back

home

further

Editorial : 1, 2, 3, 4

Distances


In a tri-dimensional world, wherein speed is reduced to Newtonian mechanics, the distance is automatically quantified in hardly negligible temporal units. The message is therefore artificially or forcedly submitted to a generalized deformation, which has to consider the possibility of changing the initial data along the route to the addressee. This deformation gives the false impression of profound thinking, in the same way the lack of a comparison term leads to the impression of grandeur. The superficial criticism of fast communication means – especially the Internet – is accrediting a certain depth of the missives sent by horseback travelers, which is constantly denied to those for whom the time becomes superfluous.

It is important to be noticed that, along with the disappearance of the temporal as a dimension of the transmission, the communication changes its structure, trying to reduce the ballast of the formulas and meanwhile to ask for certain spontaneity from the participants. This structural modification is also a modality to minimize the necessary time for the essential of the topic to reach the other side. Between two persons, the distance does no longer play any part, nor do the spatial-temporal units, nor the precious formulas, which are sometimes lacking content, other times hiding real horrors under a cadency slightly modified.

The profoundness of an idea is not given by the difficulty to transcript it or by the time needed to reach Rome from Gaule. Nobody is taking account of the ineptness; regardless their source and regardless the length of the route, a resourceless individual will never be able of anything else but a bunch of banalities dressed-up in stereotipal formulas. The confusion between modality and essence is insulting and – keep that in mind! – it lacks the most banal report to history. Socrates wrote nothing. What has been transmitted throughout the intermedium of Plato is only that agora state of spirit whereby the profoundness lies in the dialog and it is the result of a long practice. The questions giving you the possibility of knowing yourself better, the truth expressed in terms every time more and more precisely defined, the spontaneity of the sharpened reply are only few of the modalities that make the orality the supreme way of understanding, of revelation of the other. I do not deny the part played by the letters, when no direct contact is possible, but to write a polite letter to a neighbor is just a rude form of not talking to him or it is a snobbism trying in vain to reach the immortality.

The historians might complain about the lack of direct sources and the stylists about the disappearance of epistle’s arabesque, the superficial people about ruining the postal services but we may find an excuse for each of them, in support for the communication released of the temporal factor. The distance, as a notion in communications, substantially modifies the essence in the cart between the opinions of one who is talking and his listeners. Nobody stands against that " take ur time" that gives the peace of a verbal exchange. There is no obligation to line up signs just in order to delimitate a presence, a useless one sometimes. Does not anyone consider the possibility of raising the adrenaline throughout the so-called temporal distance?

Based upon the presumption that very few of us will leave a mark in history, it is to be seen what is more important: to leave something for the manuals of the future where to be mentioned merely as a name or to be a factor to determine something in …?

Dan Iancu

back

home

further