The Dead Heart of Africa - Part II

Some supplies are needed at the movie set; Erhan drives to the capital to get them. He and Charlotte manage to sneak out one more time to be with each other.

The movie is finally done, at least the part that is in Chad. Everyone is invited to the celebration.

In the meanwhile, Charlotte becomes pregnant. The husband is very happy since they have been trying to conceive for such a long time. The couple attends the celebration, and the husband is eager to tell everyone of the conception. The wife wants him to keep hush, she does not want Erhan to know. When Erhan hears this, he thinks the baby might be his. He is indeed correct.

Erhan and Charlotte get a chance to talk alone in the party. He tells her that she should leave Africa and come to New York with him. She says she can’t; she is a married woman after all, and there is a possibility that baby is her husband's. Erhan asks her why she remembered she was married all of a sudden. She slaps him in the face.

The husband looks for her a little bit, then finds her standing nearby some obscure cabin near the dinner hall. He suspects a betrayal from several clues (From the way Erhan looks at her, her sudden disappearance at the celebration, etc), but he is still not 100% sure.

The couple returns to the capital, and the movie crew starts packing. Then there is the revolution. A wannabe dictator taps into the army officers’ frustrations. Even the movie has a negative effect on the political scene since there are rumors that it is an “anti-Chad movie.” The dictator is your favorite thug with a machete on hand behind a jeep, smiling with his sunglasses on. He gives Western “colonialists” 48 hours to leave the country with his heavy accent or “face the consequences.” But his soldiers are not waiting for 48 hours to abuse the foreigners. And in the news, it sounds like the French token force in the capital is not likely to hold off the Chadian soldiers for long. The rescue attempts by helicopter are met with fierce RPG fire, and the EU is still trying to flesh out the appropriate response to the situation.

The crew is situated very close to the border with Niger, a relatively stable country. Dave and others are able to flee to Niger easily. On the other hand, Erhan feels compelled to go back to the capital and take his lover with him. He props himself up to look like a Chadian soldier (after all he works in a movie set) and grabs a pistol – the movie uses real ones. He drives to the capital.

When he reaches the house, Erhan sees the husband. “We need to leave,” he says. The husband knows why Erhan shows up there. He jumps Erhan. “You bastard!” he shouts. Erhan is totally overpowered; he cannot reach his hand gun. His arm starts bleeding again. The husband grabs the revolver, just when he was about to pull the trigger, a shot is heard. A Chadian sniper kills the husband, thinking that he was battling a Chadian soldier. Erhan goes to the window, there are Chadian soldiers everywhere. He fires his gun into the air, thinking that maybe that is what Chadian soldiers do! He goes to the other room where Charlotte is, takes her and leaves the house with her. He pretends to mistreat her while he is taking her, not to look suspicious to the machete wielding thugs. When some of them try to grab her, he says in French, “For the general.” They buy it.

On their way to Niger, Charlotte gets a miscarriage. Her life is shattered, she emotionally shuts down. “Chad has that effect on people, it deadens the heart,” she says. Erhan tries to convince her to stay with him, but she wants to go to England to live with her mother. “My mother is sick, she needs me.” She tells him that he and his stupid movie ruined her life. He asks her if she really means it.

One year later, we see Erhan at his office in New York, busy with another movie. And suddenly Charlotte shows up. She starts to talk, “My mother is dead. Some things I told you that day, I am very sorry….” Erhan says, “Don’t talk.” They hug and cry. The end!

The title and the tagline of the movie are: “The Dead Heart of Africa – But a loving heart never dies.” Get it? (I know the reader is getting tired of my endless discussions on dialectics, but does anyone think it is easy to be a Post-Marxist intellectual? It is an everyday battle).

When I told a friend of mine about this movie idea, he said this was exactly like “The Last King of Scotland.” I am yet to see the movie and/or read its plot. I will be mad if it is that similar indeed. I am pretty sure mine is better, though. I envision Johnny Depp and Julianne Moore for the lead roles.

Disclaimer: This movie and the characters herein are purely fictional. It is by no means an effort to misrepresent the great people of Chad in any way.

The Dead Heart of Africa – Part I

My readers (Yes, I am talking about both of you) will remember that I frequently have movie ideas here and there. Today’s movie will take place in Chad. It will be an epic in the likes of "Out of Africa" and "The English Patient." I hope I can milk Africa one more time for the Academy Award for Best Picture (I am thinking 2010).

Our story begins in New York. There are two young men working on a movie that will take place in Chad (Movie in a movie, what an original idea). Let's give them random American names, say Dave and Erhan. They are referred to a "couple in Chad who know their way around the country and will help the movie crew with the logistics.” Erhan expects to see a wrinkly and old couple there.

When they arrive at the airport, Erhan finds Chad to be very arid. "They don’t call it ‘The dead heart of Africa' for nothing," David quips. They travel by bus to the city in which the movie will be shot. The movie is a military one, with lots of explosions and “fake” Chadian soldiers. The movie plot is not very controversial, but there are rumors in the country that the movie is not flattering to Chad and that the government is letting the foreigners in just for the money.

The couple, in the meanwhile, is very different from how Erhan thought they would be. The wife, Charlotte, is young and beautiful. She is half-French / half-English. Her mother was an English aid worker when she met her father, a French diplomat in Chad. They got married, but her father died of a mysterious illness. Her mother practically raised her. After Charlotte got married, she remarried to an English guy and moved back to England with her new husband. She has been sick lately, and Charlotte and François, Charlotte’s husband, have plans to see her soon. François is a diplomat and an ex-legionnaire. He is very muscular and tall.

Charlotte wants to have a child badly, but she has trouble conceiving.

She and her husband start helping the crew by finding them a hotel, hiring additional musclemen, working on the set, etc. She is a crafty woman. She gets things done and is a tremendous help in the movie set. “I am glad I found a good pastime,” she says.

Erhan (and sometimes Dave) oversees the efforts. Although Charlotte is a tough woman, Erhan is anything but! He immediately starts complaining about the weather, bugs, and everything. She tells him to quit being such a grump. “I know I am grumpy, but I despise myself for it” he says. Charlotte says, “He who despises himself…” Erhan interrupts: “nevertheless esteems himself as a self-despiser. Friedrich Nietzsche.” She smiles but does not say anything. It sounds like they like same authors and philosophers. They both work on the set and enjoy each other’s company for a few days. Husband is usually busy talking to the locals and hiring them.

Charlotte can sense Erhan’s animosity towards her husband’s public displays of affection. In reality, she does not care for them that much, either.

While working on the set, Erhan cuts himself. Charlotte is nearby. “I think I cut myself,” he explains. She says, “Oh I am sure it is not…..”Then we see Erhan. The cut on his arm is deep, and he is bleeding considerably. Combined with the hot weather, he faints. It is such a fortunate coincidence that Charlotte knows how to handle emergencies like this. She is able to stitch the wound. She tells him to come over at night so that she can change his gauze.

François leaves Charlotte with the crew since he has business to attend back in the capital, N’Djamena. Charlotte says she wants to stay and finish the job. She continues working on the set.
At night, Erhan comes to Charlotte’s room for the bandage change. “How is the pain?” she asks. Erhan asks, “Which one?”

She understands, but pretends she doesn’t. “Just tell me something,” he says, “Why are the good ones always taken?” She intentionally looks away. He almost shouts, “Look at me! Look at me once, and I will be gone from your life forever!” She still does not look at him. Here, I would like to point out that she does not want to admit her interest in him. She is aware that once she looks at him, he will know that. She starts crying, and says, “There is a clinic an hour drive away that can help you, please just leave…” He hugs her. She pushes him away at first, but eventually stops resisting. And things get sexual from there.

This is the best I can do, guys. I originally envisioned a love scene here that would top that of "The English Patient." Then I realized the futility of such an endeavor (It is neither conceivable nor possible to top the first love scene of "The English Patient;" please refer to David Chalmers for the difference between the two underlined concepts).

End of Part 1. Go get some ice cream or pop corn before Part 2 starts.

Dialectical Dharma

Hegel thought the human history was shaped by a dialectical dynamic between partial truths. Marx was inspired by Hegel but turned his theory on his head to derive his own conclusions about life and society.

The world, as a result, would never be the same again.

Here, I will attempt to do with Buddhism what Marx did with Hegel. I think a religion should be about morality rather than description of the universe or the essence of it - I think Physics does a much better job in doing that. In this piece, I will primarily focus on the morality aspect of Buddhism.

I will call my new philosophy "The Dialectical Dharma". I will take out the non-sensical parts of Buddhism and achieve its goal with a scientific and dialectical approach. I am going to keep the format of the 4 Noble Truths in Buddhism but alter its contents:

1. The problem.

2. The cause of the problem.

3. Whether the problem can be solved.

4. How the problem can be solved.

This was the format used by the doctors then. They had to diagnose a disease, figure out the cause, understand whether it was treatable or not, and prescribe the appropriate treatment for it.

Buddha followed the same format, and so will I.

My answers to 2 of these statements are the same as in Buddhism, and the other two are different.

1. THE PROBLEM

Buddhism's first Noble Truth is that life is suffering. I like this start, because it puts our troubles on the front page, so to speak. This is a very individualistic statement. It does not say, for example, there was light. Or, God created the Heavens and the Earth... It says, life is suffering. So far, so good.

If life is suffering, then why does the Buddhist not commit suicide and end this misery? That would only create bad karma, they say, and you would be born as a "lesser" being, for instance, a transsexual (They do believe so in Thailand). So you would not be solving anything, you would be worsening the problem. As one can see, caste system made its way even into some branches of Buddhism. Lesser beings? What a shame! Just when Buddhism seemed to promise so much!

Reincarnation is a scientifically disproven (non-existent) phenomenon. On top of it, I don't remember being a frog or a monkey in my previous life. Also, there is very little evidence for the fact that bad deeds will lead to a bad life. What is good or bad anyway? If Nazis had won, would it not be "right" to kill a Jew and be a good person? If you make people suffer, you will be rewarded in certain circumstances. Always remember - a "bad" person never thinks he is "bad." Hitler was the good guy for many. He lost, and he became bad by losing.

Life is not only suffering, of course, and we need to make sure that we are more often happy than we are unhappy. Otherwise suicide would be a great option, why suffer otherwise? As I see it, if we are alive, we need to make sure we are happy. Otherwise, why bother? It is not like we will come back as frogs or get punished. Our molecules will be recycled for sure, but that hardly equals to "coming back to life."

In essence, though, there is a problem. And the problem is that life is full of suffering.

2. THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM

"Attachment leads to suffering" is the next truth in Buddhism, and this is where I part with Buddha. Attachment does not necessarily lead to suffering. If I enjoy having a computer around, if I am entertaining my friends with a gadget I own, how am I suffering? I am happy! A recent study suggests the happiest people are in Denmark; how did this happen? We were told the Western World was unhappy and devoid of a meaningful life. What went wrong?

It is the hegemony of the society over the individual that leads to suffering. A society that wants you to serve, get married, have a child, get a good paying job even though you don't care for it - a society that does NOT support the individual, but represses him... The same research suggests that the least happy nations have either poverty or oppressive governments. As one can see, the dialectical forces between the society and individual shape us.

I find the cause of the problem in this highly problematic dialectic. It may keep us from doing the things we enjoy doing.

3. IS IT TREATABLE?

I agree with Buddhism completely on this one. Suffering is treatable.

4. TREATMENT

Ketamine, a drug used for putting dogs and cats down in animal shelters, is on its way to becoming the most potent antidepressant of all times. An agent of death as an antidepressant - how fitting! Is suicide not the most potent pain killer?

The most extreme cure, thus, is suicide, and that treats all our problems. But I think it is an extreme action, and it is not to be done lightly or chosen hastily.

Another cure is self-actualization.

What does Buddhism suggest instead? Salvation from our desires. Right action, right speech, etc.

Maybe, just maybe, our desires and passions are the cure, rather than the cause of our suffering. You can run, but you cannot hide. A desire is a desire. The great, venerable teacher Schopenhauer said, one can choose what to do, but one cannot choose what to want.

Buddha's greatest mistake was to try to attach Karma and reincarnation to an otherwise highly individualistic and great religion. Buddhism's starting point is "mind," whereas the starting point of other religions is usually God or other deities. I think Karma was a way to keep people from doing whatever they wanted, another tool for the society to keep people in check.

ATTACKS ON INDIVIDUALISM

We hear statements such as "Individual does not exist" from some Buddhist sources. They think the salvation lies in denying our wants and needs. They fear our needs because they believe that if they are frustrated, we will be disappointed and unhappy. I think our salvation lies in pursuing what we want to pursue, and realizing the oppression that is put forward by state, society, etc.

What I am proposing has very little to do with "reaching" a goal. I am talking about doing things you enjoy doing. When you do something you enjoy, you have already reached your goal. A confirmation from society is neither needed nor desired. A person whose goal is to do things he enjoys can never fail. Choose a goal that is dependent on others or the society, you are doomed for good. Life can be quite painful that way. Your happiness will depend on others and external factors.

I also want to make a distinction between doing whatever you want and behaving the way you want. I acknowledge that we cannot do whatever we want (I do not have enough money to buy a space ship, for instance), but we have more control on the way we can behave.

Another line of attack on individualism stems from the confusion between "individualism" and "alienation." An isolated individual will never be happy or reach self-actualization. A supportive group will support the individual, but an oppressive regime will harm that individual. Let's be careful about what kind of crowd we hang out with.

English has the perfect term to explain the assault on the individual: "Guilty Pleasures." In other words, "things that you love doing but are shunned upon by others." An effort to make us feel guilty about the things we like.

VIRTUES OF INDIVIDUALISM

If you look closely, the good things that are said about Far East philosophies are highly individualistic. Meditation - try meditating when you are married with 2 children. And you can see the maltreatment of the "individual" in the Western World's problems. Individualism is not at the heart of depression and anxiety that plagues the Western world. If one takes care of himself, do you really think his depression will get worse? Perhaps consumerism is the cause - you are not worthy if you do not have enough gadgets or toys. Or society's expectations from you - you are not worthy if you don't have kids or earn enough money.

Poverty and authoritarianism are two factors that contribute to unhappiness, according to recent research. Both involve ignoring the individual's needs (first one is about our most basic needs - food and shelter, and the second one is about our freedom as an individual).

And it may just be that some people really want to be Buddhist monks and go live in a monastery - so be it! That is a path to happiness for some, but it is not the path for EACH one of us. Everybody is different - so our own salvation will also be different. Search your feelings, and you will find your path to salvation.

I am not saying that you are as unique as a snow flake. On the contrary! We are so small and unimportant in the big scheme of things that our needs often vanish in front of our own eyes. Let's not ignore them. They are the solution, not the problem.

A TREATMENT EXAMPLE

In a TV show, a terminally ill patient came back to see his doctor. The doctor told him that there was a mix-up in the lab results and he was not terminally ill after all.

The patient got upset and said: "I started doing whatever I wanted after learning about my illness, I was happy for the first time in my life. Now I am learning I am not going to die - you took away my happiness."

I do not need a TV show to make a point. It is a known fact that suicidal people start feeling better and acting happily after deciding to commit suicide. Once again, perhaps, death brings liberating anti-depressant effects.

The dialectic between life and death, society and individual - THAT is Dialectical Dharma.

CONCLUSION

But do we absolutely need the prospect of death to start doing what we want to do?

What would you do if you knew you would die tomorrow? Would you still go to work? If you say yes, you must really love your job - kudos to you!!!

What is your calling? What is your purpose? Are you doing some things because somebody else wants you to, even though you don't really care for them? Is that not at the root of our suffering?

Oh, thus I said! But my heart is still not restive, or festive! I have one more thing to say, but what is it? What will save me from my torment and suffering, and in what language will it be?

AH! I know what it is - one sentence, one prescription, one cure for all:

Ich hab' mein' Sach' auf nichts gestellt.*

* Max S.