a short novel
The intellectual hunger to define precisely the casual relationship that leads to a given phenomenon is probably as old as human history. It is a major factor in the rise of religion, law and science, the three pillars which have supported, in varying measures, all human societies. Its major source is probably man's need to live in an ordered, comprehensible universe, in a cosmos whose operations mean something to the humans who would otherwise be trapped helplessly in chaos and randomness. At different times it has led to the construction of systems of belief and thoughts, as disparate as divine intervention: Karma, Nemesis, Scholasticism, Marxism, Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian physics.
Unfortunately, when confronted with the infinite variety of events and experiences that make up individual human lives, these systems either break down or else cancel each other out. The human mind cannot be yet become synchronized to the scale of the universe, although it is possible that there is some as-yet-undiscovered form of "higher mathematics" which will make all the events of individual existence predictable.
Until then, when faced with the incredibly complex interplay of phenomena, which are themselves distinct and which eventually lead to the unpredictable events which both disrupt and enrich our lives, we will arbitrarily select those conditions which best suit our private beliefs and prejudices. If we are honest we will acknowledge this "filtering" of phenomena and be forced to admit that the human "truth" we have seized upon is, at best, a very rough approximation of the events we try to explain. At worst, our "truth" is sheer illusion.
In the absence of this "higher mathematics" we are left with the doctrine of fatalism: things happen because they happen; no particular event or force is primarily responsible, but all things contribute to the final result. We must describe events in as much detail as we can, even though we know the final product of our efforts will be incomplete, inconclusive and imprecise in terms of isolating a single-cause relationship.
When will an icy boulder detach from the mountain to transform itself into an avalanche? And why does it tumble down all of a sudden? Because of a violent gust of wind? Or because the early sun loosens its grips with the mountain? Or because of an unexpected rain unwelding its firmness? Or is it rather because a village has been built right in its path?
Why? There is no obvious reason, but in each of these conditions lies a logic which determines the fall of that avalanche, a logic which is simply different from the one we know.
And again, why does a hen suddenly decide to cross a street? It's hard to say, for her decision does not comply with the logic that we know. By so doing a car driver pushes hard on his brakes and is invested by the car behind. The driver dies. Why does he die? Because a hen has suddenly caved in to a compelling urge to cross the street? No. If it were thus we would have to agree that a hen can indeed have a comprehensible reason for crossing the street. Instead the hen's action only triggers off an event that was supposed to happen there and then. An event does not have to be connected to our logic so as to take place. Events do adhere to their own logic which we must humbly admit we do not understand.
When talking about the absurdity of certain events we often say, "How could something like that have happened? It's unfair, it's unjust." 'It's unfair, it's unjust': these expressions account for our bewilderment in the face of something which has also betrayed our morality. Well, it's only natural that we're scared to surrender our own pitifully built-in morality, being as it is the only one we are geared up for. But the logic of events is a reflex of reality and we should learn to live with the fact that such a logic has its own built-in morality which is at odds with ours.
And yet what seems a precise cause is, in reality, a ring of a series of coincidences leading to the realization of a specific event. The concomitance of causes elaborate on their own and coincide with the event which they produce.
Problem is the two versions have to be identical in both languages, with the same bloomers, alas. In this regard my mind goes back to my first time in England. I was very young then and Elizabeth still wasn't crowned. In those days I met Jash Esterhazy with whom I've remained friend all my life. His father had a boarding house --in Eton Square, Belgravia --where I lived, and besides being my landlord Prince Esterhazy also had two Rolls Royces which he kept down the street, for he didn't have a garage. The two automobiles were the same, they were already old then and convertible --Phantom and Mulliner, or were they Park Ward? the point was that they were identical. But there is a story to their state of the art. The Prince's manic endeavor was in fact having the two cars wrapped in an anticipated process of cloning! which is something more than being just identical. They had to be the very same down to their DNA, to the point that it was impossible to make one out from the other. They had to be the same down to the last screw in the back of the trunk or the last small rivet under the back seat. Something easier said than done because even imperial conveyances have to cope with the deciduous process of dust which might contaminate one nut and not another. And so the Prince went absolutely nuts trying to keep both his RR in perfect match, with his screwdriver sticking up from his breast pocket. I never saw him drive the twin sisters and everyone in Eton Square wondered what was the point of such finicky devotion: the silent nature of the English soul. Possibly. The River Qwai hadn�t come out yet. But how all this is related to my work. Well, the prince is like me with my translations from English into Italian. Not easy considering that English has 100,000 words and Italian 30,000. Sometimes it's like pushing jam through a funnel
For this story come back to visit me in 6-8 months