As I explained in an earlier post, my undergraduate work focused on the political implications of an individual living their life "in truth," as expressed by Vaclav Havel. Since that intellectual exploration I have myself been trying to "live in truth," which, as it turns out is more difficult than I imagined. I found myself having a sort of hard time knowing what my truth is, and once I came up against the realities of financial survival in America, I saw how easy it would be to throw ones values to the curb. And so I have, for many years now, been wondering if this is really all worth it. This self-reflection, this introspection, this attempt to discover and live by one's own moral compass.
When I came home from France, I had 2 missions: to get to Hawaii and to leave my car with my sister in Salt Lake City. I downloaded a bunch of music, podcasts, and audio books and started driving west. What should have taken 2 days turned into a 5 day adventure where I met some interesting people and had many an interesting conversation. But the most impressive moment I experienced was listening to this recording of Anïas Nin speak from her experience on the value of self-reflection. When asked, What happens if someone delves into themselves and finds nothing there?, Nin replies "I have never met anyone who was empty inside. No, I have never found a life without significance, if you take the trouble to look. In fact, the danger is to refuse to look inside under the pretext that this internal search will not alleviate the absurdity of your life." The realization of this hit so deeply for me. I saw that this, in fact, was the pretext under which I was refusing to look inside myself; the fear that I would find nothing au fond (in the center). When I reached my hotel room that night, I started to translate.
The original recording was a podcast made by students at Radio Grenouille (Frog Radio), a college radio station based in Marseille, France. It is a reenactment of one of the many public conversations that Nin held throughout her life, though they do not mention where or when this one took place.
According to the podcast, Nin would invite "a large public audience, composed primarily of women, and she spoke, in these conferences, of her relationship to her life very generally, of her relationship to art, and of her relationship to culture, and she invited the people who were present there to express themselves, to ask her questions..."
It seems that some of these conversations have been transcribed by Susan Ruquoil, in a book called
Ce que je voulais vous dire/
What I wanted to tell you. The students explain that although there are many books by Nin, and of course her journals, for which she is most famous, these conferences seem important to them as well, because her sentiments are as true now as they were when they were spoken.
What follows is my translation of one section of their reenactment. I haven't been able to secure a copy of the book by Ruquoil.
This is the first translation I have ever done, and I feel compelled to say that I ended up using much more creativity than I had intended to when I began. That is to say, this translation is probably very loose compared to what others might do. I found that I had to be really flexible with the sentence structure and word choice even just to translate the basic meaning from one language to the other, not to mention to capture the flavor of the people speaking, or the dynamics of the communication between them. That creativity made it much more fun than I thought it would be, but I admit that I am not sure how others will receive my rendition.
I would also like to add a note about the French language as I understand it. English is a noun heavy language. French is not. In my experience with French, which I will admit is limited, particularly with respect to academic training, the expressions that are used in French speak more clearly to not just what Nin is talking about, but to the nature of the world itself. For example, at one point Nin says, "Moi, je fait vivre mon talent. Il faut faire vivre son talent," and the only English translation I can come up with is, "I live-out my talents, one must live-out ones talents," but the direct translation would be closer to, "Me, I make my talents live, one must make ones talents live." The different here for me is profound. In the English version there seems to be some sort of hierarchy between I and my talent, and in the French they seem more on equal playing field. It's like she's saying, I make space for my talent to be lived, and this relationship is exactly what resonates with me; that we are here not to be identified with what we can do, but to make space for what we can do so that it can be lived out through our lives. We're here to make space for ourselves to exist.
There are a few places where I could not make out a word or phrase from the audio. In these cases, I left out the entire sentence (...). I prefer to not run the risk of misrepresenting her.
The transcript that I made in French is also included here and I would appreciate any criticism from folks with better knowledge of French|English translation than I have, of which there are certainly many.
Anïas Nin en studio
- Thank you for being here with us tonight. Let's begin, you have spent your life observing the world in which we lie, but what about today? What sort of questions seem to you to be the most essential for us today?
- Oh, good, well, today, while I was arriving here, at the radio station, I was asking myself, what is it that really brings me pleasure on a day like today? I was asking myself, what are we missing, more than anything else? Of what, if you will, do we have a real need?
- Oh, good, well, I return the question to you, of what do we have need?
- Well, I think there are two things.
- Well, what things are you talking about? Do you want to tell us?
- Yes, yes, in a way. What I would like to give you today is a new center of gravity. Because I think that we have really tried too much to live by the group, with a notion of number, of too large a number, of thousands, and to live by counting on these forces outside of ourselves, assuring ourselves by looking to a force that is outside of ourselves.
- So, of what is it that we need in that case?
- I think that we are in need of an existence that is more individual. We’re in need of a resistance that is more individual. and I think that without that individual resistance, that nucleus of the individual, we are really overwhelmed, we’re really set up to fail, to fall victim to the sicknesses of groups, to the anxiety of the whole.
- Okay, but I don’t really understand what sicknesses you’re talking about.
- Yes, I think you do. We live in an epoch that, in certain ways, resembles those epochs of the great pest epidemics. That could an exaggeration, but look around us; every day we’re confronted with horrors. We’re confronted with the nightmare of war, fear of the atomic bomb, natural catastrophes…
- We do see these things in our current world, yes.
- And you know as well as I do what causes this collective anxiety. And the sentiment I would like you to consider today is that in the middle of all these events, all these tragedies, it’s just as important for us to live outside of history as to live deeply within it. It is as important to construct our interior world as it is to construct this world outside of ourselves. Because the world inside of ourselves is something that we change, something we can construct, and it’s this development of the interior world that is going to change the exterior.
- So, do you think that society acts as an impediment to this internal development?
- Yes, I think that society has separated these two activities; we can either take care of others or we can abandon ourselves in an egoistic introspection. But the truth is that the two attitudes are tied together. They’re each dependent on the handling of each other. The more you come to grips with your life, the more your truth is seen as a force for feeding the world around you. Why society has created a dichotomy between these two things, I don’t know.
- So, are you calling us to a responsibility that is more individual?
- Yes, that’s it exactly. I think it’s necessary to claim that individual responsibility. For example, I spoke about the war in my journal, and when the war exploded in 1939, I wrote, I have never been responsible for the least of war acts, and nonetheless, I am implicated in what is happening in the world today. What I mean is that for me, the war is the multiplication and the accumulation of the aggressive tendencies of each one of us. That's why I put the responsibility for what happens to the collective back on the individual. Because all the aggressiveness, of each one of us, are nothing more than the reflections of what will be reproduced later on a larger scale. We have never connected these two things. We think that we have to attack the problems of living together directly. We don't believe that we can transform the whole by transforming ourselves. You see what I mean?
My friend, Walter Whitman, he was a thinker, and a political commentator, he died in 1974 in New York, and he wrote a sentence that seems to me to be very just, one that we don't hear often enough. He said, «The malcontentment that is afflicting the world, cannot be resolved by political measures, nor can it be resolved through manifestations that are disconnected from our lives. The malcontentment that afflicts the world can be resolved by an action that comes from the most intimate center of the personal life…»
- So, there, you insist on the fact of knowing ourselves well, on the power of the private life, on human relations, so, I have the impression that for you this is practically the only way for things to change.
- No. No, no, that's not at all what I said. I meant exactly the opposite. I said that in order to change the world outside of ourselves, we have to before all else transform our own interior world, but I never said that we have to stop fighting for exterior reform, I find that kind of reform very important.
- But, then, what would be, according to you, the way for us to achieve this "exterior reform" as you call it.
- Ah, well, that's entering into a domain where I don't venture. I can't fight on two fronts. My domain is psychology. I'm not a specialist in politics.
- And, yet, you have fought for social movements, for different causes.
- Yes, of course, of course, I have participated in political movements, in peace movements, in the female liberation movement, but that doesn't mean that I have professional competence in these areas. Everyone has their own talent. I live-out my talent, we have to live-out our talents.
- So, you've said, and you’ve said this in your writings as well, that if everyone of us knew our own personality better, through an introspection, a self-analysis, that the whole world would be better off. But, what happens if an individual, when he looks inside, when he analyzes himself, what if he finds that at the core, at the bottom of himself there is something perverse or even insignificant. What if in the end he discovers that inside of himself he doesn't have something like an artichoke with a heart, but more something like an onion, in which there's nothing but layers, nothing but endless layers at the center. What happens then?
- In my opinion, this kind of person is incapable of being interested in making the journey into himself. Instead, he prefers to just act, and it's him, it's him the real criminal, because he just takes his anger and puts it back into society. He prepares himself to hurt other people instead of looking at himself in the mirror. He has no desire to look at himself, and it’s this, this is the core of his anger or annoyance. He hates that he could be thought of as responsible, and he prefers to accuse society or something else.
- But, I will ask the question again, what if you discover ... that there's nothing at the end, that, I don't know, that your reality, or your life, or whatever, isn't anything but one long succession of onion layers.
- I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case like this. I have never met anyone who was empty inside. No, I have never found a life without significance, if you take the trouble to look. In fact, in fact, the danger is to refuse to look inside, under the pretext that this internal search will not alleviate the absurdity of your life. And we have thrown away all forms of therapy.
What I mean is that people today have thrown out philosophy, religion, contemplation, and all the beliefs that once allowed us to exist. We control everything. We even control art. And when that happens, there's no other resource left but to look inside ourselves, at our own interior life. And those who do this, those who do it, discover that all life has a sense. ... All you need to do is open your eyes to discover the significance of your life… And I insist, I have never seen what you would call nothingness and complete emptiness at the center. So, this evening, I am ready to bet you that there is more inside you than an onion could have... Look around you, men, every one of them, becomes extraordinarily more interesting the moment he accepts the plunge into himself. He dives into himself and he unearths all the riches that he had the habit of destroying.
- that's um, that uh, um, that, that gives me something to think about. Thank you for your response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anïas Nin in da House
-Alors, Anaïs Nin est avec nous en studio ce soir, sur le grenouille et (c'est des temps plus en ...) que vous êtes decidée en 1977. Bon Soir, Anaïs Nin.
-Oui, Bon Soir.
-Merci d'être là avec nous. Alors, vous avez passé votre vie en observent le monde dans laquel nous vivons, mais aujourd'hui, quelles sont les questionnes qui vous semblez essentielle?
-Eh bien, aujourd'hui, en arrivant ici, en radio, je me demandais, qu'est-ce que me faisias le plus plaisir un jour comme celui-ici? Je me demandais, de quoi nous manquons le plus? De quoi nous avons le plus besoin?
-Eh bien, je vous retourne la questionne, de quoi on a besion?
-Mais je pensais que c'était deux fois.
-Mais de quelle fois parlez-vous? Est-ce que vous voulez nous donner les fois?
-Oui, oui, dans un sens. Ce que je voulais donner aujhourd'hui c'est un nouveaux centre de gravité. Parce que je crois que nous avons vraiment trop essayais de vivre par les groupes, avec une notion du nombre, du trop grand nombre, du million, et de vivre en countant sûr des forces exterior à nous-même, assurement sûr un force qui est exterior de nous-même.
- alors, de quoi nous avons besion?
- je pense qu'on a besoin d'une existence individuelle. nous avons besoin d'une resistance individuelle. et je crois que sans cette resistance individuelle, ce noyau individuelle, nous somme vraiment sucombés, nous somme vraiment appeller à tomber, à tomber par la maladie du groupe. Nous sommes appelle à sucomber à la nerveuse collective.
- alors, je ne comprends pas trés bien de quoi maladie vous voulais parler.
- si, je pense que vous comprennez. Nous vivons un epoche qui d'un certain manière ressemble celles des grandes epidiemes des pestes. ça peut vous paraître exaggeré, mais, regardez autour de nous, tout les jours nous somme confrontés à les horreurs (aux des espoirs.) Nous sommes confrontés au cauchemar de la guerre, à la peur de la bombe, aux catastrophes naturelles.
- on le voir dans l'actualité, ouais.
- Et, mais vous savez tout comme moi, ce qui crée notre angoisse universelle. et le sentiment dont j'aimerais vous faire part aujourd'hui c'est qu'au milieu de tous ces événements, de tous ces tragedies, il est aussi important pour nous de vivre hors de l'histoire que dans son courant. Il est aussi important de constuire son monde interior que le monde exterior. Parce que le monde interior est quelque chose que nous pouvons changer, nous pouvons constuire, et c'est ces changements interior-là qui fera changer l'exterior.
- Alors, est-ce que vous pensez que la societé est un frein sûr ces changements interiors.
- Ouais, je crois que la societé a separé les deux actions. On peux soit se consacrer aux autres, soit s'abandonner à une introspection egoïst. Et pourtant, les deux attitudes sont liées. Elles dependent (du traitement) l'une de l'autre. Plus vous êtes faire la vie, à votre vie, et plus votre (vrai en vu des forces pour nourir à l'exterior.) Pourquoi la societé a crée cette dychotomie, je ne sais pas.
- alors, est-ce que vous en nous appelleriez à un responsibilité plus individelle?
- oui, c'est ça exactement, je crois qu'il faut prendre cette responsibilité individuelle. Par example, j'ai parlé de la geurre dans mon journal, et quand la guerre a éclaté en 1939, j'ai écrit, je ne jamais était responsable de le moins d'action de geurre, et cependent, je suis impliquée dans ce qui se passe aujourd'hui dans le monde. Oui, ce que je veux dire, c'est que pour moi, la guerre, elle est le multiplication et l'accumulation des tendences aggressives de chaqu'un de nous. C'est pour ça que je rejettes sûr l'individu la repsonsibilité de ce qu'arrive à la collectivé. Parce que tout les aggresivité, de chaque individu, ne sont que le reflet de ce que reprodui plus tard sûr une plus grande échelle. Nous avons jamais liée les deux choses. Nous croyons qu'il faut s'attaquer le directement aux problem d'ensemble. Nous ne pensons pas qu'on peux transformé l'ensemble en nous transformons nous-même. Vous voyez? Mon ami, Walter Whitman, il était penseur, et comenteur politique, il est mort en 1974 à New York, et il a écrit une phrase qui me semble trés juste, que nous n'entendons pas assez. Il a dit, "Le malcontentement qui frappe le monde, ne peut-être resolu par les mesure politique, ni dans des manifestations exteriors de la vie. Le malcontentemet qui frappe le monde peut-être resolu par un action qui dois attendre le centre le plus intime de la vie personelle. Ce qui était abîmé, ne peut-être reparé grace à un niveaux (cas jette) politique." Voila, voila ce que je veux dire.
- Alors, là, vous insistez sûr le fait de bien se connaitre, sûr la vie privée, sûr les relations humaines, alors, j'ai l'impression que pour vous ça sera practiquement le seul moyen pour que les chose change.
- Non. Non, non. Ce n'est pas du tout ce que j'ai dit. Je voulais dire extactement le contraire. J'ai dit que, pour changer notre forme exterior de vie, il fallait avant tout nous transformer de l'interior, mais j'ai jamais dit qu'il fallait arreter de (luiter) pour le reform exterior, ça me semble trés important.
- mais alors, quel serait, selon vous, les moyen pour reussir c'est reforme exterior comme vous dites.
- ah, mais ça c'est enterant sûr un terrain je ne venture pas. Je ne peux pas me battre sûr deux fronte. Moi, mon domain c'est le psychology, et je ne suis pas une specialiste en politique.
- et, pourtant, vous êtes battu pour des movement socio, pour des cause.
- oui bien sûr. bien sûr j'ai participé par des movement politique, à les movement pour la paix, la movement de la liberation de la femme, mais ça ne veux pas dire que j'ai competance dans ces domaines. Chaqu'un de nous a sont propre talent. Moi, je faire vivre mon talent, il faut vivre son talent.
- Alors, là vous laissez entendre par vos écrits aussi que si chaqu'un connaitre mieux son propre personalité, en faisant une introspection, une analyze, le monde entier serait meillieur. Mais, qu'arrive-t-il si l'individu, quand il regarde à l'interior, quand il s'annalyze, si'l apercoive que le noyau qu'il trouve au fond de même au coeur ont peu? pervers ou insignificant, enfin si'l decouve que l'interior de lui, il n'as pas un artichoke avec un coeur, mais plutôt comme un onion, dans laquel il y aura que des bordure que des coucher rien au fond. Qu'est-ce qui se passe alors?
- A mon avis, ce jour d'individu est uncapable de s'interesser au voyage d'interior. Donc, il prefer l'action, et c'est lui, c'est lui le criminel, parce qu'il reparte sa cahlére sûr la societé. il s'arrange pour faire du mal aux autre, plutôt de se regarder en face. Il a aucune (auvite) de se regarder en face, et c'est ça, le propre de tout être courant peu ou ennue. Il deteste qu'il peut être pensé responsable, et il prefere accuser la societé ou autre chose.
- Mais, je vous repose la questionne, si vous decouvrerait (realiment) à la monde qu'il n'y a rien au fond, que, je ne sais pas, votre realité, ou votre vie, quoi, n'est qu'une succession de plusiers onion.
- Je crois que je n'ai jamais rencontré ce jour de cas. Je n'ai jamais rencontré quelqu'un de vide. Non, je n'ai jamais trouvé de vie sans signification si vous vous donnez la paine de la chercher. En fait, en fait, le danger c'est de refuser de regarder à l'interior, sous pretexte que ce regarde interior ne rebelle (releve) pas l'absurdité de votre vie. Et nous avons rejetté tout les forme de therapie. Je veux dire que les gens, aujhourd'hui ont rejetté la philosophie, la religion, la pensé, ou tout leur croiance qu'ils ont permetté autre fois d'exister. et nous avons tout reigné, nous avons même reigné l'art. Et dans ce moment là, il ne reste plus autre resource de que se regarder à l'interior, soi-même. Et ceux qui le font, ceux qui (l'on faire), decouvert que tout vie a un sens. Oui, ceux qui ont pretendi que la vie est absurde, nous avons partons un grand toil, il suffit d'ouvre les yeux pour decouvre sa signification. Il suffit d'ouvret les yeux pour trouver en face de soin une personne. Et j'insiste. Je n'ai jamais rencontré ce que vous appeleraiez rien de completment vide. Donc, ce soir je suis prete à vous parez qu'il y a plus de chose que l'onion peut avoir. Mais nous ne faisons pas le manque de croisé, par manque du fois. Regardez, les hommes, deviennent tous extroidinarrement interessant l'instant qu'ils accept de se planger en lui même. Ils se plonge en lui même, et ils deterre les richesse qu'ils ont l'habitude (en frie? )
- ça de ça, ça de c'est un reflexion. Merci de votre reponse.
