth. Ironically sad, isn't it?
thanks a lot.
i am also very happy of your getting what i wrote.:)
my perspective is much more concerned about ecological environment .if we pay more attention to "i do not know" ,we will ask more for the globe,but now we have already been overdeveloped.
so,i like Laozi's discription very much of "small country and fewer population".i know it is somewhat romantic.:)
have to bed ,maybe my wife is in anger .:)
0:00 now.
- posted on 08/30/2007
WOA wrote:
I toyed with my thought in another posting some time earlier, that the real trouble we face nowadays is not about production but distribution among all inhabitants on earth. Ironically sad, isn't it?
Somebody might have realized the problem a bit earlier than you do. The guy who founded eBay, Pierre Omidyar, not only shares your idea, he actually took into action to create "the perfect market". Unfortunately his dream faded as he steped back from eBay daily management.
Maybe it's your turn now :) - posted on 08/30/2007
qinggang wrote:
disagree with the praise for "i donot know".
in modern time,overdevelopment has been an ailment that cannot be cured,so all the humankind should slow the step of all findings.
i donot think all improvement or development is necessary.
qinggang, I have to disagree with you on this one. The over-development and environmental damage you referred to did not stem from the attitude "I don't know". Quite to the contrary, they were done precisely because we thought that "we knew", even though in reality "we didn't" and "we still don't". :)
Even though she used two scientific examples to qualify the statement, it is not just about scientific exploration. She then followed it with imagined conversation between poets, but it is not even just about poets either. I think she was really talking about the poetic attitude toward life, which every one of us is capable of possessing.
- posted on 08/30/2007
well said,cannot agree more.
翻过一本教育心理学的书,记得一点,说教师的主要任务并不是传授知识,而是挑战学生现有的知识结构。每个人都有一个自圆其说的知识结构,文盲、教授、小孩儿、诗人都一样。一个人如果没有意识到自身知识结构的缺陷,不可能学习任何新知识。教师的责任就是去挑战学生的知识结构,一旦教师能够成功的让学生意识到“I don't know”,教师的任务就基本完成了。学生在这个状态下,学习任何知识都不难,不需要老师也能完成。
我们这些没有老师督着的,只有靠自己努力让自己知道“I don't know ”。 - posted on 08/30/2007
浮生 wrote:
qinggang wrote:qinggang, I have to disagree with you on this one. The over-development and environmental damage you referred to did not stem from the attitude "I don't know". Quite to the contrary, they were done precisely because we thought that "we knew", even though in reality "we didn't" and "we still don't". :)
disagree with the praise for "i donot know".
in modern time,overdevelopment has been an ailment that cannot be cured,so all the humankind should slow the step of all findings.
i donot think all improvement or development is necessary.
Well said. It's always a good altitude to keep an open mind, explore what I don't know, and turn them into "I know", and keep going. The moment we claim "I know it all" or "I don't want to know", we are shutting the door to things "I don't know", and we are forssilating ourselves.
Also, I am amused by the following:
"Contemporary poets are skeptical and suspicious even, or perhaps especially, about themselves. They publicly confess to being poets only reluctantly, as if they were a little ashamed of it. But in our clamorous times it's much easier to acknowledge your faults, at least if they're attractively packaged, than to recognize your own merits, since these are hidden deeper and you never quite believe in them yourself ... "
- posted on 08/31/2007
我上周在《南方都市报》上读了一篇丁先生的文章,是说盖茨成立一个基金,资助培养乡下图书管理员学习网络技术的。
后来我就琢磨,总感觉盖茨这事儿不见得是好事儿。当然,盖茨背后可能有推销其产品的战略,这个就不说了。
我的意思是,全球目前都陷入了无序的竞争和发展模式之中,其实我觉得从20世纪初那个时候开始,人类就已经进入了发展的极限。但是20世纪以后,发展全部提速,于是环境遭殃。
科学家求发明发现是个体行为,但由此导致全世界技术进步双刃剑的负面作用就越来越大,人类想知道的东西越来越多,地球便受难越多。
打个探险的比方,我也总觉得地球上有些地方大家都不应该去,比如南、北极,留点儿神秘有什么不好,事实上却是,人类为了满足自己的私欲"i donot know,so i want to know",不但地球,连外空也都开始了竞争。
社会发展快了,人也成了机器,一天到晚都被迫加速运转,就为了多赚几个钱,最后都拼命制造产品和垃圾。
发展慢一些有什么不好?都过过宁静的生活有什么不好?网络到了哪里,哪里也就不再安宁。 - posted on 08/31/2007
qinggang wrote:
人类为了满足自己的私欲"i donot know,so i want to know",不但地球,连外空也都开始了竞争。
qinggang, again, I disagree. “I want to know" is not 私欲; it is curiosity. 私欲 or greed is "I want.", see the difference? :) You're mixing up exploration and exploitation here I think. Even though the two sometimes go hand-in-hand as exemplified by some of the earlier colonists, they stem from very different causes and have different consequences. Even if you snuff out all the curiosities in the world, even if nobody wants to know anything anymore, I can guarantee you that the greed will not recede a single bit and the exploitation will still carry on in full speed, and perhaps with worse outcomes. Please lay the blame where it belongs. - posted on 08/31/2007
行人 wrote:
Somebody might have realized the problem a bit earlier than you do. The guy who founded eBay, Pierre Omidyar, not only shares your idea, he actually took into action to create "the perfect market". Unfortunately his dream faded as he steped back from eBay daily management.
Maybe it's your turn now :)
Perhaps the word I was really trying to say is “allocation” rather than “distribution” in a more general sense. eBay only appears to be the next-generation capitalist enterprise, that they may kick butts a few non-value added middle layers, but will never be in the interest to solve the ill-balanced worldwide resource allocation to begin with.
If I had had a choice, Che II would be my turn:))
- posted on 09/01/2007
浮生 wrote:
qinggang, again, I disagree. “I want to know" is not 私欲; it is curiosity. 私欲 or greed is "I want.", see the difference? :) You're mixing up exploration and exploitation here I think. Even though the two sometimes go hand-in-hand as exemplified by some of the earlier colonists, they stem from very different causes and have different consequences. Even if you snuff out all the curiosities in the world, even if nobody wants to know anything anymore, I can guarantee you that the greed will not recede a single bit and the exploitation will still carry on in full speed, and perhaps with worse outcomes. Please lay the blame where it belongs.
浮生等有空儿我跟你到一起掰扯掰扯。:)
我带头儿给老瓦的帖子弄跑题了。 - Re: ZT 诺贝尔获奖致词:The Poet and the Worldposted on 09/01/2007
WOA wrote:
If I had had a choice, Che II would be my turn:))
老切哇,你要是要通讯员的话,我也去。:) - posted on 09/01/2007
qinggang wrote:
我上周在《南方都市报》上读了一篇丁先生的文章,是说盖茨成立一个基金,资助培养乡下图书管理员学习网络技术的。
后来我就琢磨,总感觉盖茨这事儿不见得是好事儿。当然,盖茨背后可能有推销其产品的战略,这个就不说了。
我的意思是,全球目前都陷入了无序的竞争和发展模式之中,其实我觉得从20世纪初那个时候开始,人类就已经进入了发展的极限。但是20世纪以后,发展全部提速,于是环境遭殃。
科学家求发明发现是个体行为,但由此导致全世界技术进步双刃剑的负面作用就越来越大,人类想知道的东西越来越多,地球便受难越多。
打个探险的比方,我也总觉得地球上有些地方大家都不应该去,比如南、北极,留点儿神秘有什么不好,事实上却是,人类为了满足自己的私欲"i donot know,so i want to know",不但地球,连外空也都开始了竞争。
社会发展快了,人也成了机器,一天到晚都被迫加速运转,就为了多赚几个钱,最后都拼命制造产品和垃圾。
发展慢一些有什么不好?都过过宁静的生活有什么不好?网络到了哪里,哪里也就不再安宁。
基本上是同意人类应当缓慢发展的观点。我也觉得这个世界进入了拼命制造垃圾的状态。
但是具体到给基层图书馆传播网络技术,还是应当做的。已经不能做到生来人人平等了,尽量做到信息面前人人平等还是有好处的吧。
不安宁是世界发展不均匀造成的,不是网络本身的错。网络让人把这种不均匀看得更清楚,加剧不均匀的效果,或许也能帮助缓和这种不均匀。
最近跟着孩子看了一点圣经连环画,感觉上帝这个词,指的就是新生命中向善的一种力量。无论在哪种环境里,年轻的一代人,总有向善的追求的。多给他们一些资源,就算是多一些希望吧。(咬着牙,不让悲观心情占上风)。 - posted on 09/01/2007
WOA wrote:
行人 wrote:Perhaps the word I was really trying to say is “allocation” rather than “distribution” in a more general sense. eBay only appears to be the next-generation capitalist enterprise, that they may kick butts a few non-value added middle layers, but will never be in the interest to solve the ill-balanced worldwide resource allocation to begin with.
Somebody might have realized the problem a bit earlier than you do. The guy who founded eBay, Pierre Omidyar, not only shares your idea, he actually took into action to create "the perfect market". Unfortunately his dream faded as he steped back from eBay daily management.
Maybe it's your turn now :)
If I had had a choice, Che II would be my turn:))
Pierre Omidyar is an idealist himself. He had big dream about eBay. We all view today's eBay a great success, but I suspect Omidyar had a slightly different opinion. He then made the same decision as EL Che did, left the kingdom he helped to built.
Many businessmen are idealists with greart dreams. Their ambitions may sometimes surprise the most daring politician. PayPal had an agenda to replace the payment system of this world. Which indicates to retire money. And make all governments and banks irrelevant. - posted on 09/03/2007
在网上找辛波斯卡,全部冒出来一堆她的《一见钟情》翻译稿,其实我读了感觉很一般,远不如这首来得睿智深邃(国人时下的诗歌品位比较浮躁,略见一斑):
VIEW WITH A GRAIN OF SAND
Szymborska 1986
We call it a grain of sand,
but it calls itself neither grain nor sand.
It does just fine without a name,
whether general, paritucular,
permanent, passing,
incorrect, or apt.
Our glance, our touch mean nothing to it.
It doesn't feel itself seen and touched.
And that it fell on the windowsill
is our only experience, not its.
For it, it is no different from falling on anything else
with no assurance tht it has finished falling
or that it is falling still.
The window has a wonderful view of a lake,
but the view doesn't view itself
It exists in this world
colorless, shapeless,
soundless, odorless, and painless.
The lake's floor exists floorlessly,
and its shore exists shorelessly.
Its water feels itself neither wet nor dry
and its waves to themselves are neither singular nor plural.
They splash deaf to their own noise
on pebbles neither large nor small.
And all this beneath the sky by nature skyless
in wich the sun sets without setting at all
and hides without hiding behind and unminding cloud
The wind ruffles it, its only reason being
that it blows.
A second passes.
A second second.
A third.
But they're three seconds only for us.
Time has passed like a courier with urgent news.
But that's just our simile.
the character i invented, his haste is make-believe.
His news inhuman.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation