 colleagues of the black community and also, again, tomorrow, our Voya Tiempo will talk to us, and Woody King Jr. on Friday. And it is a time of uncertainty, a time where we do not know what to do. We do not know what will happen. And we do not really know how the world will change, perhaps it has already changed. There's a car that is in full speed on the brakes. It's in the air and we don't know if we will land on four wheels or a big crash. And we do need some answers, but also our theater community and performance community needs things to think about. And if this is a time, we can really think. It's a time also where we can listen. And we have done that here for our 11 weeks. We are the only institution, I think, in America that is open, that produces new content every day related to this. And today is a very special day for us, important day. It is the first time we also have a colleague, a thinker with us who is not directly from the field of theater and performance. Even so, he writes about theater. He also wrote a bit for theater, if I understand, but he's a thinker, a maître à penser, as the French say. And we need that now to think and he has done that all his life. And he wrote something beautiful, or talked something beautiful. This was called Bozoo Brauchman Kunst. Why does one need art? He gave a talk at the State Academy of Fine Arts in Karlsruhe, Germany. The Riemann Schneider Lecturer with Caroline Meister and published by Walter König in Switzerland. And he said, why does one need art already then? And now we really have these questions now. So really, first of all, Jean-Luc Nossi is one of the significant philosophers of our time. Thank you for joining us. It is a big honor to have you with us. And thank you to Irene Anastas for translating. She is here in Brooklyn, an artist based in Brooklyn, by Jean-Luc. Where are you right now? And what time is it? Me? Mm-hmm. Ah, I am in Strasbourg, France. And it is six PM. Six PM. How was the time, this time of corona for you? How did you experience this moment? Well, this is precisely an experience, but it is not an experience because of the lockdown and the question of illness, et cetera, et cetera. That's all. It is absolutely not an experience. The experience has been the experience of the way the entire world was concerned with this virus. And how this virus did work and work still as I would say, as a revelator. Can I say that? As a revelator? Or in another language, a catalyst, a catalyster of something, something which is already there since a long time and which is not finished and will not be finished even with a pandemic. That is the global, to say that with the word of Freud, the global disease of the civilization. The virus has been and is still an excellent revelator or catalyst of our disease. In itself, in itself, it is not such a big problem and I can partly understand that some people said and said still today, it was not needed to make a lockdown, et cetera, and briefly, we can let the old people die and the old and weak people die like me, for example, people of 80 with the immunosuppression or depression, they are good to die anyway. But precisely, precisely the mere fact that we have been pushed in such discussion like what are we doing with the old people, with the already quasi dying people, et cetera. So only the fact that we are pushed towards those questions is a revelator because since a long time, we know that our developed societies with so many old people and so many people who don't have a very good life. No, it was all the time in France or in Europe, all the time it was talking about, I don't know the name in the, the old age home in France, in France is a little terrible because there isn't acronyms, this H, E, E, H, E, P, hospitalization for adults, no, it's not, it's dependent. And so with the H-pad, H-pad is a word pronounced a thousand times a day now and there are, of course, are not very good places, even if some are good, some are not so good, so good, but the question is not there. The question is that we don't know how to manage with the old people. Why? Because we don't know what is, what can be the life of people no longer able to walk, to produce something, to enter, and this is a question belonging to the very heart of our civilization, very heart. So just that, I will not talk too long about that, I think that on this level and on many other level we could see, we can't see, how there is now a kind of revelation or, but the revelation is like any revelation, like the revelation of God, the revelation of God is the revelation that God was all the time there before. God says only, you know, Ole, I'm here. So, and now the precisely not God, but the precisely the contrary, in a way the contrary of God, the absence of sense of our civilization reveals itself completely, with an ambiguity. The ambiguity is that at the same time we started to think how precious is human life and besides this other side of the old people is that any human life deserves respect and medicine, et cetera, et cetera. But at the same time, I think, because we have the two things together, on one side we don't know how to deal with the long life, on the other side, all life is an absolute, absolute value, but we don't know how to put both together and it has been like an only one answer that is medicine and medicine and medicine and then everything to protect the people, protect more the old people, et cetera, et cetera. And the revelation here is that we don't know why human life is so absolutely precious. We don't know and I would say we are in the world where it is the total revelation of Marx, I would say, in the meaning that Marx said, capitalism knows only one value and the only one value is the general equivalency that is money. Equivalency means all value equal or you can't change everything. Recently, I discovered that Marx repeated without knowing that a formula of Spinoza. Spinoza has, it's not exactly the same, but Spinoza has for the money this very interesting Latin formula, compendium universale. Compendium means in Latin abstract. As I think that abstract is a good translation for compendium. In the French translation of Spinoza, there are sometimes resumé, resumé is like abstract and other, I don't remember another. Well, I say that just because it is very interesting to think that already more than one century before Marx, you have already seen this terrible formula, that is everything can't be commandier, resumé. Reduced? Reduced, reduce, exactly, reduce, reduce, reduce. So yes, we could say that is the absolute reduction of the value. And now I think we are in front of a geo-party that is to think that with life, we have a good value. But why? Because if life is by itself a value, we have to answer two questions, I would say. The first is the question of death because there is no life without death. And precisely, precisely through the corona crisis, we discover a lot of very interesting question about death. On one side, the death of the people in the hospital without the possibility of the presence of the parents and the family, et cetera, has been a problem, of course. And what is interesting is that this problem was already a problem with every epidemic or pandemic since in the history, you know. So... Already. But on the other side, just to finish, on one side, so there is a question of death. And the second question is that in a way it is the same question. It is then how can we name, if you want, the value of life or what to do, what content, I mean, quel contenu donner à la valeur de la vie? What content give to the value of life? How much is the life worth here? No, what... Because it goes back to money to say how much is life worth. It's the language of the economy. In a way, if you want the question, the question is what is the value of the value of life? We say the life is an absolute value. Okay, what is this value? Because if this value is not the general equivalency or the compendium universally, then it is clear. And I think these words, these words more or less, more consciously or not the thought of Marx, the value of the life is the unicity, the singularity of the life. Because it is not life as, I don't know, as strongness, as power to work, to produce. Maybe of this point of view, Marx was too much still in the thinking of this kind of value. Nevertheless, when Marx says that beyond the private property and the collective property, there is what he calls the individual property. And he doesn't give any explanation to that. Then there is no other way to think this individuality in Marx. Precisely, not in the meaning of the individual making his way within society, but much more of the irreductibility of the individual. That is the fact that you and you and me there is absolutely nothing commensurable. Commensurable. Between us. Absolutely not. Well, and then, so how could we name this value? Or maybe a better way to ask the question would be to say, in French. Comment est-ce que cette valeur vaut? How does this value evaluate? It's worse, maybe. In German, in the German of Kant, in German language in general, but Kant used this word, which is one word, which is of the same family the value in German is vert. For example, in Marx, the plus value is mer vert. La plus value chez Marx. Surplus value. This is mer vert. But the word is translated in French by dignity. And if we speak of dignity, you understand that we speak of some things that cannot be negotiated on the market. There is no equivalence. Your dignity, your dignity, my dignity are exactly the same being absolutely different at the same time. Well, that is very, very, very important. And how much does is the value of life? Is it $20 worth like the George Floyd murder? He was impressed that a life does count, that a blood did count in America at the moment also of George Floyd. Do you think this time of corona made us more aware? Is this a time of change in that capitalist or post-capitalist society where we are now? Are we at a moment of turn? I think precisely we are in a moment of turn since, I don't know all the time when I think about that, I think the turn maybe started with the First World War or the turn started with the end of the Socialist Republic Union between both is almost one century that is the 20th century so I think the 20th century has been the century of the starting of a term and more than a term that is something I like to call that mutation. Like in biology a mutation is for example the genetic mutation is that in a genome in some DNA there is a change in the position of several genes the position or one one goes out or one returns itself so this is a mutation in the animal species and what is treated mainly with the species of small insects which reproduce themselves very quickly so it is possible to see how the mutation occurs through the generation in each generation there are mutations many of them are what is called by the biologist lethal that is lethal but some are not and some give the possibility to a new variety inside the species so I think for example some kind did have some mutation like maybe the first the biggest mutation was the end of the human sacrifice which is precisely the phenomenon that makes after makes possible the mutation of the Antiquity in the Mediterranean world and from there the starting of this occidental civilization which became the worldwide civilization even if there are some other in evidence for example from Chinese, from India from a lot of people and civilization in the world needs all around South America but but it was there a mutation because we started with something called rationality logos, etc and then capitalism was itself a mutation that is and maybe we we have still to understand what happens with capitalism yes, we change completely precisely our relation to the value to evaluation this is why Nietzsche who is an old friend of Irene Nietzsche was so occupied with not the idea of the value but the idea of the evaluation, what makes the value what gives the value to the value and if Nietzsche speaks about changing the value changing the value is not to say, now I prefer I prefer what, for example I prefer woman over man the value should be woman but it makes no sense but what makes sense is a gesture of evaluation and for a very long long time the whole mankind did have the gesture of evaluating that there is something like God or something like like no-bless no-bless that people that people are born as noble people and now precisely with capitalism with equivalency there is no absolutely no way to show a possible evaluation I am absolutely sure that maybe through two or three centuries, I know it's very long because those things are going very slowly but through two or three centuries some mutation of this kind will happen since it is not possible in another way and then you will ask to me I know, well, do you have a mean to grasp a new kind of evaluation and first of course I will answer no because it is it is not predictable what will come will come this is not fatalism it is just that it is it is the law of time that the future is not predictable in French it is possible to have two names one is the future the other is avenir avenir is like what is to come to come but in French you have the verb venir and we have the name lavenir but the name is made with the verb and future is not made with the verb future on the contrary is a a mode of the verb of the noun then the future one could say future is a projection of what will be and what will be is is considered as real you know and sometimes it's true when the people say I don't know 50 years ago we will have a train going this at 2 to 150 km per hour yes it's ok it will come in like today some people say we will have optical computer which will be I don't know how many times stronger than our computer suddenly suddenly that will happen the question is that with an optical computer I think we will not know better what is the purpose of such rapidity and the avenir avenir is something quite different at least to come then avenir is something we can experience every day I don't know what will happen in one hour and you don't know maybe maybe I don't know but very simple I don't know what will happen if I go now out on the street maybe I will encounter somebody which I never expected to meet then avenir is coming coming and coming is coming is still coming I would say like it is why for example in English the sexual meaning of to come is a very interesting one because in French we have partly the same with avenir we I come in Blanchot you have a repetition of the which Derrida has commented but I don't remember where it is interesting because precisely we think spontaneously that to come means to come to an end but precisely not or precisely as well in a sexual meaning as in mystical one I would say to come has no end to come comes of course of course there is an end but there is an end but the end does not belong to the coming the end is more than there is a limit then comes the question of the limit and of death if you want well so this could be my first answer that is it is not predictable but second I would like to nevertheless to make a kind of prediction and but it is not a new prediction I think this prediction has already be done I think it was André Malreau who said the 21 century will be spiritual or nothing something like that of course this is very big who's if we think what a new religion no but I think or I don't know even Nietzsche even Nietzsche says not only that God is dead but he said that which new God we will be able to invent or something like that of course God is by itself a dangerous idea an idea of power domination but maybe maybe it could be something else which needs something else than any kind of God for example Heidegger Heidegger spoke about the last God as the God who or who's the entire divinity is in making a sign making a sign with a German word which is not translatable Wink Winken in German is to make a little sign so no like the children say Wink maybe Wink are you say Wink in English but I'm not sure the meaning exactly the same as German but there is a Wink signing or signalling signalling something of course it can't be it can't have a meaning but it can't be on the border of meaning if I make a sign with my eye if I do that you understand something but you don't know exactly what it can't be a sign of seduction or complicity you will see well but the Wink the German Wink and mainly as a sign of children Winker Winker the Winker Winker the very little baby who says to the grandmother Winker Winker bye bye but it's not bye bye well Heidegger says the divinity of the last code is only to Wink because there is a verb Winken make a Wink a sign to ward after that Heidegger has all those things to say ok then well the last word I could say about that would be to say that if there is a if there is a mutation to come a mutation with a kind of Wink to ward I don't know why it could be it seems to me it could be certainly only in the direction of precisely the absence of God and the absence of any kind of goal of final end because what is very interesting is to see that our contemporary crisis is a crisis of humanity which was supposed to have an end a total man was the word of Marx or a achieved society with a total mastering of the entire world everything is going away we have every day we learn that now there is the pandemic is like the return of something very old something like the plague in the middle age or the renaissance but precisely it happens that is because the modern condition of life and globalization of life makes possible this pandemic it has been already partly the case with AIDS but AIDS was and is still is more limited in the condition of communication and now we have a virus which is as well limited but while then yes we are in a period where it is not possible that it will not change and it is the same if you want about politics see today the question is not to be more what socialist of course of course it makes sense to have friends I think it is more interesting to have some socialist way of thinking or socio-democratry but who is going this way now Emmanuel Macron himself he cannot do another way but of course it is not the same in all countries and maybe partly Macron say but even if we forget the only word socialism the word state and the job of the state is today in Europe at least in a condition that was absolutely non-predicted two years ago what does that mean I would say that means nothing about the state it means something about the necessity of making many things together because we are together, we live together we interact together all the time and then so we need to think again we need to think about state it is very strange now in France we are doing many things which in fact are exactly like nationalization but they don't have this name but I don't know how many thousands, millions of people come to everything but from where they come they come or they will come from the money of everybody of course there is still a question about the tax of the most people but even that will be in a way forced to be changed then what politics means today is in a certain extent nothing but the necessity to manage with everything that we produce of course there is a big difference between a government like this one of terms, this one of Bolsonaro this one of Modi etc this one of Macron etc all together those differences are not very important the important thing is that the world politics today becomes like a large open and empty world and everybody says politics, political reaction I know I was myself that's almost 50, 40 years ago 30 years ago I used the world, the political which this time in the 70s it was for us it was like something really new that is the essence of politics not the bad politician activity as we say in French there is an expression which is very comic politician the politician say again political politics the politicians but it is bad politics it is the politics of interest corruption, calculation etc but but it is very strange because if I would speak about like in a cuisine the bad cooking would be the cooking cooking or the professionalized cooking basically ah but precisely what we understand by cooking should not be professional should be what we are able to do with this I don't speak for me because I am absolutely unable cooking is this is a kind of art well politics as well politics was an art but this is totally forgotten but then to speak about the politician means that there is a problem with politics but I think that the non-politician politics has today when it is used in many many discussions it has a meaning I would say more or less of theology politics mean global understanding of the life and common life etc ah precisely I think if the politics is art to manage society and then I would say it has to do with the fact that the society itself is not everything that we have a life through society but beyond society this is certainly in a way what Marx thought with individual property that is what one is properly proper the proper the proper which precisely is never proper who are you proper you are not even Irene and I am not even Jean-Luc and I think that what is interesting today with all the crises is that precisely we are on the border what are we doing with the question just to come back to your beautiful description of the the Vincere the sign I think it was also Artó who said to signal through flames, if we come to theater what are the signs what are the signals we should give or just precisely because I think theater is a place for signing. What the actor make on the screen is not representing something. It is much more giving some sign and a lot of sign because this sign of color, of matter, of sound, of gesture, of the kind of presence. What is an actor? What is a great actor? In a way, I would say a great actor is somebody who becomes nearly himself or herself a sign. This is why at the age of these actors, we did have some idols of the theater and of the cinema. But of course it can fall on the side of idolatry. But there is some reason for the possibility of idolatry that some people are able to make sign by their presence. This is a matter of presence and of communication of presence. What Arthur means with theater and the plague is precisely that the plague is for him finally for Arthur. The plague is not a physical disease. It is mainly communication and contagion. If he speaks of theater as a plague, that is because theater communicates, has to communicate something out of the mere understanding. Then in this extent, I could say this is not by chance that today there are at least with what I can see in Europe and I don't see many things. But there are two phenomena together. One is that the theater is a little fatigued. This is strange because in our theater what do we see? We see all the time again and again some piece of Shakespeare or breached, of course, even Becket I would say. Of course there are more contemporary writers. But for my feeling there is still with the theater a disease with the representation, the scene in front of the spectator etc. But on the other side, now more and more attempt to create new form of theater and way of making theater out of the theater. And I am not alone to say that it is a French theater but I don't remember now its name. He wrote an article two months ago about the crisis. And he said we should think about everything about the public help to the theater and to make possible, for example, much more things of theater on the street etc. There is, I think there is a need today to attempt to feel a certain quality which maybe is no longer present in the theater as institution. But this theatricality is precisely what belongs to life. And this is one aspect of what Akhto I think understood very well because it belongs to life to come out. A baby is an actor, become an actor, an ordinary baby. The place he understood the address to the other. And like for example, because today the cinema is so important and I remark that because today we are absolutely tired with the cinema of Hollywood and not only the blockbuster but I don't know, I am very tired with the film Policier. Detective film, detective film maybe? No, the Policier films, the stories of all gangsters, corruption, the guy who was in prison and out of prison and all that. All of the narratives, you understand the narratives of Hollywood. Maybe your wife, maybe it goes until the narrative itself. And it has to do with what happens in literature maybe. But on another side, I think there are today some films attempting to do in another way with the narrative. I've seen a film of a filmmaker I didn't know before, Philippe Ramos, a film where there is no one story. And the major part of the film is made of this image, fix. Still images. One after the other. Even like if you analyze an image, you know the act of that. And there are in the same film, you have I don't know, maybe six or seven not stories. But people character. And each time it is another approach. And then you are like invited to think if there is a link between or maybe not. So things like that or I don't know I've seen another film that's much too much complicated to explain. Well, I have the feeling that what happens there is precisely that the film itself is looking for what I would call its own theater. That is how it comes in presence, you know, because even see what is what is special to the cinema I would say is what is special to the cinema is that with the cinema you can't zoom. And you cannot zoom as a theater. And we zoom zoom like that, you know, close up. Close up, which is a title of the film. So what happens with that? I think the cinema is much more there than in the lateral movement. The car or the horses or the going fast. Then in the theater it's different because it is not a matter of closeness. Or there is a different closeness, which is the difference of the feeling of the presence of the actual. But in a way or in another, all the time what is at stake is not to show something, not to give something to understand, but to make possible, well, I would say certain kind of touching or certain kind of presence in the meaning in which presence in Latin doesn't mean to be there, but to be in front of or to be beside of presence and not absence. Do you feel, if we talk about theater as an appearance on a stage of science, should it be in this world? Is it a political action? Or should it be point to outside the world? The time we live in now, let's say America, the unrest we have here at the moment, the demonstrations, what art do we need and what art works? No, not an artist. The artist can answer. I don't know. Artists have to try. What could I say is for me a contemporary work of art. In any case, the possibility of coming, I would say, to a certain liberation of meaning, that the matter is not to think something, not to understand something. Not to comment something. I would say the contrary to philosophy. If you go to listen to a philosophical talk or course in the university, so you want to understand something and think about it. But in a way, the presence of the professor is not that important. I don't say it is absolutely not important. No. Because now starts the discussion about the virtual teaching. But I don't know because I have an example on the theater. But in France, there is a theater maker, François Tanguy, whose theater is named Le Radot. Le Radot. Le Radot is a raft, I think. A lifeboat? Yes, Le Radot. Le Radot is a little way to say, yes, for me, the scene is Le Radot. I am there on the ocean. Well, all the spectacles of François Tanguy and of the theater of Le Radot are almost all without any clear narrative. There is something with that. And mainly about the places on the scene, changing the placing, going up and down, and I don't know, or suddenly putting something in front of the spectator. So it's very impossible to describe. And when it goes on talk, when actors are delivering some talk, it's not very much and not all the time possible to well understand. So what is interesting there? What is interesting is precisely to be, I would say to be invited to a space which is working as the space it is. It is a peculiar rule and habits and forms of this space. Well, but it is not worth to describe an invisible thing. Maybe it seems to look like some theater of object. I know it was practiced in Germany, but I've never seen really. Well, anyway, the question is that we enter space and we are going through space, even if we stay at our place. Where, maybe we get a certain sense of the theater we are. If the actor makes me feel not as another actor playing with them, but as being with anyway, and not only a spectator. Well, I think that all the criticism about the spectacle, the criticism of the situation is true even if the situation is way it is already gone. Yes, maybe we could, maybe we could say that, you know. I think the people of the majority of the other culture or civilization of the world have been or are still now people living their lives and being in their space and time. And maybe we are the first not to be exactly in our space and time. We are all the time projected, for example, out of time because in the future, not in the coming, but in the future, what will happen? Or all the time out of our place, so with the need to travel, to go there. If we think seriously about tourism, tourism, why the mass tourism is a problem. Of course, there are techno-ecological, economical problems, you know. And the tourists are destroying Venice, for example, but that's not the main problem. The problem of the tourism is that in a way we are all tourists because we need to go everywhere to see to what, to what. Of course, I understand how interesting and rich it is, it can be to travel, to visit. The question is precisely about the visit, you know, the visit. What means to visit a place? In my life, I was very frequently, maybe in the Frapi. Touched. Yeah, touched. Very touched. But more than touched, Frapi, shaken or... Very shake, shake, we shake. By the fact that... But I don't know what I wanted to say. About tourism, you were saying what is the visit? Yes, I was shaken by the fact that when I was somewhere to do something, for example, when, a long time ago, when I did go to America, for example, to California, to teach for two months, three months on SELISA. Then I started to have a life there, to know the people to... But when I go just to see a city, like it is said in French, we say fair. You go, I don't know, you go in Italy and you say, j'ai fait. Sienne, Florence, Venise, j'ai fait. I did, I did that. Which is terrible. It is almost like je me suis fait, je me suis tapé. J'ai avalé, avalé Florence. And all that, there is nothing there. So, today I would say I want to go out today. For me, traveling is too tiring. But I prefer to go only in one place and to stay there and to do something. To do something in the place and not to come, visit, to look what is to see. Ah, this is the Taj Mahal and this is the Grand Canyon and etc. So, in the tourism, in the tourism there is, there is maybe we could say a scopic drive to speak with Freud, you know. A scopic drive and precisely a scopic drive is something else than the inhabitation taking part of, and maybe it is not possible to, of course, to live and just to be in every part of the world. In this meaning, I would say one can understand if people are claiming for the proper place, the nation, etc. As a nation, I use this word because I have no other word, you know, or other people. But precisely as we know, all those words and mainly the word nation did become a closed word, an empty word at the same time. But when it goes about a nation which is not able to be the nation it is or it claims to be like Palestinian, or, I don't know, maybe we or many, many other people around the world, then yes, what is at stake here is that it is needed to inhabit somewhere or to have to use the German word Heimat, I don't know if you use the word Heimat, has been a very terrible German word because he was used by the Nazi, you know, and since Romantic times Heimat. But there is a Belgian resistance who did go to the camp, but he comes back and he wrote a book after, I don't remember the title of the book, there is a chapter, how much Heimat we need, because he said the camp is the absolute contrary to any Heimat. Then, when we go to the camp, we need a Heimat. But if the Heimat is closed, you know, family, national circle, etc., then so we know. Yeah, I like that very much that you compare, you know, theatre in a way to travel as tourists or not, but to stay, to be engaged, to inhabit a space and not just come and go but to be touched, to feel the, to resonate with this place you are in. And do you feel in the times of confinement when you were, could you travel and your thought, did you feel your liberties were limited or how did you experience this time? Today is the first time after three months you went to a bakery, so how did you experience that time of limited liberties and thinking? I didn't experience that as a limit of liberty. I think that, as I said before, four people living in small houses and with many people in a small room, no, it has been a real problem. But what was said about the liberties, by many people living like me in an apartment, large enough, etc., that I don't understand, or I understand better, that it is really a false understanding of liberty. Because first, if freedom is something, so if freedom has a meaning, it is not the freedom to do what I want. Because I, who is that? To be I, I should be one I first, and how to be one I, if not every day, all the time by talking to other I and understanding the you with the I and the we, etc., first. And though I want, what is my want? What is my desire? What is my will? I can want a lot of things. Of course, if, I don't know, if you would tell me, I don't know, would you like to have a big and strong car to, why not? Would you like to travel to, I spoke of the Taj Mahal before, I was never there, I was never in India. And because of my health condition, since 70 years, I am, I cannot go to India nor to Africa. And especially with Africa, and for India, it is painful for me. I have a great, I like to see African fields, because I have a feeling I was once in the Burkina Faso, but only once for three weeks. That's not the image. So, if you would offer Aldo to me, I would say, yes, of course, but that makes me with makes no sense. First, to give me that, you would need to, to make me in a better medical condition so that I can go to Africa. I cannot. Well, then, no, but all our life is taken in very precise limits. I am born there, there, this time in those conditions. And then I, it happened that and that and that. All my life is made from a lot of meeting and counter unpredictable asardos, etc. And then it makes an entire life. And an entire life is never entire. But then where, where is the freedom there? The freedom is, I would say the freedom is to be able at each moment to be still in the and moving toward, toward myself. But myself will never come. But to, but just as to go and until the point where, where I die, but to die means, means that there is nothing else to do. That is something to do, to die. If possible, to die is to do something. Even, even if it is a passive doing. But, but of course, if you die, because you are taken by a policeman, you do not, you do not. And the death is given to you or is imposed to you. It's not yours. But, but I think that there are much more people, even religious people who understand that dying is not losing the chance to live more. But coming to the point where there is nothing more to do. Learning that there is no more. That is what, what I cannot understand when, when, you know, tons, too many people are talking about living, I don't know, 200, 300 years, and what more, and what more. Of course, I would like to be living in 200 years to see what happens, would like. But if I like that so much, then I have to, to die right now. But to find the, the mean to be resurrected in 200 years. Another thing, maybe since we're coming closer also to the end of the talk, you wrote about, you wrote a lot about also about tragedy. Do you think we live in that it's a tragic time we live in? Yes. Maybe, maybe we are living in the time we can rediscover tragedy. What means tragedy? Precisely, it is possible that tragedy, I mean, Greek tragedy means the possibility of coming to, to, to death with an understanding of its necessity, which means another understanding of this world. This world, necessity. The tragic hero is the one who at the same time is desperate to be condemned, et cetera, et cetera, and to die. But he understand that it is, how to say is fate. What, what, what means a fate? What means a fate? The destiny. The destiny. That is a question of the destiny. The destiny, the destiny to, to destinate is to, to send somebody somewhere, you know, or by which, by whom are we dest, destinate, destine, I don't know. For example, we destined by which, so our destiny is, is everything, everything, my parents were and when and how was I born and what was at stake, et cetera, et cetera. That's, that makes sense. In, in which people with which language, et cetera, et cetera. That is certain, certainly that is destination. But the destination is not necessarily destination to a certain point. But maybe it is a destination to be destinated. David, I invented, invented the world, which, like any invented, the world is, is weak because it is invented. But the destination, that is destiny and errant, errant, how do you translate? To error, to error, to move without knowing a goal. Errant, errant, errant in English also. Oh, you could even say destination in English, almost. So it is, it is a nice word. Again, despite the fact that if it is not a word of the language, it is not. But, or, or maybe, maybe we could try without using another word, just to say how, how do we have to understand our destiny? And now I think for, for, for, for a long time and for maybe all other culture, it was in a way clear, I have the destiny to be, to be that. And I don't discuss about that, but it can be, it can be a noble destiny or, or a very poor and humble destiny. But now precisely, how, what we made ourselves with, with humanity, that is, in a way it is the other side of the general equivalence. We are all equal. We, we, we know that, we know that we have all the same absolute value. And then our destinies are, our destinies are all equal and absolute. But, but if some people are using the destiny of the other people to, to subordinate their destiny to themselves, then that is a, we should involve, involve, how do you say, volley. Of destiny. Of the destiny. Yeah, no, no. So really, thank you and and I think your thoughts about, you know, that value of life and, and the evaluation of it that we are recalibrating it that the future century might be a century where spiritual questions will come up and we are in a destination on a way where we will be full of errands, but also to error. And we will be wandering around, I think this is a something that is worth the life and work of an artist, of course, is close and and also that there is no center or no sense. There is no form that can give form to a truth that we, we have to have to find it, but we should be touched or we should resonate that we create, as you say, the space in Cedar that we inhabit space that connects us, gives us a feel of a haimat of a home or of a belonging that this is something that these artists keep in mind as a final. It's a question or final as a statement as we do ask young artists who also are listening to our talks or artists in general. What is the meaning of the Corona time now? What do you feel is important to keep in mind and how to use it best and what advice do you have? You know, I am thinking to the poem of Paul Tselam with the title Corona, meaning the crown. And in this, but I don't know the poem, but I remember just that, the end of the poem is, it is time, it is time that stone agree to flourish. It's called fleurir. Fleurir. No, fleurir, the verb, fleurir. La fleur fleurie. The flower. It exists in English. No, it is a verb. So it is time that the stone agree to flower, to become a flower. Yeah, that is true in Heine Müller, the great German writer, would write about the flowering or the imprints of flowering concrete. You know, you would see that even concrete flowers over time, you know, exposed to it and that this is a hope. We all have a dear Jean-Luc, really thank you for taking time, precious time, also a lot of time. And I wish we would have each day a conversation and that way I think it is full of inspiration and thought and also in the kind of archipelagos, islands of thoughts that connect itself to a bigger landscape actually. So it is important to hear a philosophical point of view and also that we don't know. As you said, Labanier, we do not know. We can make predictions, but we do not know, you don't know and we don't know, but we have to find a way to create meaning, inhabit a space and create some sense of a belonging of a community and some kind of a solidarity and this experience of isolation of loneliness, which perhaps for you is a way of living all your life. And I know a lot of your writing was done in the time of your heart transplant. Not so much in religion. Yeah, and your heart transplant or your can't fight with cancer, you know, where you were freely still you could still think the free thinking that is out there that we have now. So thank you for, for joining us and I think we might have even better questions, best questions now and it is an important contribution and I think also for us in the world of theater and performance, that it is for you important to take time and talk to us and it gives us also meaning in our work. Tomorrow we have a New York director of a team poll who will talk about her work and her life and her experiences as a black young director woman and her dreams her ideas about how to create an inhabit a space or create a primate a belonging for herself but also for for audiences and then on Friday would he King junior for 50 years when a black American theater, and he will tell us what it meant for him and and his journey but again Jean looks thank you so much and I hope we will also continue to hear voices from a philosopher's anthropologist or sociologist I think we need to reach out that we have to get out of our our smaller worlds where we are in and step outside the world we know and art does that but I think also philosophy in some way philosophy perhaps also is close to it because it tries to step out of the moment out of the world we know and find truth or find an answer and and searching for for for truth and as you said art is now create something that you can see it's a you know the opposite of philosophy we talk about things with language but the artists create something final a statue, but at the end gods are statues we look at now and but they are images and they are powerful ones thank you very very much and Irene thank you for being with us for being here and thank you to our presents and and would like to thank you both and thanks to howl round for for hosting us to Travis and see a and and VJ to my C team Andy and San Yang and to to everybody hope you will be able to join in tomorrow I get on hold on here at Emerson College and these are conversations that come out of the time of corona we should have many many more of them and and show that the individual experience we have is an individual one and there's a collective one, but it is so vastly different but all together it's perhaps creates a body, it's a community or commune virus as as Jean Luc created that term so thank you very much and much and thank you. Bye bye. Bye bye. Bye bye. I need to say hello to her name. We will call you now to say hello. Yeah.