Quinoa med tomat, basilika och lök
Kikärtsbiffar med vitlök, koriander, spiskummin och chili
Turkisk yoghurt


  1. oraklet på gatan

    Novalis’ whole works are based upon an idea of education: ”We are on a mission: we are called upon to educate the earth.” It has to be made clear that everything is in a continual process. It is the same with humanity, which forever strives towards and tries to recreate a new Golden Age – a paradisical Age of harmony between man and nature that was assumed to have existed in earlier times. This Age was recounted by Plato, Plotinus, and Franz Hemsterhuis – the latter being an extremely important figure for the German Romantics. Now, you did know that, didn’t you?

  2. Well, yes, I am aware that the romantic poetry of Novalis did have such grand prospects as a key source of self-generated inspiration (to stay in line with the fragments of, say, Schlegel for example …). Though having studied these [romantics], I do not very much agree with their ideals. On the other hand this might not be of any interest to you, but I don’t want you to get any unnecessary expectations on a further discussion of the topic.
    However, I have a couple of questions regarding completely different matters:
    What does Novalis and German Romanticism have to do with my blog and what I eat for dinner?
    And why are we suddenly conversing in English, instead of Spanish, or Swedish? Of course I’d prefer staying with English, since my Spanish, as we have all noticed by now, is not very good. But I ask just out of curiosity …

  3. Well, to stick to the subject, you must have noticed while studying the romantics that they do not have any ideals, their ideals are in a stream like the waterfall.

    No, I’m just joking. Sorry for the Harlequin influenced metaphor. I will answer your questions in due time.

    And that time is now.

    Or why not now? Answer: nothing. because i’m truly born and bred in a world where english is the dominating language. Me too. Never mind.

  4. Actually, they do have a certain amount of ideals if you look closely enough, but since you said you’re joking I won’t take this any further.

    English is indeed the dominating language in this world, but then, why Spanish, and why Swedish?
    I’d actually have to say never mind myself …

  5. No go on I’m listening. Which ideals? What I mean is that they do not have any ideals like the classic literature had for instance Homer. Their so called ”ideals” are in a constant movement and always in a stir, a progression, from point to point. Well, of course you can say there is a certain pattern for the romantic style, like a vivid language, mixing different styles, revealing the inner emotions from the nature (the pandeism principle) and so on.

    English sure. Spanish becaus it’s the third biggest language in the world and Swedish because you are writing you bloque in this spoken word from the north. Congrats.

  6. Yes, perhaps ”ideal” is not the right word … But the whole atmosphere evolving from embracing everything Realism does not, being ecstatically spiritual (emotional etc.), extremely optimistic and so on. While optimism and great emotion (be it joy or pity) might not seem bad from the Western (traditional and modern) point of view, it can be devastating to practically everything if it does not match reality … So, basically, since I’m kind of a realist, and since Romanticism is not, I ”disagree” with it.

  7. oraklet på stranden

    Very well then. I can see your point, but then everything written is more or less a ”romantisized” reality. Actually, this ”reality” you are talking about cannot be described or depicted in a work of art, because the reality isn’t a objective unit. Everything created is coloured by the artist’s state of mind, emotions and so on, and if you say that the purpose of art is to reproduce a piece of reality you should know it is something the realism movement as a reaction to the romanticism cannot achieve, it’s something no man can achieve. There is something in human’s nature; the human is a storyteller-and as such, a romantic. I agree that the romantics in the 19th century could be a little exaggerating in their artistic design (Goethe’s Werther for instance), but unlike the realism, they do not display their works as a impeccable depiction of reality. Don’t you think?

    If you would like to see it from a philosophical aspect, that is. As literary movements i think they both have their great works and their poorer works, but still they have both played a significant and invaluable part of the progression of the literature and the society.

  8. I never even mentioned art. In my opinion the purpose of art is to be art, and the purpose of reality is to be reality.
    I agree that no one depiction can ever be the same as reality, and that is not what I meant by Realism. By Realism I meant that a work of art for example, is never more than just a work of art. Likewise all depictions remain being nothing more than just depictions. These are of course also part of reality, but then again never more than just a part. I think this belief is contrary to that of Romanticism, where concepts like ”soul”, ”value” and ”meaning” (etc.) are of great importance. I don’t believe in any of these as a part of anything other than the actual ”value” or ”meaning” of reality, which is really all there is. You could also call this the ”soul” of reality or even ”God” if you’d like, but what words to use is actually beside the point. Romantics revere these empty concepts as real, claiming they miraculously exist whithin (which is subsequently the same as apart from in these cases, ironically) everything. How could this be? How could anything be separated from everything without ceasing to exist? This is the part of Romanticism I think is unintelligible.
    But the things you made a point of above are in fact quite true.

    As for the last part, I don’t believe in progression or regression of society (or anything else either for that matter). I ”believe” in society and reality of the present moment. You cannot rely on your memories for the past reality (which does not even exist anymore), and you cannot rely on speculations for the future reality (which does not yet exist). All that can ever be real must be real at the present moment.

  9. heta oraklet på gröten

    I find you have made up your own definitions about Romanticism and Realism. You must have known that they in the first place actually are cultural movements (as arts, music, literature), the second one an actual reactionary movement to the first. You are wrong if you think that the Realism movement is a philosophiical ideology or something that doesn’t put any value in anything and therefore is nearer the ”objective truth” than the Romanticism that puts high value in certain ”subjective” concepts. Who decides what’s subjective or objective? Believing in ”soul” may be the objective truth for some. You can’t say that the romantics are more objective than the realism followers. That’s the point i was trying to make. When you write ”Romantics revere these empty concepts as real”, you have already made an ”subjective” statement. And nothing wrong with that, on the contrary, for a human being it’s an inevitable condition.

    I do not agree with you on the other point either. Don’t you think you can learn from the past? One can say the present is the result of the past, and the future is a result of the present. They are constantly connected, and without learning from the past you can make your mistakes again and again. You have to take responsible for your actings, because they will affect the future. They actually are the CAUSE of the future conditions. I hope you see my point. Then of course I agree with you that the present should take a bigger part of the life of the modern bussinessman, and -woman, they are positively to stressed up about the future and the past.

  10. You’re the one making things up. I have never even written about the reactionary movement of Realism, nor do I claim it to be a philosophical ideology. The Realism I’m adressing is the realistic philosophy of Buddhism, mind you. I’m sorry, I hardly know anything about the Realism you’re writing about, but I know it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
    You’re also the one who brought up ”objective” and ”subjective”. I haven’t mentioned those two words at all during this discussion of ours. Please stop jumping to conclusions before you’ve even read my comment thoroughly. Both subjectivity and objectivity coexist all the time, in reality at the present moment. In fact, they are intertwined so closely that it is probably impossible to at all make sure whether the concepts are real or not. They go beyond words, so to speak. To be honest, that’s one of the things I can fully agree with in Romanticism. As you’re pointing out, there is really no point at all in trying to decide what is objective and what is subjective. I have never opposed or even questioned it.
    Also, I don’t think you understand what I mean with emptiness. It is a key concept in Buddhism. It means that everything is just what it is; a concept is just a concept, nothing more. So what I meant is that romantics revere concepts as something else than just concepts, which is something I can’t understand. And I agree with you, my statement is subjective, and it is an inevitable part of human nature to be subjective. I can’t see why you think I look at these things in a different way than you do …

    Again you’re making things up and jump to conclusions. I never said anything about learning, the rule of cause and effect and so on … It is actually starting to become quite annoying that you assume I say certain things when I’m actually not at all doing that. I do believe in the rule of cause and effect, and most certainly the future is a ”result” of the present (if we should stick to regarding time as something linear). You do have to take responsability for your actions – at the present moment. It is only here and now you can really do something. Though you sure can learn from the past, there is nothing to be done about neither the past nor the future. Only now is the time to act, and so only now is what is actually reality. So, I see your point.
    And so, we agree completely on most of what we’ve discussed this far!
    Why is it that you’ve made up your mind that it is not so?

  11. heta oraklet på gröten

    Firstly I brought up the Novalis and the German romanticism, so it went in to Realism. I took it for granted that it was the cultural movements we were talking about because Novalis and the German romanticism is a vivid part of that, and the Realism movement would be the logical continuation of that discourse. Why are you comparing a cultural movement as Romanticism that must be put in its own proportions as a part of a cultural progression throughout the western literature/music/etc, with a religious/philosophical branch of buddhism that you coincidencially call ”realism”. I think it’s a little bit like comparing an apple with a banana. HOWEVER- we give our consent to each other and that’s where the problems are being solved. As to the future-past-present-part, of course you can’t change what’s happened and of course you have to act in the present. That’s quite obvious. You write ”Though you sure can learn from the past, there is nothing to be done about neither the past nor the future”. Nothing can be done about the past, because that is somthing set. BUT you can change the part the past are taking, the meaning the past are playing, in a bigger whole- the role it’s playing in the history. And as to the future, i think many things can be done about it, and I think you agree with it.

    Yes, and Buddhism is very fascinating indeed. I hope you have time to write a little more about it, because I’m so curious I can’t wait! :)

  12. First of all it actually bugs me that you started writing about Novalis and his works, completely out of the blue, in a comment to my dinner. But that’s how it went, so we can’t do anything about that now.
    And no, I don’t think we were talking about the cultural movements in general at all. We were just talking about Romanticism, which I said I did not agree completely with. You asked me why, and I answered you. And so we misunderstood each other’s views on the word ”realism”. Quite simple, in my opinion.
    However, now you suddenly claim that I ”compared Romanticism with a branch of Buddhism”. It is true that I did so when making clear how my opinions contrasted with Romanticism, but it was never an intention of mine to compare the two philosophies per se in order to find similarities and differences or whatever … That is in fact yet another thing you’ve brought up yourself.
    If you by ”coincidencially” meant ”by coincidence”, I must inform you that it was not a coincedence at all. The philosophy of Buddhism is in fact synonymous with the philosophy of reality – or realism (though not the Western cultural movement). If you on the other hand meant ”coincidently”, you are absolutely right. Buddhism and realism are indeed coincident. Consider that a writing of mine on Buddhism, to still your curiosity.

    Yes, it is obvious that you cannot change the past nor the future. That was the point I was trying to make. So, why are you all of a sudden bringing up ”the part the past is taking”? It makes no sense to me, and I have no interest in distorting the importance of the past and its role it’s playing in history, falsely making it proportionally bigger than anything else in ”time”. I never intended to reflect upon something like that when writing about the existence of progression/regression, and reality at the present moment. Wouldn’t you also find it rather troublesome to discuss practically anything with someone who creates his own images of what he thinks the other person says and thinks, to the extent that it becomes contrary to what it originally was. Please – it just feels so unnecessary having to keep the discussion from going off on completely random tangents all the time.
    Finally, I do not agree with the assumption that anything can be done about the future in a real sense. The future will always remain just the future – which by definition is time in a distance which has not yet become the present. This is very logical, since the future can never exist at the same time as the present. So, if anything can be done about anything, it must be here and now, and in no place, time or whatsoever else.

  13. Hermann Heilner

    We really do not understand each other. But that’s okay. Well well well.

  14. Yes, that is what I like the most about discussions like this – that they become quite pointless and subsequently end.
    It is very okay. I’m glad we can both see that.

  15. Hermann Heilner

    I think you should listen to this to cool your nerves. It’s really a piece of amazing music by a amazing composer, talking about the romanticism. Played by one of the biggest.

  16. Ah, No. 3 is a classic! Though, I actually like No. 2 better, for no particular reason. But Horowitz does a great job on this one nevertheless.

    By the way, is the ”Hermann Heilner”-thing a reference to the fictional character in Hermann Hesse’s ”Beneath the Wheel”?
    I like his ”Siddhartha” very much. A great piece of literature.

  17. tintomara

    I think no 3 is the best piano concerto ever written, better than tchaikovskij and grieg together. And since you’re into rachmaninoff anyways you should listen to the french pianist helene grimaud’s interpretations of the preludes. awfully Nice

  18. Ah, yes. Her interpretations of the preludes are certainly worth listening to. Thank you.

  19. Hermann Heilner

    Hallå Alef, tycker inte du att skolsystemet är jävligt byråkratiskt och oflexibelt ibland?

  20. Jo, verkligen. Men dagens kapitalistiska samhälle har inte tid för liberalistiskt flum utan måste prioritera massproduktionen av ”högutbildade”, arbetsdugliga, effektiva och framförallt hjärntvättade människor att tjäna marknaden och den allt vidrigare värld vi lever i.

  21. tintomara

    Ibland? ALLTID

  22. hey hazlenut make a comment

    du alef ibland undrar jag om skolan är gjord för eleverna. Du vet strindberg skrev att skolan är som en station och individen som ett tåg som står vid samma station i tre år och puttrar och släpper ut sin kolångor i luften och förresten så gör arvid falk sig rolig över novalis i röda rummet men egentligen tycker jag och niklas ungefär detsamma bara att han tycker att man ska vara i skolan för att få kunskap jag tror man måste vara utanför skolan mvh viola bao havrevägen fem ett nio två sex nio sollentuna

  23. Ja du Viola, det undrar jag också. Jag tror att man inte bara kan förvänta sig att få ut något vettigt av skolan utan att själv anstränga sig lite. Det är trots allt inte skolan som trycker i eleverna en massa kunskap, utan eleverna som själva får kunskap med hjälp av skolan.
    Bra skrivet av Strindberg där, men jag tror att det ändå kan vara bra att stanna upp vid stationer då och då, för att vädra lite och hinna släppa på och av folk som ska med. Men det är nog inte speciellt bra att stanna i skolan så länge som Niklas verkar vilja göra. Det finns ju ett liv utanför skolan också, vilket du verkar antyda, som det är viktigt att också ta del av. Jag tror att det är lika viktigt att använda sig av den kunskap man genom hela livet skaffar sig – på/i livet självt. Jag misstänker rentav att ”praktiken av livet” är ungefär detsamma som ”intaget av kunskap”, inte bara utifrån ett erfarenhetsperspektiv, utan även på ett mer direkt sätt.

  24. hey hazlenut make a comment

    jag tror inte man kan få ngt vettigt av skolan hur mycket man än anstränger sig. det är inte ansträngningen som är det haltande så att säga. jag har inge tmer att säga förutom att jag inte försåtr din liknelse och niklas tankefötter haltar nu har jag skrivit halta två gånger under loppet av en minut och var det inte du som inte trodde på erfarenheten? men jaja du menar väl att man ska tillämpa sina samlade kunskaper konkret i sina handlingar eller något och jag det vet jag inget om för jag har ingen

  25. hey hazlenut make a comment


  26. Jag förstår inte riktigt heller min liknelse, men så är det med det mesta jag skriver.
    Jo, att ha erfarenhet kan väl inte skada direkt, men det finns mer än så att tillgå – vad det nu är man gör med sådant (erfarenhet och annat).
    Nja, kunskap är nog inte riktigt något man samlar, trots att det verkar vara den allmänna uppfattningen … Men något i den stilen i alla fall. Det där med ”konkret i sina handlingar eller något” lät bra, och jag är säker på att du har tillräckligt med kunskap för att … ja – vad det nu är du gör …


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: