Lento

Moverse no es lo mismo que avanzar. Y quedarse quieto no es lo mismo que estar a salvo. Qué lento parece que avanzamos a veces. Incluso hay momentos en que parece que damos dos pasos adelante y uno atrás —en el mejor de los casos—. Y en tiempos de gran turbulencia, parece que retrocedemos mucho más de lo que se había avanzado.

Se suele decir que cada uno tiene su tiempo —una forma de decir que cada uno avanza a su ritmo—. Puede que haya verdad en eso, pero también puede llevar a la inactividad y a la indiferencia: no tomamos acción. Y sí, tal vez tomamos acción solo cuando la gota derrama el vaso, cuando la necesidad o el agobio se vuelven tan insoportables que al fin te mueves —pero desde la desesperación y una posición débil, no desde una más fuerte—.

Hay que ir despacio para no estrellarse. Y aún así podemos estrellarnos. La idea no es no estrellarse: es disminuir la probabilidad, y si ocurre, que sea leve. Incluso sin moverte, algo puede estrellarse contra ti. No estamos solos, ni estamos del todo quietos.

El punto es tomar responsabilidad y movernos con propósito, no por inercia. Puede que a veces lo hagamos por inercia —porque estamos aprendiendo, porque estamos pasando de ser guiados a tomar el control, o porque nos tomamos una especie de pausa—. Pero eso sería mejor si fuese por decisión propia: en ese caso, la inercia misma se convierte en propósito. Somos experiencia, y eso en sí es movimiento en el tiempo.

Cluster

I have heard a cluster of ideas that serve as a mental model. There are four, and if I remember correctly they are:

1. Reality over idea, or reality over theory. This is about staying close to the real — touching it, being present, putting things into practice. You can hear about something, but experiencing it directly is something else entirely.

2. Union over conflict. This is about joining things, people, humanity, cultures — including, sharing, becoming stronger together. At its core, this is about love.

3. The whole over the part. This is about understanding that we are part of a whole, and that the whole matters more than any single part. We see this principle repeatedly in cases where one person or a few sacrifice themselves for the many — and we admire that bravery and recognise it as an act of love.

4. Time over space. This is about processes that take time — about evolution, improvement, and cycles that do not become toxic but instead become cycles of growth. And it stands against the impulse to take and hold spaces, to conquer land. That impulse leads to patriotism taken too far, nationalism, racism, fascism, war, genocide.

These principles I heard from Pope Francis. He said they help him understand countries, cultures, and religions. He defends integration. And I think they align with the Golden Rule — they align with the purpose of loving, serving, and seeking truth.

Stage

Parliament is a stage — and like all stages, what matters is not the truth but the performance. Parliament seems like a stage where the aim is either to defend everything the government does or to oppose everything it does. I think this is a problem that thinkers noticed as far back as ancient Greece. Leaders are not necessarily the smartest or the most suited to govern — whether by their morals or their skills. The skill that matters most is the ability to convince people. You can lie or simply complain; if you convince people, that is enough.

And those who are powerful in resources but lack that ability themselves can simply buy it. They can be the very company that oppresses workers whilst maintaining good public relations — and also funding the NGO that fights them. This sounds ironic, but they manage everything they can. And greed has no end.

Because sooner or later, those in power fight amongst themselves — when there is an overproduction of elites, or when their interests come into conflict. And the pawns are the rest of us. Seen this way, everything can be read as a stage where everyone is playing their character in a play called life.

Fama

La fama es un amplificador. No cambia lo que eres: solo lo hace más grande. La fama puede tener sus beneficios y sus desventajas. En ambos casos se debe tener en cuenta la responsabilidad: en los beneficios, para no llegar a herir a otros; en las desventajas, para no herirte principalmente a ti mismo.

La fama trae la responsabilidad de ser un ejemplo. Cada persona ya lo es para otras, quiéranlo o no. Con la fama esto se incrementa y puede desbordarte —más aún si eres una persona inmadura, si careces de principios y valores que te sirvan de guía, o si no tienes un propósito claro—.

La fama conlleva también la responsabilidad de ser una voz que defienda las causas justas, porque tu luz influye mucho más en los demás.

Puedes tratar de alejarte de la fama, y está bien. Así como está bien abrazarla y sobrellevarla mientras creces. Que esté bien equivocarse no debe convertirse en justificación para no esforzarse en evitarlo.

La fama es una herramienta, un amplificador. Qué vas a amplificar es cosa tuya. Si será algo bueno o malo es tu decisión —como en cada acción de la vida—. No es algo con lo que creerse superior a los demás, ni con lo que empequeñecerse por verlo como algo grandioso. Es algo pasajero, como la vida misma en este gran universo.

Face

People try to change their faces, but the results can be perceived very differently. Some changes come across as comic or unnatural — and some people look for exactly that, whilst others perhaps do not intend it. I prefer the natural look: improvements that leave the face appearing as though nothing artificial was done. Whether it is make-up, surgery, injectables, or other techniques I am not familiar with, the ideal for everyday style is to wear it and not appear to be wearing anything at all. Seeing a face that is obviously made up is one thing; wearing make-up that seems invisible — that is something else entirely.

I am not sure whether make-up is strictly necessary on television due to lighting or other factors. Perhaps not, and it has simply become the norm even when it is not strictly needed.

We should also bear in mind that faces differ due to age, ethnicity, diet, and environment. In recent decades we see faces that look younger compared with photographs of people of the same age from fifty or more years ago. Beyond genetics, we see someone of sixty who looks forty, or someone of fifty who looks thirty or forty.

I think we can improve our appearance through knowledge of nutrition, exercise, and certain products — but the goal should be to maintain a natural look rather than a comic one. The best improvement, in a face or anywhere else, is the one that leaves no trace of itself — only the result. And the best things a face can have are a genuine smile and shining eyes.

Quarrel

Sometimes we avoid quarrels, and sometimes — perhaps — we should experience them. I think they are more likely to happen if you grow up in an immature environment. I am not used to them myself. I have seen them treated as normal behaviour in some families. And it is possible that some would say they are fine — the way insulting rivals in stadiums is considered normal, or the way some friends greet each other with insults. But are those really quarrels? They may appear that way because of the intensity, but I understand a real quarrel as something different: a genuine lack of manners and restraint — being truly angry, heated, because you have been suppressing emotions.

Like a glass of water filled drop by drop until it overflows — the drop that spills the glass is not just a drop. It is the only one you see, but it is there because of all the ones contained before it. That is the analogy for when someone says something cruel or impolite and claims it was the heat of the moment: it is because there is more of that inside. If you see hatred or racism surface, there is more where it came from. Is that always the case? I do not know — but it may well be, and there are probably studies on it.

We should experience quarrels when we are exploring our limits — when we are growing up — because they help us know ourselves better. But not as something that happens every week or month.

Tell

Telling stories is how people shared knowledge, wisdom, and morals. Before writing, people only had stories to tell. And those stories could be different each time someone told them. Yes, people can memorise stories — but is it not better to transmit feelings and connect with your audience by adapting the story to them?

I always remember an exercise we did at school. Four classmates were chosen and taken out of the classroom. One of them read a short story aloud to those remaining inside, and then told it — not read it — to one of the classmates waiting outside, without the others hearing. That second classmate came in and told us the story: it was already slightly different. Then the second told it to the third, and so the process repeated. By the third retelling the story had changed noticeably, and by the time the fourth told it, it was completely different. This exercise helped us understand that stories can change — and distort — their original meaning with each retelling.

Psychologists call this the telephone effect — each retelling introduces small changes that compound into something unrecognisable. And that is one reason why stories like those in the Bible may contain inconsistencies or contradictions. Also because the way people communicated in ancient times was often more metaphorical or mystical. Should we take those stories literally? I would say no — and I would argue that we have been given the capacity to think and discern precisely so that we do not.