By William Markiewicz


Evolution is a non-linear process. The 'archaic' body structures or functions are potentially open to other uses. Therefore we can see unexpected links between things and happenings that apparently have nothing in common. We really don't know the deep meaning of those links; we don't even know if the analogical effects stem from some homologous causes. This is a twilight zone topic situated between science and philosophy. We often step into those topics through surrealism which has existed always and everywhere at the edge of humor, sarcasm and mystery. Perhaps it's not as gratuitous an exercise as it seems to be at first glance. This antechamber to 'singularity' teaches us something about ourselves as well as enriching our perception of the universe.

Nature offers a dadaistic parade. Fauna and flora make us think constantly of some playful Creator, because not everything we see has a utilitarian/conditional justification. Maybe nature after all is libertarian! So for fun we may pick and unite in a 'singularity bouquet', organs and functions from totally unrelated fields even though the surrealistic approach is more suitable for poets and artists than for an essayist. From our human showcase, I'd like to present the analogy between two elements with only one thing in common: they are an expression of freedom because we don't know what shapes them. We use the term 'free choice' through ignorance of the deep causes wherever they occur, whether in mind (Sophie's choice) or in nature.

Let's take the human ear for example. It's well known that ears are the only organs of our body which are peripheral, growing freely without any inhibiting factors. Anatomically the ears are totally exposed to space, they are composed of relatively simple layers, and too light to be seriously affected by gravity. Contrary to animal ears they are not controlled by motor muscles. So, they express directly only themselves, and indirectly their owner and his genetic psychosomatic luggage. A "reader of ears" could read as much about the individual as for instance a graphologist.

Our brain has as much in common with the ears as, for instance, those head and body combinations on jars made by humorous (?) surrealistic pre-Colombian artists. Still, it joins the ears as a unique expression of individuality. Of course we control our brain and it controls us through education, experience, conditioning. But one of it's functions remains out of our control: dreaming. Andre Maurois wrote that our subconscious is too far away from us to be really 'us.' For him, what we think and feel is much more important than some deeply embedded obscure potential forces which may never show up in our lives. Indeed, too much objectivity applied to ourselves may be counterproductive as, after all, we're subjects not objects. Often our dreams don't express our interests nor intentions, don't even make sense to us. The children's joke: "dreams are our movie" is closer to the truth than calling them a force that betrays and shapes our lives.

If the subconscious should be partially dethroned at the expense of consciousness, nevertheless it should share the throne with consciousness. The subconscious gives us hints about ourselves. For instance it may bring answers to the question: 'why do I love this and hate that?' We may not know why but our subconscious knows. So, I believe, the subconscious serves as a tool of relationship between us and us, and not between us and the rest of the universe. The latter is the job mainly for our conscious mind.

Those two special flowers of freedom, geographically neighboring each other and still ignoring each other, are here gathered into a bouquet for your eventual pleasure. If you find this topic funny, then I didn't write for nothing.

Back to the index of the Vagabond
© Copyright 1998 E-mail to: William Markiewicz
Brought to you with the help of: PD