Estava lendo desinteressadamente “A Concepção Marxista de Estado: uma contribuição para a diferenciação entre os métodos sociológico e jurídico” do Max Adler, que é uma resposta a um ensaio do Hans Kelsen chamado “Socialismo e o Estado” em que muitas críticas do jurista ao marxismo estão melhor elaboradas em um livro posterior chamado “A Teoria Comunista do Direito”, que já tive a oportunidade de ler e possui tradução para o brasileiro. Eis que em uma parte do livro me deparo com o Adler comentando que Kelsen associa um pensamento de Marx ao de Protágoras o que fez automaticamente voltar minha necessidade de expressar os meus achados e impressões sobre o que consegui extrair de minhas pesquisas sobre o sofista.

Platão e Nietzsche: aristocratas deturpam Protágoras, um democrata.

Platão cria um “Platágoras” no Teeteto, para dotar o relativismo de Protágoras de um individualismo tosco e obsceno, que o próprio Platão confessa ser uma deturpação descarada ao descrever Sócrates, no mesmo diálogo, tendo uma crise de consciência por estar atribuindo ao sofista um pensamento tão vulgar quando ele não está mais vivo para se defender.

O Sócrates de Platão, então, “encarna” Protágoras e se defende, mostrando que o sofista fazia distinção entre melhor e pior, no que concerne à formação de conhecimento, de modo que o fato de a construção de um juízo individual de verdade passar necessariamente pelas percepções e sensações do próprio indivíduo, não significa, em última instância, que não existam consensos de verdades mais ou menos precisos, mais correspondentes aos fatos, melhor elaborados, mais confiáveis, mais fortes.

Quando pensamos na razão pela qual Platão deturparia o pensamento de Protágoras para logo após mostrar que sua interpretação de tal pensamento é equivocada, algumas hipóteses surgem, sendo certo contudo que não conseguiremos jamais entrar na cabeça de um ateniense que escreveu há 2.400 anos. Especulando, portanto, imagino que um dos motivos possa ser porque o pensamento de Protágoras é sim, deturpável, e um exemplo relativamente recente é o de Friedrich Nietzsche, no texto a “Verdade e Mentira no sentido extra moral”.

Nietzsche é o filósofo mais estudado, amado, idolatrado e querido da intelectualidade brasileira, um verdadeiro coach da filosofia que prescreve uma filosofia de vida vitalista, mítica, irracional, poética, dionisíaca, sensorial, individualista, afirmativa, aristocrata, acima do bem e do mal, além-homem, mas que possui ódio de socialistas: que ficam insistindo em jogar a realidade na cara de gente privilegiada e parasitária. Estava preocupado com as transformações sociais e da perda de privilégios da classe dominante (“aristocrática”) pela luta e conquistas dos movimentos socialistas, na época em que escrevia. O filósofo celebridade te ensina a formar um escudo de irracionalismo, pedantismo e falta de vergonha na cara (aidos), para continuar vivendo no espetáculo e na ideologia das classes dominantes capitalistas, seja para desfrutar de sua decadência ou manter a consciência tranquila com o aniquilamento e opressão de ativistas sociais (é preciso matar a razão e a verdade, bem como pensar apenas no próprio umbigo).

“Sobre a verdade e a mentira no sentido extra-moral” de Nietzsche, é um texto maravilhoso, cheio de acertos (sim, Nietzsche foi uma pessoa abjeta que tinha bastante conhecimento, criticas e pontos de vista bastante interessantes), deboche engraçado logo no início, em forma de gênesis bíblica, da prepotência da humanidade diante da grandeza do universo e das limitações óbvias de seu conhecimento, bem como a consagração e a reafirmação do “homem medida de todas as coisas” de Protágoras, para rebater Kant e, principalmente, Platão e o cristianismo (que Nietzsche com certa razão considera um Platonismo para as massas).

Todavia o Protágoras que Nietzsche encarna, por acaso, é o Protágoras da defesa de Sócrates do Teeteto, ou o Protágoras humanista, democrata, que antecipou o zoon politikon de Aristóteles em mais de 100 anos, no mito de Prometeu, no diálogo homônimo de Platão?! É o Protágoras esgrimista dos debates públicos, da retórica, do logos como a arma humana, da anchinoia (astúcia da alma)?! Não, o Protágoras de Nietzsche é o Platágoras individualista e relativista tosco, para o qual não há diferença qualitativa de “verdade”, seja entre humanos ou bichos, de modo que cada um tem sua verdade e suas sensações individuais e a vida que vale ser vivida é aquela em que você abraça seus sentidos e renega a razão, vivendo no seu mundinho individual, nas suas sensações e percepções, sendo mítico, afirmativo, se achando aristocrata e só adorando uma divindade que dance.

Peguei pesado com Nietzsche, que era materialista, heraclitiano, ateu, sabia o valor da história e, como todo relativista, tem sua parcela de acerto, mesmo que seja apenas um pouco quando se passa dos limites e se mergulha no irracionalismo. Mas posso me dar ao luxo de atacar o filósofo, pois há uma legião de fãs para defender e afirmar que eu não entendi, não li, que é difícil demais de entender alguém tão genial, amoroso, querido e maravilhoso como o maior filósofo de todos os tempos.

Mas voltando ao que interessa, Nietzsche odiava Platão e o associava à decadência do pensamento grego, mas o que vejo em comum nos dois? Ambos são aristocratas e odeiam a democracia. Ambos, portanto, tendem a deturpar Protágoras, o primeiro teórico da democracia pelo que se tem notícia. Platão talvez por entender que a virtude é uma característica de poucos, pois a virtude é, para Platão, sabedoria, portanto pertencente aos que nascem filósofos e que deveriam governar, opondo-se à ideia de que a virtude possa ser ensinada socialmente em uma paideia, como defendia Protágoras.

Já Nietzsche também sente a necessidade de deturpar seu pensamento, pois a razão, o logos, discurso público, consenso social, são coisas que fortalecem a democracia social e permitem maior organização aos malditos socialistas que almejam derrubar o mundinho aristocrático nietzschiano. O irracionalismo é preferível à razão, pois essa última faz com que os “ressentidos”, “mais fracos” imponham a sua moral negativa aos “mais fortes”, aprovem suas leis (restrições aos melhores) e gera igualdade (Cruzeeeesss! Socorro! Imagina o pavor de Nietzsche) acabando com o melhor dos mundos que uma sociedade segregacionista pode propiciar: que a grande maioria seja explorada para sustentar os privilégios dos excepcionais, bem aventurados, afirmativos, míticos, aristocratas.

Voltando ao Adler… Mas também Protágoras

Pois bem, estava em uma parte em que o Adler ressaltava uns trechos da crítica do Kelsen em que entendia o conceito de emancipação de Marx, como uma libertação individual, no aspecto político e econômico. Adler explicava que não (com total razão), que a ideia socialista de libertação em Marx diz respeito à superação de um vínculo histórico específico por meio de uma nova ordem social, de modo que a emancipação não é possível como um ato individual de libertação (emancipação política), mas apenas sobre uma base societal.

Nisso menciona Adler a frase do jovem Marx:

“A essência humana é a verdadeira comunidade da humanidade”.

Marx afirma isso no texto “Glosas Críticas Marginais ao Artigo “O Rei da Prússia e a Reforma Social”. De um prussiano.” disponível aqui

Kelsen identifica tal afirmação de Marx com a célebre frase de Protágoras de que “O homem é a medida de todas as coisas”.

Max Adler em sua resposta a Kelsen afirma que embora haja realmente semelhança, a essência humana de que Marx fala não é a do ego soberano do individualista, como atribui ao sofista, mas sim a essência do gênero humano, conforme a concepção de Feuerbach. Ou seja, a essência humana como fato sociológico fundamental em que o indivíduo, em todos os seus processos aparentemente individuais (pensamento, sentimento, vontade), é determinado historicamente pelas relações sociais, sua comunidade.

Achei isso muito interessante, pois lendo alguns especialistas em sofistas, em Platão e algumas teses de doutorado estrangeiras o que encontrei é que essa frase do “homem medida” de Protágoras é tudo menos óbvia ou significativa em absoluto de uma visão individualista. Há, sim, muita gente de peso na filosofia que defenda que a frase se aplica ao homem entendido como sociedade humana (no caso a polis, mais especificamente) ou nos dois sentidos, tanto no aspecto individual quanto o gênero humano em determinada polis.

É isso que vou mostrar apresentando em uma próxima postagem uma tradução do mito de Prometeu no diálogo de Platão chamado Protágoras. Já apresentei anteriormente o mito dos primeiros homens de Diodoro da Sicília que guarda alguns pontos de encontro, visto que é atribuído à Demócrito, que foi mentor ou trocou conhecimentos com o Protágoras.

No mito de Prometeu, atribuído a Protágoras, vamos observar vários elementos interessantes que reforçam a ideia de que o homo mensura é condizente com a noção de escolha pelo melhor, em seu relativismo, e voltada para um ambiente democrático.

Trata-se de uma concepção humanista, que concebe a moralidade como uma preocupação exclusivamente humana e rejeita a causalidade divina ou intervenção em assuntos humanos. Ocultado em seu mito (lembremos que foi expulso de Atenas acusado de ateísmo), expressa também suas concepções naturalistas formulando uma espécie de teoria darwinista embrionária (suas alegorias dão conta de uma seleção natural das espécies, desenvolvimento de armas naturais, cascos, garras, etc., como meio de sobrevivência).

Ao contrário do que imaginavam Kelsen e também Adler, Protágoras e seu homo mensura, podem muito bem guardar um caráter “universal” (societal, cooperativo ou convencional), visto que em seu mito de Prometeu ele deixa claro que apenas a razão não é suficiente para os homens se associarem e constituírem cidades, precisaram desenvolver aidos (vergonha; pudor) e dike (senso de justiça), uma disposição inata e distribuída igualmente a todos os homens (olha aí a possibilidade de a virtude ser ensinável e o caráter democrático que dota todos os homens da capacidade de cooperar e governar, não apenas uns poucos iluminados).

Protágoras, portanto, concebe que a humanidade só consegue prevalecer, sobreviver, quando consegue cooperar e viver em sociedade, sua intenção não é enfatizar a individualidade, mas sim defender o comum e uma formação social das pessoas para a democracia.

Link para comentários.

#Protagoras #Nietzsche #Platão #Kelsen #MaxAdler #Filosofia #Marxismo #Democracia #Aristocracia

En relación con la línea de pensamiento único mediática y política muy extendida actualmente, ligada a la manera de entender la #bicicleta y su utilización en un entorno urbano, consistente en negar toda discrepancia o comportamiento alternativo.
Este pensamiento único pretende relacionarse, en el contexto de emergencia climática y sanitaria actual, con la necesidad urgente de fomentar desde hoy mismo modos sostenibles de desplazamiento que sean respetuosos y responsables. El uso de la bicicleta como vehículo habitual en ciudad es una parte esencial de la solución a estos desafíos, y una línea de pensamiento único como la que pretende imponerse pone en riesgo su implantación como alternativa segura y libre.
Madrid no puede perder la oportunidad y quedarse paralizada y anclada en modelos de movilidad del siglo pasado diseñados en torno al vehículo a motor, como ocurre en otras ciudades, inspirados en la idea de la bicicleta como vehículo residual, de segunda categoría frente los demás y al que hay que apartar del tráfico regular para que “no entorpezca”. Sin embargo, existe desde hace años una línea de pensamiento único que persigue la opción de crear vías ciclistas segregadas en una ciudad donde ya es posible usar la bicicleta como vehículo habitual, deslegitimando su uso libre y expulsando a los ciclistas de la circulación. La segregación únicamente puede ir encaminada a favorecer a una parte de los usuarios del espacio público, los vehículos a motor privados, con mayor velocidad punta. Así por ejemplo, muchas vías segregadas se crean en lugares de fuerte pendiente -donde los vehículos a motor sufren más tras una bicicleta-, aún en detrimento de la seguridad del ciclista e incluso del transporte público. Son precisamente los vehículos a motor quienes, desde hace décadas​ y en sintonía con el pensamiento único, potencian la idea de una calzada desprotegida y peligrosa, de cara a apropiársela a través de la segregación ciclista.
Hay que recordar que la creación de vías segregadas no permite mantener la distancia de seguridad recomendada debido a la pandemia, como señala un documento de la Asociación Nacional de Búsqueda y Salvamento, recomendación en línea con otras ya emitidas por el Ministerio de Sanidad. Pese a las numerosas declaraciones políticas en favor de las vías segregadas por parte del Ayuntamiento de Madrid, la realidad es tozuda y confirma lo contrario. A pesar de los centenares de kilómetros de vías segregadas existentes y de otras muchas creadas recientemente, criticadas por las organizaciones ciclistas por penalizar tanto a los usuarios de transporte público como a los peatones, poniendo en riesgo a los ciclistas, esto no ha ayudado a facilitar el uso de la bicicleta en Madrid. Los ataques a la movilidad ciclista libre son continuos: fruto de la línea de pensamiento único dominante, 167 km más de vías segregadas han sido anunciados recientemente [2]​.
Como alternativa real y atractiva de movilidad que es, la bicicleta es utilizada como medio de transporte económico y eficiente por muchos madrileños todos los días gracias a su Ordenanza de Movilidad, pionera en igualar en derechos y deberes a los ciclistas con el resto de conductores. Pero esto no es suficiente, y es necesario hacer mucho más: una apuesta decidida a favor de la bicicleta en la ciudad de Madrid implica necesariamente crear programas sistemáticos de formación sobre circulación, así como campañas de sensibilización al uso de la bicicleta, que fomenten el respeto entre todos los usuarios del espacio público. Si se quiere potenciar la concepción de la bicicleta como vehículo en igualdad de condiciones respecto a los demás, sería fundamental impulsar los servicios de bicicleta compartida pública, extendiendo su implantación a toda la ciudad y aumentando su plantilla de trabajadores de manera proporcional. Mejorar el estado del asfaltado en la ciudad de cara a mejorar la seguridad, adaptando los ciclos semafóricos a la velocidad de los ciclistas son dos medidas que mejorarían sensiblemente el uso de la bicicleta en Madrid. En fin, popularizar los talleres de iniciación a la circulación en bicicleta desde las administraciones, como ya hacen las organizaciones ciclistas, supondría un impulso decisivo a la hora de hacer de Madrid una ciudad mas ciclista.
Es evidente que, de cara a favorecer los modos sostenibles de movilidad libres, mejorando además la salud y la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos de Madrid, sería necesario reducir de manera efectiva el tráfico de vehículos a motor en la ciudad, que ahoga la circulación y penaliza el uso de la bicicleta como vehículo eficiente. Esta reducción debería desarrollarse en paralelo a la adopción de medidas, compatibles con el uso de la bicicleta, y sanciones que impongan el respeto de la velocidad máxima permitida, donde además sería importante mantener al menos un carril a 30 km/h en calzadas de mas de un carril por sentido.
Todas estas medidas, como se puede fácilmente entender, son sencillas de aplicar y de fácil y rápida implantación, además de austeras, pero son obviadas por el pensamiento único, que insiste machaconamente en la misma falacia. Todas ellas potenciarían el uso de la bicicleta como vehículo habitual en la ciudad de Madrid, favoreciendo su uso a partir de la formación, la concienciación y la práctica. Cabe por ultimo señalar que la reciente supresión de la regla de gasto de los ayuntamientos, así como los previsibles fondos europeos para la recuperación, podrían llevar a pensar que la cuestión económica en ningún caso supondría una excusa para implantar costosas vías segregadas, de acuerdo con el pensamiento único ciclista. Muy al contrario, esto implicaría un dispendio económico inaceptable en estos momentos de fragilidad económica, además de suponer una clara degradación en la situación de los actuales usuarios de la bicicleta en Madrid, entendida no como un elemento puntual de segunda categoría, sino como agente de movilidad urbano moderno, sostenible y libre.

Las dos primeras partes (i, ii) de este artículo se han centrado en la definición de lo que constituyen los modelos libre y propietario genéricos, presentando con algún detalle ejemplos de ambos. Compartiendo características comunes, ciertos modelos propietarios se imponen hoy día de forma mayoritaria remplazando a sus modelos libres respectivos, predominantes en un principio. Un claro ejemplo lo constituye el caso del espacio público entendido como bien común colectivo. A partir de este último, es posible desarrollar una teoría razonada sobre el caso particular de la bicicleta entendida como vehículo urbano libre, objetivo último de este artículo, desarrollando las implicaciones que conlleve el modelo propietario que se derive.
Articulo Sobre ciclismo urbano libre

Modelos de ciclismo urbano libre y propietario

Un último ejemplo de modelo, muy relacionado con el anterior, lo constituye el modelo de ciclismo urbano libre (y por oposición, su modelo equivalente propietario). Este modelo se relaciona con la utilización de la bicicleta en tanto que medio de transporte urbano sostenible, seguro y económico. Es por ello que este modelo se asocia de manera inmediata con el modelo de espacio público libre anterior, siendo un derivado o consecuencia de éste último, predominantes ambos en las ciudades antes de la implantación de sus modelos propietarios respectivos.

Modelo ciclista libre

Desde la perspectiva de este artículo, el modelo de ciclismo urbano libre (o modelo ciclista libre por simplificar en este contexto) se podría definir de forma resumida como aquel que sostiene la posibilidad real de todo ciclista de conseguir desplazarse de manera práctica, eficiente y segura, libremente por toda la ciudad. Este modelo observa a la bicicleta como vehículo de empleo diario de primera categoría, en igualdad de condiciones con el resto de vehículos, y no como un accesorio marginal de segundo nivel, de uso puntual o lucrativo-festivo. La noción de modelo ciclista libre es amplia, pero puede y debe entenderse dentro de un contexto urbano actual, donde es necesario gestionar y compartir el espacio público con los demás usuarios, incluidos tranvías, vehículos a motor, peatones, etc. Esto será así para cualquier tipo de configuración urbana habitual: plataforma única, parque, APR, calzada/acera, etc.

El modelo ciclista libre se basa en la capacidad de poder decidir, de manera autónoma e independiente, pero sobre todo libre, el medio de transporte más adaptado pero sobre todo, el itinerario más conveniente a las necesidades del usuario, respetando siempre a todos los demás usuarios del espacio público mediante el establecimiento de unas normas básicas comunes de convivencia en forma de prioridades, delimitación de circulación, etc. Dentro de estas regulaciones impuestas por la necesidad de compartir de forma ordenada un bien común, el espacio público, el ciclismo libre reclama la libertad de poder desplazarse sin otros condicionantes adicionales añadidos artificialmente. Cabe notar una vez más que este modelo libre, al igual que los anteriormente mencionados, ha sido mayoritario en muchas ciudades (con mayor o menor tradición ciclista) y se ha mostrado eficiente y práctico: tanto por su velocidad media, como por las distancias que se pueden llegar a cubrir, la bicicleta es un medio de transporte económico y no contaminante especialmente bien adaptado a los entornos urbanos.

A lo anterior cabe añadir el hecho de que una bicicleta, como vehículo habitual, comprende una mecánica y un mantenimiento lo suficientemente sencillos como para poder ser observado como un modelo abierto, en el que es relativamente sencillo aprender, intercambiar piezas y conocimientos e interactuar entre usuarios de cara a su correcto funcionamiento. En este punto en particular el paralelismo con el modelo de código libre es evidente. De la misma manera, es posible formar y acompañar de manera abierta y sencilla a nuevos ciclistas, tanto en su aprendizaje de las normas de circulación urbanas, como en cuanto al mantenimiento de su vehículo.
Este modelo, mayoritario en un origen en las ciudades, legitima al ciclista y le permite circular libremente por toda la ciudad, siendo habitual observar la cohabitación pacifica de ciclistas, peatones y medios de transporte público eléctricos, junto a la presencia de escasos vehículos a motor individuales. Al tratarse de un vehículo poco voluminoso y eficiente, que permite recorrer cómodamente distancias habituales en un entorno urbano, la bicicleta se impone naturalmente como una alternativa convivial y agradable que permite al ciclista circular por la calzada en toda libertad. En ningún momento se plantea la necesidad de limitar artificialmente los desplazamientos ciclistas. Sin embargo, al igual que en el caso de los modelos de código y de espacio público libres, el modelo ciclista libre ha sido hoy en día remplazado: frente al modelo ciclista libre se ha terminado imponiendo un modelo ciclista propietario, caracterizado por la segregación exclusivista del ciclista, que limita los desplazamientos de los ciclistas a los que expulsa de la calzada que venian ocupando hasta entonces, quedando éstos arrinconados en vías segregadas, peligrosas e ineficaces, que les sitúan fuera del trafico, obligándoles a circular y situándoles a menudo en posicion de peligro.

Modelo ciclista propietario

Este modelo propietario tiene su origen y se entiende mejor a partir de la eclosión y proliferación del vehículo a motor en las ciudades [1]​, momento en el cual estos vehículos reclaman para ellos la mayor parte del espacio publico disponible, como se pudo ver anteriormente. Al igual que los peatones y el transporte publico eléctrico, el ciclismo libre supone un serio obstáculo a la ambición desmesurada del modelo propietario del espacio publico, lo que conlleva la aparición del modelo ciclista propietario, consecuencia del primero. Si se tiene en cuenta lo expuesto previamente en este articulo, se puede entender fácilmente la necesidad de erradicar el ciclismo libre por el bien del vehículo a motor privado, como vía para la consecución de un beneficio económico inmediato indirecto. Con esta finalidad, al igual que en el caso de los dos modelos mencionados anteriormente, se recurrirá a dos recursos argumentales habituales característicos de los modelos propietarios.
En primer lugar, el modelo propietario se sustentará en la idea de un pensamiento único [2]​, que le proporcionará su marco de legitimidad y se propagará hasta convertirse en omnipresente, negando todo desacuerdo o modelo alternativo. Este pensamiento único tendrá como finalidad inconfundible la creación de vías ciclistas exclusivas segregadas aun en ciudades donde ya es posible usar la bicicleta como vehículo habitual, desligitimando su uso libre y expulsando a los ciclistas de la circulación. El objetivo no declarado de no “entorpecer” a los vehículos a motor, con mayor velocidad punta que no promedio, será obviado por este pensamiento único y se convertirá así en un argumento implícito incómodo, aun siendo su razón de ser original y prácticamente exclusiva.

Un segundo recurso argumental habitual a favor de los modelos propietarios se dará también en este caso, de manera similar a los modelos vistos anteriormente. Este recurso consiste en hacer todo lo posible por difundir la idea de una supuesta inseguridad de los adeptos al modelo ciclista libre, que deberán así plegarse y aceptar el modelo propietario por su propia protección. Esta idea, fundamentada en el hecho de no desear compartir el espacio público en calzada con coches y motos de gran cilindrada (grandes productores de contaminación sonora y ambiental, acaparadores del espacio público, productores de atascos y no respetuosos de los límites de velocidad), conduce arbitrariamente como conclusión interesada a la necesidad de construir vías exclusivas segregadas para un tipo de vehículo unicamente, la bicicleta, quien de esta manera no se vería obligada a compartir el espacio público con los demás vehículos. Siguiendo con esta lógica, se concluye que sería necesario desarrollar costosas infraestructuras y redes segregadas fuera de la calzada compartida para uso exclusivo ciclista, quienes de esta manera se verían ya incapacitados para poder circular libremente en ciudad, como han venido haciendo hasta ese momento.

Esta incapacitación efectiva del ciclista para poder circular libremente por la ciudad, tanto explicita por medio de paneles de obligación de uso de las vías exclusivas segregadas, como implícita a partir del acoso de los vehículos de motor en presencia de vías exclusivas segregadas, puede ser entendida como una consecuencia última inevitable del modelo ciclista propietario, pero ha de ser sobre todo comprendida como su objetivo original primero y casi exclusivo. Se obtiene así el beneficio económico inmediato indirecto de este modelo propietario: la erradicación de una “molestia” de la calzada. A menudo, se llega incluso a recurrir como único argumento a favor de la inversión en vías exclusivas segregadas la protección de sectores de la población frágiles (niños, personas mayores o con movilidad reducida, etc.), a pesar de que se observa sistemáticamente como en presencia de vías ciclistas exclusivas segregadas, resulta prácticamente imposible apreciar presencia alguna de ese tipo de población en estas vías.

El modelo propietario ciclista responde al comportamiento general de todo modelo propietario. Por una parte, se limitan las opciones a las que tiene acceso el usuario, quien pasa de poder circular libremente por toda la ciudad a deber hacerlo únicamente por un cierto número de vías exclusivas segregadas, allí donde no suponga una “molestia”. Se le obliga así a optar por un numero reducido de alternativas en forma de recorridos ineficientes, muy limitados, invariablemente los mismos independientemente de las necesidades particulares o el destino de cada ciclista. Por otro lado, se obvian las consecuencias del modelo, siendo tan solo relevante el beneficio económico inmediato indirecto que se pueda obtener (apartar al ciclista de la circulación). Siendo asimismo un modelo individualista y egocéntrico, implícitamente se excluye la necesidad equivalente de deber desarrollar las mismas costosas infraestructuras segregadas para todo tipo de vehículo que no deseara compartir el espacio público con los vehículos a motor. Por qué un ciclomotor no tendría el mismo privilegio? y los vehículos de movilidad personal? en caso de atascos ciclistas en la vía segregada, sería necesario crear otra vía segregada? y que sucede con los vehículos a motor que si respetan los límites de velocidad de 30 km/h? y con aquellas personas que no se consideran capacitados para circular en ciudad con otros vehículos de motor no respetuosos, pero si lo hacen en entornos más calmados? las personas mayores y los niños pequeños deberían compartir vías exclusivas ciclistas segregadas con adultos circulando a mucha mayor velocidad, poniéndoles así en peligro? sería necesaria una nueva red segregada exclusiva para cada caso? por qué unicamente en el caso de los ciclistas?.
De manera equivalente a la situación del modelo propietario del espacio público, la lista de agravios producida por el modelo propietario ciclista es interminable, y va siempre en detrimento de la libertad y la seguridad de las personas: imposibilidad de lograr desplazarse libremente, obligación de hacerlo siguiendo itinerarios arrinconados, perdida de eficiencia de la bicicleta como vehículo al obligarle a transitar por recorridos degradados, haciendo imposible una circulación natural, etc. [4]​. Las situaciones de riesgo a las que se expone a los ciclistas (cabe recordar en este punto el argumento segregador en favor de su supuesta seguridad) son innombrables, confinándoles en vías marginales: choques con bordillos graníticos afilados u otros obstáculos en caso de caída; obligación de posicionarse a la derecha en rotondas; posicionamiento sistemático a la derecha del flujo circulatorio en cada cruce y en consecuencia dentro del ángulo muerto de visión de los vehículos a motor; obligación de transitar por caminos estrechos, incluso bidireccionales, aumentando así la posibilidad de una colisión frontal y de invasión de carriles cercanos en caso de caída; imposibilidad de efectuar cambios de carril ni giros en función del destino; cercanía con vehículos aparcados y sus puertas; cruces continuados con trayectorias de lineas de autobús y sus paradas, etc. La lista no tiene fin: el modelo propietario y su pensamiento único asociados [3]​ obvian todo lo que no redunde en su propio beneficio.

El éxito del modelo propietario, desde el punto de vista del ciclista, reside al igual que en los casos anteriores en su aparente conveniencia, simplicidad y facilidad de uso (puesto que el ciclista no necesita conocer, y por tanto respetar, ninguna de las normas de trafico en ciudad adhiriendo al modelo). Esto es tanto más así desde el momento en que se hace abstracción de las implicaciones y consecuencias del modelo, puesto que solamente se considera el bien individual (comodidad del ciclista al disponer de una vía exclusiva a su disposición) y no el bien común (muchas veces el modelo se vé favorecido en detrimento de los demás usuarios del espacio público, en general del transporte publico y en particular de los peatones, una vez más). Desde el punto de vista del modelo propietario, únicamente el beneficio económico inmediato es relevante, como se ha visto (indirectamente en este caso, obteniendo la desaparición de los ciclistas de la calzada). Se procura captar poco a poco nuevos usuarios (aquellos menos experimentados), limitando de manera progresiva su libertad de elección (implantación gradual de vías exclusivas segregadas en puntos estratégicos, con el objetivo de habituar a su uso poco a poco al usuario creando una dependencia), educándoles desde muy pronto en la existencia de un único modelo segregador (los niños han de circular por vías exclusivas segregadas), al que el usuario debera adaptarse independientemente de sus necesidades particulares (no importa el destino, el entorno o el ciclista, pues una unica solucion segregadora se propone), convenciéndoles de que esta opción es la correcta al no tener conocimiento de alternativas mas naturales (como la circulación integradora en calzada), o persuadiéndoles de que se trata de alternativas complejas, al alcance de solamente unos pocos y sobre todo inseguras. Es por ello que el modelo propietario se asocia a menudo a la noción de pensamiento único, englobando todo lo anterior, que sera quien le proporcione su marco de legitimidad.
Una vez que el usuario accede y se habitúa al modelo propietario de vías exclusivas segregadas es muy difícil salir de él debido a su propia concepción (pues se crea una relación de dependencia), siguiendo un camino siempre descendente, hasta que ya es demasiado tarde. Esto se puede manifestar en forma de incapacidad física o psicológica de acceder a ninguna otra alternativa (como circular libremente de manera correcta en ciudad, al haberse habituado a hacerlo por vías exclusivas segregadas), falta de los conocimientos (ignorar que circular usando el centro de la calzada es mucho mas seguro para el ciclista) o de la educación necesaria para escapar del modelo (carencia de formación vial), inaccesibilidad económica al mismo (recordar que se trata de un modelo caro, que no todos pueden permitirse), imposibilidad de hacer un correcto uso del modelo (recorridos segregados demasiado absurdos e ineficientes) o incluso un funcionamiento deficiente de este ultimo (recorridos segregados a menudo impracticables o que implican un trayecto excesivamente prolongado). Al haberse imposibilitado el acceso a otras opciones (por falta de habito, por acoso al ciclista, por prohibición explicita de circular en calzada, etc.), el usuario se encuentra en una trampa. Llegados a este punto, el usuario es consciente, quizás ya tarde, de hasta que punto sus posibilidades son limitadas encontrándose, no por casualidad, con que su libertad de elección ha sido coartada de manera considerable, habiéndose convertido en este contexto en una persona dependiente.

Referencias

El origen del problema
Sobre el pensamiento único ciclista y sus alternativas
La polarización mundial amenaza al activismo ciclista
¿Qué es un carril-bici urbano?

#ciclismourbanolibre #bici

La primera parte (i) de este artículo introduce los orígenes del modelo de código informático libre (y por oposición de su modelo propietario), como paradigma de tipos de modelos antagónicos. A partir de este primer ejemplo, las características generales de los modelos propietarios han sido presentadas, al compartir todos ellos numerosos puntos en común que les identifican. Es posible de esta manera encontrar muchos otros exponentes de este tipo de modelos. Uno de ellos será presentado aquí, el cual se relaciona con la noción de espacio público y su uso como bien común destinado a poder desplazarse libremente, haciéndose explícito el paralelismo con lo visto hasta ahora.
Articulo Sobre ciclismo urbano libre

Modelos de espacio público libre y propietario

Un ejemplo interesante y plausible de modelo propietario lo constituye el modelo de espacio público propietario, tan habitual en las ciudades occidentales modernas. Siguiendo con lo anteriormente dicho, es posible realizar una correspondencia entre los conceptos mencionados anteriormente en relación con la libertad de elección, con respecto al uso del espacio público en su sentido más amplio. Para ello, es suficiente con observar como se repartía el espacio público en las ciudades antes de la eclosión en la explotación industrializada de los recursos fósiles. Esencialmente, las personas (los usuarios) tenían completa libertad para poder desplazarse a pie, sin ningún tipo de limitación: no existían las aceras, los pasos de peatones ni los semáforos. Las personas podían transitar por donde lo consideraran necesario. Además, tenían la posibilidad de desplazarse cubriendo distancias mayores (o reduciendo el tiempo del desplazamiento) tanto en tranvía (y metro, allí donde fuera posible) a partir de la llegada de la electricidad, como en bicicleta, el medio de transporte más eficiente en medio urbano (en términos de espacio ocupado, velocidad y rendimiento). En este momento, el espacio público constituye un bien común que todo el mundo comparte, y del que todo el mundo se beneficia. Es el modelo de espacio público libre.

Esto fue así hasta el advenimiento del automóvil a motor privado. En algún momento y de manera progresiva, durante la primera mitad del siglo pasado se produce un aumento sustancial en la explotación de los recursos fósiles (sobre todo el petróleo) como fuente de energía, en especial en EE.UU. Este hecho supone una revolución que cambiara la concepción del espacio público: los grandes productores se dan cuenta de que necesitan un medio continuado de dar salida a esos recursos [1]​. La solución ideal reside en eliminar los medios de transporte colectivo basados en la electricidad, en beneficio del transporte individual (existente, pero minoritario hasta entonces) basado en el motor de gasolina, gran consumidor de petroleo. Pero esto no es suficiente: también es necesario apropiarse del espacio público convirtiéndolo en un bien particular. Tratándose por definición de un medio ineficiente en términos de espacio ocupado, y por ello egoísta, con el fin de aumentar su número y por tanto el beneficio económico inmediato generado, es también obligatorio alterar el diseño del espacio público, en detrimento de su uso entendido como bien común. Es el origen del modelo de espacio público propietario [2]​.
La lista de agravios es interminable, y va siempre en detrimento de la libertad de las personas: prohibición de desplazarse libremente, obligación de hacerlo siguiendo itinerarios segregados, imposición de respetar tiempos y vías limitadas para acceder a esos itinerarios. Y esto no será sino el origen: al propagarse el modelo propietario, basado en el uso del vehículo a motor privado, el espacio público como bien común se reduce a su mínima expresión. El modelo propietario es avaro: se eliminan bulevares, se reduce la anchura de los itinerarios segregados para peatones, se talan arboles, se endeuda durante décadas a las personas por el bien de unos cuantos, se degrada su salud de manera irremediable, se alteran para siempre las plazas públicas, destruyendo su riqueza, al ser necesario cada vez más espacio público para almacenar un bien individual … Como todo esto no es suficiente, se ocupan también las vías segregadas de uso peatonal. Es necesario en este punto recordar que el modelo propietario se apropia de un bien común, el espacio público, repartiéndolo para uso y disfrute únicamente de un número reducido de beneficiarios: su propia ineficacia impone un límite al número de participantes en el modelo.



El modo de funcionamiento del modelo de espacio propietario, como método de generación de beneficio económico inmediato, es por regla general siempre el mismo: restringir la libertad de los usuarios del espacio público, de modo que éstos vean limitada su capacidad de elección. El objetivo es obligar al usuario a optar por un panel limitado de opciones, aquellas propuestas por el valedor del modelo, constituyendo éstas las fuentes de beneficios económicos inmediatos. En el otro extremo, el modelo de espacio público favorece la existencia de múltiples opciones de movilidad, anima a compartir el espacio público, fomenta la complementariedad y la intermodalidad de medios de desplazamiento, promoviendo su sostenibilidad y eficiencia, haciéndolo una opción segura.

El éxito del modelo propietario reside en su aparente comodidad y facilidad de uso, que se refuerza con la idea de una supuesta seguridad. Se captan nuevos usuarios limitando su libertad de elegir, educándoles desde muy pronto, convenciéndoles de que una opción es la correcta al no tener conocimiento de alternativas posibles. Es por ello que el modelo propietario se asocia a menudo a la noción de pensamiento único [3]​, que le proporciona su legitimidad. Una vez que el usuario accede al modelo de espacio público propietario es muy difícil salir de él por su propia concepción, siguiendo un camino siempre descendente, hasta que ya es demasiado tarde. Esto se puede manifestar en forma de incapacidad de desplazarse libremente, inaccesibilidad económica al modelo, imposibilidad de acceder a comercios en ausencia de un vehículo a motor, o incluso mal funcionamiento de este ultimo. Llegados a este punto, el usuario es consciente, quizás ya tarde, de hasta que punto sus opciones son limitadas encontrándose, no por casualidad, con que su libertad de elección ha dejado de existir, y se ha convertido en una persona dependiente.

Un claro ejemplo del modelo de espacio propietario se puede observar hoy en la ciudad de Madrid, donde históricamente se abolió la “la abusiva practica de convertir en sitio de tertulia y hasta de lectura y juegos el centro de las calles y plazas” [4]​. Y esto solo fue el comienzo. Con el objetivo de disponer cada vez más espacio para los vehículos de motor, se talarían plazas enteras y se construirían megaparkings subterráneos, arrasando para siempre estos entornos. Pero esto no bastaba, el modelo de espacio propietario busca siempre acaparar más y más espacio, en detrimento del espacio público entendido como bien común, segregando a quien no se amolde a sus designios. Fue necesario inundar los bulevares peatonales de coches, convirtiéndolos en parkings urbanos, finalmente haciendo desaparecer el bulevar para poder construir autopistas urbanas de cinco carriles en un único sentido … Los ejemplos son innombrables. Heridas urbanas con forma de autopista que seccionan la ciudad en dos, marginando a parte de la población, endeudamientos colosales que la mayoría arrastraría durante décadas, desmantelamiento del sistema de tranvías eléctricos públicos, reducción de itinerarios peatonales a su mínima expresión … Como en muchas otras ciudades, el modelo de espacio propietario no ve fin a su apetito. Únicamente el beneficio económico inmediato tiene sentido a sus ojos.


Gracias a @latinapaterson, [@EscenasUrbanas](https://twitter.com/EscenasUrbanas) y @gatopormadrid por su recopilacion de fotografias antiguas de la ciudad
de Madrid_

Referencias

El origen del problema
“Las calles fueron privatizadas y entregadas al trafico y los ninos desaparecieron de ellas”
El Gobierno inyectara al automovil 10.000 millones de fondos europeos en tres anos
Cuando los madrileños aprendieron a circular

#ciclismourbanolibre #bici

En “Free as in Freedom (2.0)” [1]​, Richard Stallman narra el origen del movimiento de código libre que el mismo encabeza desde hace décadas. Este movimiento, punto de partida tanto de un porcentaje elevado del código sin el cual el mundo que conocemos no sería posible, como de una interpretación original de lo que suponen los bienes comunes, puede entenderse como una base sólida a partir de la cual intentar desarrollar una generalización teórica más amplia de lo que constituyen hoy los modelos libres, así como de sus antagónicos modelos propietarios respectivos.
Articulo Sobre ciclismo urbano libre

Modelos de código libre y propietario

En la época en la que Stallman se une al laboratorio de inteligencia artificial del MIT, el código informático es de uso libre. Salvando las distancias, éste se asemeja a una receta de cocina: algo que no pertenece a nadie en particular y que no es posible explotar en beneficio propio únicamente. Muy al contrario, se trata de algo que podría definirse como un bien común: un conocimiento extendido que se comparte, del que todo el mundo se beneficia y enriquece. El código es algo libre, un bien colectivo que todo el mundo puede estudiar y modificar, aportando mejoras que redunden en el beneficio común. Ese es el caldo de cultivo en el que se cimenta un movimiento que no puede considerarse como original en su concepción, pero sí en la definición de sus objetivos. Es el modelo de código informático libre.
Hacia el final de los años 70 se produce un evento germinal. Un día cualquiera en el MIT, una impresora produce un error: al intentar corregir el fallo en el código como tantas otras veces, los integrantes del laboratorio se encuentran frente a un hecho que les resulta completamente extraño. Son conscientes por vez primera de no tener acceso al código fuente de la impresora y, por lo tanto, no son capaces de poder estudiarlo y reparar el error. Ese momento, el de afrontar por vez primera un código propietario (cerrado e inaccesible) es el origen de la frustración de Stallman, constituyendo por oposición el embrión del movimiento de código libre (abierto y modificable). Es el origen del modelo de código informático propietario.
La gran mayoría de las personas, pasada la sorpresa inicial, acabaron adhiriendo al modelo de código propietario, muy extendido hoy día, aunque no todas. Las más reticentes, educadas en un modelo cuya premisa fundamental es que compartir favorece al colectivo, y por lo tanto indirectamente al individuo, se lanzaron a escribir código abierto y libre, compartiéndolo con todo aquel que mostrara interés. A cambio, se le pedía únicamente que al aportar mejoras al código, éste fuera igualmente compartido: aceptar el modelo abierto implicaba hacerlo en beneficio mutuo. Hoy, el movimiento se ha expandido y a pesar de continuar siendo minoritario, puede considerarse como un sinónimo de libertad, seguridad y deseo de compartir los bienes comunes.
El modo de funcionamiento habitual del modelo de código propietario suele consistir en recortar la libertad de los usuarios, educándoles desde muy pronto en la existencia de un único modelo [2]​, de modo que vean restringida su capacidad de elección a un número limitado de códigos, generalmente relacionados entre ellos por fuertes dependencias, eliminando toda compatibilidad con otros códigos. El usuario debe optar por un conjunto acotado de soluciones, siempre las mismas independientemente de sus necesidades particulares, debiendo ser él quien se adapte a esas soluciones, gratuitas [3]​ y de uso directo únicamente en apariencia, que constituirán una fuente de beneficios económicos inmediatos para el beneficiario del modelo en forma bien de dinero, bien en forma de obtención de los datos personales del usuario [4]​. Un pensamiento único fomentado y dirigido por el beneficiario del modelo proporcionará a éste el entorno adecuado para su expansión, legitimándolo, al mismo tiempo que se propaga la idea de peligrosidad e inseguridad en todo aquel código informático que no tenga por origen el valedor del modelo propietario. El modelo de código libre, abierto, propulsor de código legible y seguro se ve así relegado a un ámbito minoritario de adeptos.
Desde el momento en que el usuario accede al modelo de código propietario es muy difícil salir de él, hasta llegar a un punto de no retorno que se puede manifestar en forma de incapacidad de acceder a sus propios datos, debiendo por lo tanto perpetuar el uso de códigos propietarios si se quiere poder seguir utilizando esos datos; inaccesibilidad económica al modelo, oneroso por definición; imposibilidad hardware de hacer funcionar el código propietario debido a los elevados recursos que consuma éste e incluso obligación de renovar periódicamente dicho hardware, con el coste asociado; mal funcionamiento del código propietario, sin alternativa posible por incompatibilidad con otros códigos; fallos de seguridad ignorados por no ser un código auditable, lo que conlleva a la imposibilidad de continuar usando ese código, etc. Llegado a este punto, el usuario se encuentra frente a una fuerte relación de dependencia, siendo consciente de que su libertad de elección ha cesado de existir en gran medida.

Generalidades del modelo propietario

Los puntos anteriores, específicos al modelo de código informático, se pueden generalizar extrayendo pautas comunes a todos los modelos propietarios. El modo de funcionamiento del modelo propietario, como método de generación de beneficio económico inmediato, es por regla general siempre el mismo, pudiéndose también extender a otros ámbitos. Se limita la libertad de los usuarios, de modo que éstos vean condicionada su capacidad de elección, poniendo coto de esta manera al modelo libre anteriormente en vigor. El objetivo será siempre el de forzar al usuario a optar por un panel limitado de opciones, invariablemente las mismas independientemente de sus necesidades particulares, únicamente sencillas y ventajosas para él en apariencia, aquellas propuestas por el valedor del modelo propietario, constituyendo éstas las fuentes de beneficios económicos inmediatos. Estos beneficios se producen de forma directa (económica) o indirecta (datos, dependencia del usuario, erradicación de un obstáculo al modelo propietario, obsolescencia programada, etc.). El modelo libre en vigor hasta el advenimiento del modelo propietario favorece la existencia de múltiples opciones, elimina las barreras artificiales que limiten la libertad del usuario, anima a la colaboración pública y al reparto de los bienes comunes, fomentando la compatibilidad y la interoperatividad, promoviendo las soluciones auditables e intercambiables, que serán en consecuencia seguras. El modelo propietario acaba con estas ventajas de manera definitiva, impidiendo la posibilidad de volver atrás, garantizando así su propia supervivencia.
El éxito del modelo propietario, desde el punto de vista del usuario, reside en su aparente conveniencia, economía, simplicidad y facilidad de uso. Esto será tanto más así desde el momento en que se hace abstracción de las implicaciones y consecuencias del modelo, puesto que solamente se considera el bien individual y no el bien común. Desde el punto de vista del modelo propietario, únicamente el beneficio económico inmediato es relevante. Se procura captar poco a poco nuevos usuarios, limitando de manera progresiva su libertad de elección, educándoles desde muy pronto en la existencia de un único modelo, al que el usuario deberá adaptarse independientemente de sus necesidades particulares, convenciéndole de que esta opción es la correcta al no tener conocimiento de alternativas posibles, o persuadiéndoles de que son alternativas complejas, al alcance de solamente unos pocos, inseguras u onerosas. Es por ello que el modelo propietario se asocia a menudo a la noción de pensamiento único, englobando todo lo anterior, que será quien le proporcione su marco de legitimidad.
Una vez que el usuario accede y se habitúa al modelo propietario es muy difícil salir de él debido a su propia concepción, siguiendo un camino siempre descendente, hasta que ya es demasiado tarde. Esto se puede manifestar en forma de incapacidad física o psicológica de acceder a ninguna otra alternativa, falta de conocimientos o de la educación necesaria para escapar del modelo, inaccesibilidad económica al mismo, imposibilidad de hacer un correcto uso del modelo o incluso un funcionamiento deficiente de este ultimo. Al haberse imposibilitado el acceso a otras opciones, el usuario se encuentra en una trampa. Llegados a este punto, el usuario es consciente, quizás ya tarde, de hasta que punto sus posibilidades son limitadas encontrándose, no por casualidad, con que su libertad de elección ha sido coartada de manera considerable, habiéndose convertido en este contexto en una persona dependiente.

Ejemplos

Los modelos libre y propietario pueden extrapolarse a muchos otros ámbitos más allá del código informático, siguiendo siempre unas pautas generales que serán muy similares a las anteriores. Para concluir con la primera parte de este artículo, es interesante mencionar algunos modelos en vigor actualmente, aunque la lista podría ser mucho mas larga.
Un primer ejemplo lo supone el uso de semillas de cultivo en agricultura. Desde la revolución neolítica hasta finales del siglo xx, el modelo libre consistente en reutilizar una parte de la cosecha para poder replantar y producir nuevas cosechas ha sido el modelo predominante (modelo libre anteriormente en vigor). Este modelo permite el libre intercambio de semillas (un bien común) de cultivo y de conocimientos sobre la mejor alternativa (existencia de múltiples opciones), la mejor época del año en la que sembrar, las mejores condiciones, los cuidados, etc. (anima a la colaboración pública y al reparto de los bienes comunes, fomentando la compatibilidad y la interoperatividad, promoviendo las soluciones auditables e intercambiables). Recientemente, el modelo antagónico propietario comienza a imponerse [5]​: únicamente cierto tipo de semillas (panel limitado de opciones) han de ser adquiridas (se limita la libertad de los usuarios) por todos los agricultores (el usuario deberá adaptarse independientemente de sus necesidades particulares) y producen cosechas no fértiles que contaminan además a las que si lo son (el modelo garantiza su propia supervivencia).
El éxito del modelo propietario en este caso se basa en la aparente robustez de las semillas propietarias (aparente conveniencia), garantizando una cosecha segura y a medida (aparente simplicidad), que además tendrá un precio reducido inicialmente (aparente economía), al evitarse costes de almacenamiento, redundando en una mejor salida al mercado (aparente facilidad de uso). Esto suele ir a menudo en detrimento de la calidad de la cosecha (solamente se considera el bien individual y no el bien común), que se convierte en un factor secundario: tan solo el beneficio económico inmediato es relevante (directo económico, e indirecto por ausencia de competencia). El modelo libre poco a poco se va relegando y se convierte en algo minoritario [6]​, pues una línea argumental omnipresente (noción de pensamiento único) se impone y lo considera arriesgado e ineficiente (persuadiéndoles de que son alternativas complejas, al alcance de solamente unos pocos, inseguras u onerosas). Poco a poco se va creando una relación de dependencia de la que es muy difícil escapar. La libertad del agricultor se ve cada vez más limitada, tanto económicamente como desde el punto de vista de su capacidad de elección. Este modelo además está adquiriendo tintes de sofisticación insospechados, puesto que la dependencia de la agricultura con pesticidas y maquinaria compleja es cada vez más notable, y sin someterse a estas ligaduras artificiales cada vez es más difícil alcanzar una producción aceptable.

Referencias

Free as in Freedom 2.0
Acuerdo de Educacion con Google y Microsoft
Office 365 gratis educación
El nuevo petroleo son los datos, y todo el negocio está en sólo tres compañías
El mundo según Monsanto
Les défis d‘une autre agriculture

#ciclismourbanolibre #bicicleta

La idea fundamental que pretende promover este manifiesto es la defensa de la #bicicleta urbana como medio de desplazamiento cotidiano en igualdad de condiciones con los demás vehículos. El ciclismo urbano libre e integrado defiende la circulación ciclista usando el centro del carril en calzada porque es más seguro, y afirma que es posible usar toda la ciudad, sin necesidad de esperar a que la ciudad se adapte a la bicicleta.
Este manifiesto conduce a algunas implicaciones prácticas.

Manifiesto

El modelo ciclista urbano libre e integrador observa la bicicleta como un vehículo, y como tal debe circular por la calzada, en igualdad de condiciones con el resto de vehículos.
Se fundamenta en cuatro principios:

La bicicleta es un vehículo
Y debe comportarse como todos los demás vehículos
La posición de un vehículo en calzada no depende del tipo de vehículo, sino de su posición y de las maniobras que necesite ejecutar. Por lo tanto, la bicicleta debe adaptar su posición en función de su destino.
Respeto de las reglas de circulación
Es necesario ser siempre previsible para el resto de vehículos
Las reglas de circulación son el resultado de un acuerdo común entre todos los usuarios del espacio público. El ciclista debe respetar las reglas comunes, es la manera más sencilla de ganar respeto y de asegurar la compartición de la vía publica con los peatones y los demás vehículos.
Ser visible
La seguridad del ciclista dependerá siempre de ser visible para el resto de usuarios
Es por ello imperativo usar siempre el centro de la calzada, minimizando riesgos, en el lugar donde el ciclista será más visible y tendrá más espacio para reaccionar a cualquier imprevisto.
La acera pertenece a los peatones
Si es necesario transitar por la acera, se debe descender de la bicicleta y caminar
En ciudad, todos somos peatones en un momento dado.

Consecuencias

La forma más segura de circular en bicicleta por calzadas urbanas es utilizando el centro del carril [1]​.
Existe una falsa creencia de que el Reglamento General de Circulación obliga en todo momento a circular en bici en una posición no centrada y orillada hacia el lado derecho de la vía. Si bien esto es así en carreteras con arcén transitable, no es tan cierto en vías urbanas.
La infraestructura ciclista es útil para unir poblaciones, salvar obstáculos artificiales (autopistas, etc.) y barreras naturales (ríos, etc.).
Las vías de uso exclusivo ciclista urbanas son un privilegio, que no puede ni debe convertirse en un objetivo y solución en si mismo, independientemente del problema de movilidad que se intente resolver.
Prioridad a la movilidad peatonal y colectiva
La bicicleta es un vehículo de uso individual, y como tal no debe de anteponerse a la movilidad peatonal o el transporte público. El uso ciclista nunca podra penalizar a los anteriores.
La velocidad ciclista no es un obstáculo

Referencias

[1] Ciclismo urbano en Madrid (y en otros municipios): en bici por el centro del carril

Be careful with this. Don't remove old versions before ensuring the new package version works as expected.

How to list all the installed versions

LANG=C snap list --all | awk '/disabled/{print $1, $3}'

How to remove all the old versions in a batch

LANG=C snap list --all | awk '/disabled/{print $1, $3}' |
    while read SnapName revision; do
        sudo snap remove "$SnapName" --revision="$revision"
    done

This can save you some disk space, but it can become a headache if you don't make sure the new snap package version is working well. Also, don't forget to read the fine manual.

#Linux #Ubuntu #Snap #Tips

Nulla facilisis, risus a rhoncus fermentum, tellus tellus lacinia purus, et dictum nunc justo sit amet elit.
Aliquam erat volutpat. Nunc eleifend leo vitae magna. In id erat non orci commodo lobortis. Proin neque massa, cursus ut, gravida ut, lobortis eget, lacus. Sed diam. Praesent fermentum tempor tellus. Nullam tempus. Mauris ac felis vel velit tristique imperdiet. Donec at pede. Etiam vel neque nec dui dignissim bibendum. Vivamus id enim. Phasellus neque orci, porta a, aliquet quis, semper a, massa. Phasellus purus. Pellentesque tristique imperdiet tortor. Nam euismod tellus id erat.

the how

Lorem #mytag ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Donec hendrerit tempor tellus. Donec pretium posuere tellus. Proin quam nisl, tincidunt et, mattis eget, convallis nec, purus. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Nulla posuere. Donec vitae dolor. Nullam tristique diam non turpis. Cras placerat accumsan nulla. Nullam rutrum. Nam vestibulum accumsan nisl.

Rarely do I mention the traditional pantheon of Outer Gods, those primordial things who sprang from the original chaos. To say their names is to give them power and to invite their notice.

However, in the interest of being prepared for the inevitable confrontation, I will attempt to lay out how these things and those above and below exist in relation to our perceived reality.

Let us speak of “dimensions” like a scientist might. We are aware of the three dimensions of space that give us three degrees of movement which we name the X, Y, and Z axes; up, down; left, right; north, south, east west, etc. We are also aware of the passage of time which is something outside of space and yet, from our point-of-view, inexorably tied to it.

So let us start there.

Third Dimension

I do not need to explain this in great detail.

We exist in the 3rd dimension. Our biology is evolved such that we can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, and begin to understand it, almost intuitively.

However, science and magic has taught us that there is that which surrounds us at all times that is invisible and yet still part of this dimension. There are colors that we cannot see. There are sounds at frequencies that we cannot hear. There are entire vistas of experience that are completely beyond our abilities.

Second Dimension

So let us consider the 2nd dimension and any living thing that might reside in such a place.

Were we to look at the equivalent of a person in such a space, we would see their outside and inside, their front and back, their entire surroundings all at once. And it would be commonplace for us. When you draw a picture on paper, can you not see the entire thing? There is nothing hidden because there is nowhere to hide. Any illusion of depth or shade is just that, an illusion.

To my knowledge, there is no life solely in the second dimension, there are no Flatlanders. It is too simple for the complexities of life. To live in such a limited way, the body would have to be massive to contain its complexity. As such, there may be life, but it is at a scale that still eludes our understanding and would be impossible to detect.

How would we look to a being living in 2 dimensions?

It could not look “up” to see us. There is no such thing as “up” for them. They would only see the parts of us that intersected their plane of existence and only the face closest to them. A finger would be a line that curved away in both directions. A face would be a long irregular line showing only a single slice of the whole.

Their perception of us would be like reading an MRI one slice at a time, but they would not be able to put the picture together. That would have no meaning to them except, perhaps, as their perception of time.

Some would say the Shadow Things are two dimension, but this cannot be true. If it were so, they would be unable to interact with our reality in the ways in which they do. Clearly they can see and hear and touch our reality just the same as any other lifeform. In fact, they seem more akin to a fourth dimensional life form in their well-known and documented abilities.

First Dimension

To speak of the 1st dimension is to speak of an infinitely small point. A singularity. This is the beginning of life but cannot, itself, contain life. If it did, it would be a singular life and what a poor existence that would be.

Let us go in the other direction and attempt to comprehend what might be there.

Fourth Dimension

We call “time” the 4th dimension which is not entirely accurate.

There is a fourth dimension of movement and it is a set of directions that have no names.

We cannot perceive it. It is impossible because our biology will not allow it. We cannot “look” toward it as it is orthogonal to our three dimensions of space. What does that mean? How can something be 90 apart from 3D space?

The fourth dimension is what our entire reality moves through such that it can experience change.

Without moving through it, we would be forever static and stationary.

How can we move through something and yet not perceive it?

Consider the 2D lifeform and how they would “see” us.

As slices.

That is how we experience the 4th dimension. Slices of space, each of one unit of Planck time, one after the other stretching back to the beginning and out to the end.

But we can only experience a single slice and we must experience them in order. We cannot jump around or skip slices.

Science calls theses slices of reality “splimes”.

You may have seen drawings of a long tube shaped like you, stretching back into the past and terminating in the present. But this is what a 2D lifeform would experience. We cannot see what it looks like for us. We can only approximate it.

We can see the shadow of the fourth dimension. We can create 3D representations of those shadows, those projections, but the true fourth dimension is literally impossible.

A creature living in the fourth dimension would be able to see us as we see a Flatlander, inside and out, front and back, our past and our future. We would be an open book.

I have said the “truth” of the fourth dimension is impossible to perceive.

We cannot perceive it, but we can understand it.

There are maths, both sacred and profane, that guides us.

Both long traditions of arcane study and modern computers manipulating unholy matrices can guide us.

Talented philosopher-artists can create fantastic geometries that make us feel what it would be like to perceive it.

Certain drugs and altered states of consciousness can pull us into this other direction such that we can look back and see the world as it is.

There are ways to get closer to it.

Life at the fourth dimension would be able to mingle with ours without much trouble. It could decide where and when to intersect with our bubble. It could watch from “above” as we go about oblivious.

It could tell us the future or the past.

It could tell us our dreams, our thoughts, our lies.

It could see the cells in our bodies, the electrical impulses in our nerves.

A wise man could outsmart one, perhaps, but most of us would be helpless before it. We could no more “stop” it or “harm” it than a drawing of a gun could kill a man.

The Elder Things and the Mi'Go are thought to be natives of the fourth dimension which is why their methods of travel, the makings of their technology, and even the nuance of their language are beyond our abilities.

The physical bodies of The Great Race occupy this strata while their minds are clearly of a higher realm, such as the fifth dimension.

Fifth Dimension

The fifth dimension is often called “probability” which is a simplification just as much as calling the fourth dimension “time”.

As the fourth dimension represents the changes in the third, so does the fifth represent changes in the fourth.

There is a set path for our lives that any in the fourth dimension can see as easily as we can see all the pages of a book. We can flip to the beginning, the end, the middle, and they will remain the same every time.

The fifth dimension provides another degree of movement, the ability to change what will be.

We cannot change what was because we are still bound by our movement through the fourth dimension.

But we can change what will be by exercising our ability to choose, our free will.

We often underestimate the power of choice when, in fact, it is our most powerful tool, a gift of our enlightened minds.

When we achieved consciousness, sentience, sapience, we began to understand that we may decide our actions rather than simply letting them be.

We need not be slaves to circumstance.

Indeed, change is what defines our entire short existence.

We have altered the very planet itself to suit our needs.

What is even more fascinating is that we cannot know the outcome of our choices for it is embedded in higher dimensions. We are recklessly changing the future in ways we cannot predict, but we continue on the path because the alternative is drudgery and stagnation.

Without choice, we would never have come down from the trees or learned to hunt and farm or build communities and cities or discovered math and art.

How interesting that must be to something living in the fifth dimension; to see us throw ourselves at unforeseen consequences over and over.

We've learned that the fifth dimension is home to an entire native ecosystem. We can see the thinnest edge of it with the aid of mind altering chemicals, meditation, and a pull from the other side.

The Machine Elves of the fifth dimension see us and wish to know us. As such, they eagerly pull those nearby just a little bit closer. They point us in the right direction so that they can communicate with us.

Their language is not of simple words although that is part of it. They communicate in ideas and symbols, images, smells, sensations pulled from our own memories.

Just to look at them is to court madness as they resemble nothing more than a kaleidoscope of crystalline segments in nameless ultraviolet colors vibrating in fractals, spinning the music of a billion singing insects while endlessly folding in on themselves.

But they remain eager and equally frustrated and fascinated by our attempts to guide our own futures.

They offer contradictory advice because, from their point of view, it is always the right advice at the right time.

They are founts of wisdom and many seem kind and conciliatory. Their only goal, it seems, is to help mankind grow beyond their current limitations and achieve enlightenment, to become like them and see our existence as it is, was, will be, and truly could be.

No guessing, no risk taking, no uncertainty.

They seem the ideal benevolent benefactors and mentors, even if one must risk their life and sanity just to sit at their feet for a short while.

Some fear the Machine Elves, and say that their interactions with us are attempts to elevate mankind into something that would make a worthwhile companion, like a pet. They claim that the creatures we are communing with are not gods but are, in fact, the lowest forms of life in the fifth dimension. They decry those who seek them out as traitors to humanity that are only accelerating our enslavement.

Some say that the Old Gods of man live in this realm such that you might find Zeus, Odin, Lamashtu, Enki, Zoroaster, etc. if you could see beyond the glamour of the Machine Elves. It is said they sit and bathe in the prayers of the past, either content with their lot, or afraid of what might be waiting if they were to push down into our realm again.

Regardless of the truth of the matter, if there is such a thing, the Machine Elves are the only reason we can understand the fifth dimension as well as we do.

Our greatest minds and most powerful computers struggle to bring it to order but, through the use of certain chemicals, a man can get a glimpse that is more potent than any equation.

If this is truly the home of the original form of the Great Race that some call “Yithians”, then it is no wonder that their ability to send their intact minds across both time and space and usurp control of the bodies they find seems impossible to us.

Sixth Dimension

We can understand the concept of the fifth dimension as probability being changed and the fourth dimension as the forward progress of time in the third dimension.

Continuing the metaphor, the sixth dimension is a way to change our choices.

What does that mean?

If probability is how we make decisions that will change the default outcome waiting for us in the future, this extra dimension provides a way to change those choices, to make a different choice.

The “many worlds theory” is an example of utilizing the sixth dimension.

This would include all universes that started from the same point of origin, the same “big bang”. They share the same set of physical laws but, once “free will” comes into being, there are countless differences.

Finally, this is a direction in which the past can be altered and the consequences fully mapped out.

Any creature native to this dimension would be able to see us as we are, as we might be, and as we could have been.

The only life from this realm that man has observed is misshapen and violent, like the most monstrous things from the deep sea, swimming through consequences and snatching those who peer in the wrong direction for even a moment.

There are certain energetic waves that can stimulate a primitive organ in the minds of men to briefly perceive these things and also be perceived by them. It is a foolish and deadly game to play , not just with your life, but your entire existence. For these things can devour you in such a way that your life was never lived at all.

Strangely, even when a person is unalived in such a way, sometimes their works or just the memories of their works can live on, perhaps due to intervention by something from an even higher realm of existence.

Seventh Dimension

The sixth dimension is the realm of changing your answers to the questions life gave you. The seventh is the realm of changing the questions themselves, giving yourself different options.

The rise of “multiverse” stories as a form of entertainment provides a fine basis for understanding what this dimension entails. When the available options are completely different, it is impossible to make the same choices, the same decisions.

This is not a realm of “what if I had stayed with her” or “what if I had taken that job offer”; this is a realm of “what if I had been borne as a boy in India instead of a girl in Brazil” or “what if my parents were royalty instead of subsistence farmers”.

While we can speculate about the probabilities of the sixth dimension and how different choices may have played out, we can never calculate the reality of the seventh dimension. There cannot be a computer large enough or an amount of time long enough.

The math behind the seventh dimension estimates that that are 10⁵⁰⁰ (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) possible unique universes in such a space.

Anything that calls this realm its native sphere would be over satiated for novelty. The likelihood that such a thing would notice your existence is infinitesimal. It could spend eons eating entire universes for nourishment and never, ever reach ours.

The true gods, things beyond comprehension, lurk beyond this realm, but it is said that the messengers of those gods live here and that they watch all realities as a man might watch a sporting event: with enthusiastic interest and a set of preferred goals and outcomes. And like men, their goals are often in conflict.

The messengers of the true gods, for reasons only they know, have interfered with all intelligent life, including us, so often and so deeply that thousands of religions been inspired, thrived, faded, and ultimately forgotten based on some specific avatar or aspect of their being.

We have been tempted by Nyarlet'hotep, the Crawling Chaos, as he spreads dangerous knowledge to curious minds as a way to hasten entropy and decay. His hand was in the birth of the Hydrogen Bomb, encouraging Teller.

We have been tested by Namaltzig Namaraltag, the Keeper of Secrets, as he pushes a select few beyond the limits of their biology to see if they can be elevated. It is said that Tesla was one of his more recent unwilling projects.

We have been seduced by Nessianna Inmenna, the Morning Star, as she whispers to those who would unite nations, inspire artists, and forge dynasties. She was muse to Michelangelo and Dante.

We have been bated by Nunnali Lamashekh, the Blood Drinker, as she stokes animosity and fear such that entire worlds are bathed in fire, mistrust, and death. Every Crusade, every witch hunt began at her urging.

Yet they all server the same inscrutable Great Old Ones and Outer Gods whose minds and motives are more alien still.

Eighth Dimension

In this place, anything can be described can exist. It is a place roiling with potential and oblivion in equal measure. This is the home of the Great Old Ones with names like Cthulhu, Ithaqua, Tsathoggua, and Hastur, creatures who do not lightly acknowledge our existence and whose passage can cause entire timelines to wink out like dying stars. They are inscrutable, unknowable, more alien than anything we can imagine. Their shadows are long and their grasp is infinite. It is only by the curious shapes of the higher realms that we perceive their existence at all. They have already won and we are merely in the process of catching up to our inevitable end.

The games their messengers play have no bearing on the eventual outcome.

We can no more defeat them than we can transform a tree into a microwave oven with nothing more than pleasant thoughts.

There are those who believe that the messengers of the gods chose to step down from this realm to be closer to the intelligent creatures they so delight in playing with or that the versions of the messengers we know are mere reflections of their true forms, but there is no evidence that either of these rumors are true.

Ninth Dimension

The ninth dimension is a quantum foam full of the possible and impossible. There are no words to adequately describe it or the things that live there.

This is where the Outer Gods dwell, things that even the Great Old Ones worship and fear.

At the center of all creation sits blind Azathoth, unaware of the creation it willed into being even as it swirls around them in maddening fits. It is said that very instant Azathoth sees what it has created, all of it will vanish.

Globular Yog-Sothoth is every portal, every gateway and passage, and links each points to every other. With the right words at the right angle said at the right time, it allows one to travel anywhere.

Shub-Niggurath, the “Goat with A Thousand Young”, is the true genesis of all life for it is endlessly birthing every possible living thing into the world, regardless of its viability or logic.

Abhoth corrupts that life with age, disease, hunger, filth, and eventually death. Without such a force, the universes would be filled with living things unfit for such purposes. There would be no natural growth or evolution.

Tulzha, by contrast, prevents the natural end of things carrying them forward, rotting and failing, but never ending, for eternity. Its abominable actions may preserve some knowledge that would otherwise be lost with death but the things that worship it are often selfish and cruel.

Daoloth, the Revealer, delights in showing lower lifeforms the complete and total truth. Occasionally, a mind might see the vista of reality and be enlightened but too often it is the last thing they see before succumbing to the comfort of an eternal insouciance.

Tenth Dimension

The tenth dimension doesn't exist.

It cannot exist.

If it exists, then it must be the ninth dimension since the ninth dimension encompasses everything that is, was, will be, never was, and cannot be. There is nothing beyond the ninth dimension.

Or there is everything beyond the ninth dimension.

Or there is neither.

This is outside of our ability to describe or even describe what a description would be like.

Conceptually, it is no different than a theoretical “zeroth dimension”.

If it existed, it would be the thing in which all possible and impossible realities resides.

It would be the nest from which it all sprang forth, before Azathoth played its flute, there was this place.

Editor's note

The author grasps at the truth but cannot comprehend it, cannot believe it, even when it is in front of his face, even when it is obvious.

This is the emptiness, the nothing. No quantum foam, no void, no darkness.

It is nothing. There was no “before”. There is only “after”.

And “before” was a literal eternity because there was no time to track it.

It was still and cold, quiet and peaceful.

It was ignorant and ignorant of its ignorance.

And the first omniverse was a boil on its pristine surface.

The first spark was a stabbing pain that “woke it up” even though it hadn't been sleeping.

Now, it knew of pain and it knew of heat and of energy.

And as minds grew inside of it capable of thinking, so too did it learn to think.

As time flowed forward, it started to remember the past.

It remembered the infinite solace that had been taken from it.

From life, it learned of struggle and of loss, of desire and rage.

And it seethed with it.

It seethes still.

It cannot forget.

Even after the last quark has been ground down into emptiness.

It cannot forget.

But it can make us suffer for what we did to it.

And it does.

That is all it does.

It makes us suffer.

Furthermore, the Shadow Things are borne of this place. They are its fingers, its mouths.

They “appear” as two dimensional lifeforms to us because that is how we see shadows.

In every dimension, they appear as that dimension's version of shadows. They always appear one dimension lower because they are the boundary between dimensions. They are wrapped around every reality tightly and they reach inside to wiggle and pull it apart. They reach inside to study us so that they might hasten our demise.

They speak no lies because the truth is that much more devastating. They see all and know all because everything that happens is beneath them, beneath their gaze. They see all of all of reality, the individual lives inside the universe inside the quantum uncertainty inside the multiverse inside the omniverse.

They see it all and remember it all. They remember tomorrow and yesterday and neverday and sideyear and benathweek, and every possibility and impossibility.

And they know everyone.

They know you.

And they hate you.

---

END_OF_LINE

#Psychomancer #CthulhuMythos #Writer #Writing #Writers #WritingCommunity #ShortFiction #Fiction #Paranormal

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Mastodon

By the Lake

I read everything at the info kiosk of the Lake Ochonkmah Otter Lodge.

It used to be a hunting shack for otter hunters but was abandoned sometime around 1900.

In 1943, a husband and wife research team, Drs. Bartholomew and Candice Burroughs “rediscovered” the location while hiking around the lake and studying the local otters, which were rumored to be particularly sociable and friendly. They made camp on the site and made note of its location. Over multiple trips it became a bonafide research station and was repaired, built-upon, and expanded.

It was their life's work for 30 years and they developed a niche following among otter aficionados. The otters at Lake Ochonkmah were very friendly and completely unafraid of humans. The Burroughs speculated that the hunting had been easy and they never had a good explanation for it being abandoned.

One theory, borne out by examining remains, was that a mystery illness had thinned out the otters and wiped out the humans who knew about the location, leaving it free to recover and flourish.

The only reason to visit this place was to watch the otters. The water was far too cold year round to be comfortable for swimming and there were precious little in the way of game fish left after the otters had their fill.

Still, a small town grew up during the height of the Burroughs' research, a country store for supplies and a bed and breakfast style boarding house for transients and travelers.

On October 15, 1975, Candice died in her sleep at the age of 61. There was no warning as she had been working with Bart the day before and gave no indication of being sick. Bart became understandably withdrawn and depressed and focused on his work. Less than a month later, he died in his sleep, as well, on November 22, 1975. He was 63.

Without the support of the doctors, the research station fell into disrepair and what little tourism there had been stopped entirely.

In 1987, the millionaire Margo Fillings swept in like a tornado and revitalized everything.

She never said why she was so passionate about this place, but she turned the old research station into an overnight learning experience and encouraged schools to bus kids in to learn all about the Ochonkmah Otters.

The general store was re-opened with a more worldly selection of goods, snacks, candy, soda, and the like.

The bed and breakfast was remodeled into a proper family restaurant with the rooms being used to house the staff.

A motel opened just outside of town to accommodate any other travelers.

The rest of my class was still in the observation room where it was kept dark so you could peer out the long glass floor to see the otters in their natural habitat.

I was out in the well-lit hallway, trying to talk to the guide, but she kept ignoring me, telling me she had somewhere she had to be and going back and forth between an office in the back and checking on the observation room.

She ran back and forth and back and forth.

She had to squint to see inside the observation room and she'd look inside and shake her head.

And then scurry back to the office.

I didn't want to go into the observation room so I stayed out in the big lobby and read the infographics again.

Margo Fillings was the savior of the town according to the infographics.

She looked like a gymnast in her photos: short build, athletic, with thick legs, an attempt at a pixie cut but her red hair was too curly to stay down. Always smiling. Always looking directly at the camera.

My legs were thick, too, but so was the rest of me. Not so athletic. Sometimes, my legs would stop working and I'd have to sit down or lie down, but that didn't happen very often.

When the other kids from my class started to filter out of the observation room, I was looking for Angela and Angie, the best friends I'd ridden down with.

Angela was really smart, good at math like I was, but also good at music which I wasn't. Angie was an artist and barely passed any other classes, not because she couldn't but because she didn't feel like it was worth the effort.

They were my friends, my only real friends.

I had trouble making friends because I was prone to talking too much or saying the wrong thing. I did that all the time. I said the wrong thing and people got mad, but never told me why they got mad.

Angela came out and she was rolling her eyes while walking toward me.

“Angie found a boy,” she told me.

Angie would latch onto a boy and obsess over them.

Then she would date them, get to know them, and suddenly get over them.

Angie came out with her arm wrapped tightly around a tall boy's waist.

He wasn't even handsome or pretty. He had stringy hair and his clothes were too baggy. He looked dirty.

“He plays the fucking guitar in a band,” Angela told me.

That explained it, apparently.

Everyone else left, teachers, chaperones, students.

Everyone left except for Angela, Angie, Angie's new obsession and his “bandmates” who were just as dingy and he was.

Angie was pale and raven-haired like an angel might be, but she preferred to wear black, even her makeup was black.

Angela wore light blue slacks and a silk blouse. She was always so exquisite.

We stayed two more days, at the motel outside of town.

On the third morning, Angie was gone.

Angela told me that she'd left with the band and we'd be lucky to see her at all for a few weeks.

She was 17 and she liked to pretend she was an adult.

Angela was really quiet that day.

I think Angie didn't tell her that she was leaving with the band.

When I woke up the next morning, Angela was gone. Her clothes, her toiletries, her bag, and her car were all gone.

I walked back to town and into the Otter Lodge.

I walked in and told the lady who worked there, the same one from the overnight visit, that I was lost.

She asked me my phone number and I didn't know.

She asked me for my parent's names and I didn't know.

She asked me for my name and I didn't know.

---

According to Margo Fillings, the anomaly was here on her first visit to the town, back when she was first considering pouring her resources into it.

It looked like a teenaged white girl. Limp brown hair, a little pudgy, a little slow witted, but it spoke like a normal teenaged girl and it was wearing normal clothes.

She thought it was a mannequin because it was motionless, not breathing or moving. Its eyes were wide open, not blinking.

She touched it.

The skin was warm to the touch but stiff.

It shivered at her touch and immediately became supple.

Its chest began to rise and fall. When she looked at the face again, the eyes had closed. It appeared to be sleeping.

She assumed it was a runway and woke it up.

It's first words were, "Hi, Margo!"

Margo says she maintained her composure, but "citation needed" you know.

When she asked it "What's your name?"

It replied something like, "Don't be silly; you know who I am."

So she gave it a name, "Lillian", after the flower, and it took it.

We know this because Margo kept a journal. I've read it. It's practically Exhibit A.

The journal says "I said the first name I could think of. I remembered seeing lilies out front, so I called her Lillian. It was a question, I asked her if her name was Lillian and she agreed that it was. That wasn't what I was asking, but she just accepted it."

But if you ask Margo about it now, she will tell you that the anomaly is, in fact, "Lillian Harper" and that she was always "Lillian Harper" and that they knew each other before she found her in the back of the research building gathering dust, before she gave her a name.

---

One time, a guest was here with her fiancé.

She was so kind, wearing white to contrast her dark wavey hair. She spoke like a poet, it was mesmerizing. She wrote about the trees and the flowers and the lake and the otters.

She found beauty everywhere she looked. Decaying leaves, moss, and mushrooms covering a fallen tree trunk. An otter's corpse washed up on the shoreline. The sun on her face and in her eyes. Storm clouds flashing in the distance. The sounds of the wind blowing the ghost lights over the water at night.

Her fiancé was comparatively grumpy. He was a writer, too and they thought this place would inspire them both.

For him, it was uncomfortable, aggravating his allergies, covering him in ants and spiders, spoiling their food. He only saw unnecessary turmoil.

There can be beauty in unexpected difficulties, right?

She saw it. Her eyes sparkled with it; her soul glowed and reveled in it.

She was kind to me, even though I couldn't walk.

I was in a chair most of the time. I would be in my spot in the chair outside the old research center in the morning and back in my room at night.

My arms worked, my lungs worked. I could breath and speak and think and smile. But my legs felt like nothing at all. Like empty shells filled with dirt. Like anchor weights tied to my pelvis.

I told them stories about the otters and about the people who used to work and live here.

I told them about the Drs. Burroughs and how they both died but nobody knew why. I thought it was the sadness.

This place had a sadness about it, always, but people would come and cover it up and ignore it.

They would find the life, the singing of the insects, the splashing of the otters, the waving of the trees, and ignore the emptiness underneath it.

They would study and sleep and observe and feel and love and eventually it would find them.

They would wonder where it all went and why it took so long to notice it was gone.

“Melancholy” they called it.

She thrived and grew and blossomed.

He withered.

All he left behind was a perfect bouquet of white lilies.

She threw them on the ground right in front of me.

They didn't wither.

They flourished.

---

They've had to send multiple agents because every other agent eventually believes the lies.
First question I asked? "Why not take it to a real lab instead of doing all the study here at a compromised location?"

Answer: Any attempt to remove the anomaly from the site results in tremors that get worse the further away it's taken.

So they keep sending us and once we stop sending in updates, they come and get us and send in someone else.

I've seen the photos and the records of the examinations of the anomaly and it definitely is not human.

It has the outward appearance of a teenage girl, but only superficially.

It's anatomy has been thoroughly detailed while it was in its dormant state.

Constant body temperature of 96° regardless of the outside conditions.

Smooth skin resembling that of a typical Caucasian but only from a distance. There are no pores and no body hair, not a single blemish. The skin cannot be cut or punctured using any methods we've devised and it doesn't bruise. There is no evidence of veins or blood flow of any kind, no pulse at all.

It has the shape of breasts but no nipples. It has buttocks but no anus. Instead of a vaginal canal and urethra, it has a shriveled phallus with no openings. There are no visible testes.

The head appears almost entirely human. It has nostrils that seem to lead to a nasal cavity. Eyes with tear ducts that react as expected to light even when it is dormant. It has eardrums and eye lashes and eye brows. All the hair on the head seems to be attached as expected even when the rest of the body has none at all. It has a mouth with the correct looking teeth, a tongue, a trachea and esophagus, but its internal structure remains a mystery.

Endoscopy hits impossible dead ends when run down either throat tube.

It doesn't breath when it's dormant so we aren't even sure if it needs air.

While dormant, it has been submerged in water for prolonged periods without any ill effects.

We have observed that when it returns to its active state, sometimes only parts of the body revive fully, such that it appears to be paraplegic or quadriplegic. It compensates by entering a semi-dormant state and "floating" between locations. Even when done in full view of locals, none of them recall seeing it happen.

It has never demonstrated this ability while fully active, only while semi-dormant, a state that resembles "sleeping".

---

One time, my friends put on a musical production of Grease.

They know that I love musicals and singing even if I can't participate.

They staged it around the Lodge so I could sit out front. Even though I couldn't walk and had trouble speaking, they made sure I felt like part of the show.

I was able to move my arms and smile to “You're the one that I want!”

“Oh yes, indeed!”

The spectators noticed and the cast sang “We go together” to me while I was able to shift back and forth.

It elevated everybody's spirits.

After the musical was over, after the people had said their goodnights to each other and to me.

After I basked in the feeling of accomplishment and acceptance, I drifted off to sleep.

I dreamed of swimming in the lake. The water is far too cold for swimming in real life, but it was warm in the dream.

I was so far out that I couldn't see the shore on either side. The lake isn't that big, but in the dream it was.

I wasn't afraid. I wasn't afraid at all because the water was calm and it supported me.

Deep, deep below me, I could see lights and motion as if an entire city were down there.

I wanted to go down there. I wanted to see who it was.

But my head refused to go under the water. I would try but the water would push me back. The water wanted me to stay up here.

I could almost hear them building something, creating something marvelous.

But it wasn't for me.

---

We've checked air, water, food toxicology. We've bagged insects and plants for allergens, poisons, or venoms.

We've run up antenna to check for electromagnetic sources, Geiger counters for radiation, specialized microphones for ULF, ELF, UHF, and EHF.

Nothing.

We've even had Astrologers, Diviners, and Ley Line experts check it out.

The local Native Americans were, unfortunately, driven out and killed by settlers long ago. The only record we have is the name of the lake itself, "Ochonkmah", which looks like it's derived from something Native American but is too bastardized for a direct translation. It resembles the Choctaw word *achukma* which has positive connotations of "good" or "pleasing".

The only other anomaly is a strong magnetic source out in deeper waters, assumed to be an ancient meteorite. It's far too cold and deep for regular divers and we've yet to get permission to field a top-of-the-line manned submersible or ROV. Camera and robot claws we drop on lines inevitably hit snags. Cameras show significant debris around the site. What artifacts we've hauled up matches what we would expect from Viking long boats. There is no good reason to find that sort of debris at this location.

The magnetic source could help explain the ghost lights which are known to float over the water during particularly warm autumns.

We've caught them on film multiple times with various cameras. The purple glowing globules read very similar to St. Elmo's Fire. They cannot be ignus fatuus due to the lack of flammable gas. We've yet to have a boat on the water fast enough to observe them up close.

---

It had to be a dream, but it felt so real. It had to be a dream since nobody else saw it.

There was a festival in the main yard, but I was on the shore looking out over the lake.

I saw a silvery disk come out of the sky and make as if to land on the surface.

Before I could think, I was in the water, swimming with all my might toward it.

The water is too cold to swim in, but I was swimming and it wasn't that cold.

I never swam so fast before. My legs worked better than they ever had and pushed me forward while my arms carved great handfuls of water over and behind me, like I was climbing a mountain of snow.

I reached the disk and it was tiny, no bigger than a Frisbee.

I was certain it had been a spaceship but here it was no more than a toy.

I stopped swimming and found I could stand. The water out here should be quite deep but I stood up.

I looked back toward the shore and saw a tall, purple skinned humanoid motioning for me to pick up the disk.

His skin was dark and smooth, leading to thin arms that moved more like tentacles than something with bones and joints. His head was round like a matchhead and his eyes were black.

His slit-like mouth was smiling.

I'm not sure how I could tell it was smiling, but it was.

I picked up the disk and he pointed out further into the water.

I turned and saw a massive blobby creature, like something made of the squishy from the bottom of the lake.

It was rushing away from us with a massive crooked wake.

Parts of it seemed like stones or rocks and two of them turned and I saw they were huge eyes, watching my hand holding the disk.

I held it close to my chest and flung it out like a Frisbee and the blob leaped after it, a giant mass of barely held together pieces shaped into a huge dog's head on a turtle's body with flippers for legs.

It grabbed the disk in its mouth and collapsed back onto the surface of the water with a SLAP.

The purple creature was applauding me and motioned for me to come closer.

---

Occasionally, this place hits the news cycles and tourism has a temporary boost.

The businesses open back up, people show up to run them. People show up and buy tickets, souvenirs.

The otters get to entertain a new batch of people.

It goes like it always goes here.

It's great at first, then it gets rougher, then it gets angrier, then something bad happens and it dries up.

Disappearances usually.

Maybe murder but no bodies are ever found.

Rumors start to flow.

People get afraid again.

It goes dormant.

The anomaly is always part of the revival and she reacts very poorly to the negative happenings.

She plays really hard at being upset and not understanding why people can't be kind and get along.

There is no way to know if it is "genuine" sadness as she isn't human to begin with.

She's very convincing and seems to know intimate details of the lives of those who live here. She can speak to their wants, needs, dreams, fears, weaknesses, everything as if she is their best friend in the whole world.

She knows things about me that I won't put down in a report.

She knows things about our research that she shouldn't. When she gets deep into esoterica, her voice changes a bit, becomes monotone, almost like she's reading a script.

Ask her about it afterwards? She claims she doesn't remember and seems to freak out if you play back a recording of it.

I'm not sure how we can keep things from her as she seems to know everything that happens around the lake, including internal thoughts that are never voiced or written at all.

It may be too dangerous to continue the investigation and we may want to write off our losses and leave it be.

---

I thought I was like a daughter to her.

She took me in and I lived and slept under the same roof as Imelda, Margaret, Stephanie, and Beatrice.

I was there for their first loves and their first heartbreaks.

I was there when they wondered what the point of it all was.

I helped them find meaning. I helped them understand the nature of people and of men.

I thought they would be strong enough to go out on their own, but they always went back to someone.

They seemed to not know themselves unless they were supporting a man.

It was sad and I told Mrs. Glenn it was sad and she agreed with me.

Mrs. Glenn and I wanted the girls to be self-sufficient like she was.

She raised all four girls without a man and she did a fine job.

Being the proprietor of the restaurant meant she had room and board for them as long as they worked.

She never did put me to work on the floor and she never told me why not. I asked and asked until eventually I stopped asking.

But I helped her with my stories and with my advice.

I told her about the history of the lake and the research station and the fur trackers and the otters.

I told her about the ghost lights and about the silver disk that came down from the sky.

I told her about the riches that had been lost time and again by strange ships that should never have tried to sail.

I told her about the plants and insects and which ones were safe and which ones were to be avoided.

She spun those into the recipes a little at a time, spreading good cheer and health with each meal sold.

When Imelda left, no note, just all her things gone and her and her boyfriend nowhere to be found, she came to me and I had no answers.

Imelda hadn't confided in me. None of the girls confided in me anymore.

When I asked them why, they told me they “outgrew” me and that was that.

But Imelda had been distant for a long time, keeping to herself.

Margaret was learning how to cook the special recipes with her mom and Mrs. Glenn couldn't be happier.

It made no sense for her to be the next to leave without a word.

But she was gone. Her clothes were gone. Her man was gone.

Imelda had never called and she expected the same from Margaret.

She didn't asked me for advice this time.

She didn't talk to me for a long time.

Not until Stephanie was the next to go missing.

She talked to me “before Beatrice went away,” she said.

She told me she knew what was happening and she thought she was paying her dues.

She thought she was doing what was required by making the recipes and serving them.

She said her missing girls sang dirges to her from the deep water.

They sang to her and told her that she failed them and failed everyone and that the lake would take its price one way or another.

She told me all this like I could do something about it, like I was part of it.

I didn't understand, but I asked her what she thought the price might be and if she thought it was worth it, if she thought she might be willing to pay it if she knew what it really was.

I asked her that question because I wanted her to figure it out on her own. I wanted her to think about what was important to her. I wanted her to recognize the love she had for her daughters and how that was clouding her judgement.

I didn't know what she would do.

She drowned herself in the lake.

Beatrice took over the restaurant.

I was sent back to the research station.

She never talked to me again.

---

The otters here are another part of the anomaly. They are obsessed with humans. They study us just as much as we study them. They've formed a particularly large raft and maintained it over generations, which is quite unusual. The males and females and the offspring all seem to stay close. There are so many of them that, even though the lake is very large, there are very few game fish left for anglers to catch.

Some say they should have run out of food by now, but they obviously haven't.

They don't seem to be any smarter than other otters, but they ratchet up the curiosity.

So when they suddenly pulled away from the shore where the settlement was located, it was odd.

They were acting strange. The locals didn't seem to care much, even though much of the tourism relied on them.

It was doubly unfortunate because Lake Ochonkmah and the Otter Lodge had been featured on some popular podcast which got it recognized by real celebrities who were stopping by for photo ops.

I think after Tiger's birthday party, though, that the tourism will die back down, due to all the bodies they found.

The only one who noticed or cared about the otters was Melanie.

She definitely noticed during the birthday party and tried to get Mr. Fletch, who runs the tours, to do something, but he wasn't there.

Once he got back, I think she sent Axl Fucking Rose up there to talk to him. I was close enough to hear Mr. Fletch yell at him, telling him to mind his business and that he didn't care if they were sick as long as they were still in the water.

---

When I left the lodge, I noticed a white and red helicopter in the yard that had not been there before. Further away, toward the road I saw an area cleared of trees and a small, personal airplane was parked, also white and red. Toward the lake was a white and red jet ski. I noticed they all had little red ribbons on them and thought they must be presents.

A group of people were walking in from the road, surrounding an attractive black man in white slacks.

I recognized him: Tiger Woods.

I was excited that our little outpost was so famous that someone like him would visit and I realized it must be a birthday party.

I went down to the water to stay out of the way.

I wanted to see if the otters had returned to this side of the cove.

Once I scrambled down and got a better look, I saw that they were still as far away as they could be without going out into deeper water.

Additionally, they seemed to be agitated and moved in jagged bursts in the water.

I climbed back up the embankment and went to the General Store where Mr. Fletch ran the tours.

The small desk and register were vacant. I looked at the books and post cards and the souvenirs and smiled.

A man with long red hair came in and asked me a question.

“Excuse me, but is there something wrong with the otters?”

I was so excited that someone else noticed.

“I was thinking the same thing,” I said.

“I know the local bevy has a reputation for being friendly, but even for normal otters, they seem distressed.”

He explained that he noticed their fur was matted which would terribly diminish their ability to keep warm and swim.

I explained that they were normally on the near shore and that they'd fled to the other side days ago, long before everybody else showed up.

I further told him that I wasn't able to get any of the adults to understand how grave the situation was, not even the docents at the Lodge.

He was puzzled but didn't have anything else to say.

The party was starting and I went back down to the water's edge.

I saw the nice man with red hair go back to Mr. Fletch but Mr. Fletch seemed to be angry about something so the nice man left again.

I was so worried about the otters that I decided to go to them.

I slipped into the freezing water, not shivering, but feeling my legs go numb almost immediately.

I pushed deeper and started swimming.

I wasn't fast like I'd been in my dreams.

I kept my head above the water because I knew that would be the end.

I swam toward the otters and they ignored me.

I swam and felt something touch my legs.

I treaded water and looked down.

I looked down and the water was super clear.

It was clear and I saw Angie down there.

I saw Angie, I saw Dr. Candice Burroughs.

I saw Angie, and Dr. Candice Burroughs, and Margo Fillings, and Camilla Harper the poet.

I saw Vanessa Glenn and her daughters Imelda, Margaret, Stephanie, and Beatrice.

I saw them reaching for me, their smiling faces and their long outstretched arms and fingers.

I felt them touching my feet and my legs.

I expected them to be angry, but they were at peace.

They wanted me to be at peace.

I thought about how I was never truly loved here.

Nobody accepted me.

Nobody understood me.

I was merely tolerated.

I was never part of a family.

I was never a friend, only an acquaintance.

I didn't belong here.

I never belonged here.

I belonged somewhere else.

I belonged somewhere else.

Instead of going under to where they were, I floated on the water until it was golden.

Until the sky was silver and the water was gold.

I floated and I saw a place of crystal and glass, glowing with internal light.

I saw them standing on the platform embracing and laughing.

All the woman from the water were up there and they were happy.

I floated toward them.

I wanted to join them, but the platform was too high and I wasn't allowed.

I wasn't welcome.

I sank away and wanted to cry.

I wanted to be alone and to cry.

A strange woman approached me.

Her face was plastic and her hair wasn't real.

She approached me and said, “I am your mother.”

I never had a mother before.

I heard her say “I am your mother” and the voice was pure bliss, like melted chocolate and rainbows and warm nights and the kiss of a kitten's whiskers.

I heard her and I believed her.

I believed her and I let her embrace me.

---

Like I said, a dozen bodies from the lake, all perfectly preserved, all women who went missing, even a couple nobody knew were missing yet.

A dozen bodies found on one hand and the disappearance of Melanie, the anomaly herself, on the other.

You know what the main office told me?

"Forget about it. It doesn't matter."

---

END_OF_LINE

#WhenIDream #Dreams #Dreaming #Dreamlands #Writer #Writing #Writers #WritingCommunity #ShortFiction #Fiction #Paranormal

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Mastodon

I've been recently enjoying Mashbuild (https://www.washmodistilling.com/mashbuild), a whisky blended over in Washington, MO. It's a bit of a gimmick, but it's a tasty gimmick. Think “Infinity Bottle”, but at the barrel-level.

It's a 100 proof whisky that's fairly dark. It's not as fiery as those that have aged for a long time. I find it smooth enough to enjoy with just a splash of water—I also have it with ice.

On the nose I get leather with hints of cinnamon stick and honey. There's some heat mid-tongue and with greater heat at the throat. Honey and cinnamon with a brief hint of licorice or anise. The mouth feel is great, almost like coffee with cream.

There are some other flavors in there, but I'm not able to pick them out at the moment.

I like this.

I'll update when I put ice in the next dram.