The blog of the prehistoric party

My biggest fear, undoubtedly, it is space. With age, without my understanding too why *, I develop even a more and more astounding vertigo: worker's simple photo on the beams of Eiffel Tower can grip me the belly and nail me on place.

* To do well, I say generally that it is because I did not kill the bird in me (and sense therefore strongly the call of space, desire to jump) but I suspect although it is something else that acts. I think that it appeared to the birth of my son, with the anxiety which he throws, without making him express, of the window (who awakened me in start of several siestas), but be not sure of it.

You would have an example, Yats , of at all rational fright?

What scares me most, for my part, it is Anxiety because so much fright seems to me very contained in certain borders of the body so much anxiety seems to me capable of developing in the infinity of a torment without any border. And this it is really terrible.

But I as have an impression as anxiety is an illness of the soul generated by a poison that the modern epoch (as undoubtedly the previous) can inoculate with a particular virtuosity and a ferociousness: Guilt.

The fright of others?

Am lie makes me responsible for saying that fright is the humus of the instinct of survival.

Token taken together, these two sentences are rather terrible

Biensur, they are not corr l es

The differentiation between fright and anxiety seems to me also important.

Isidore suggests that the first one is "bodily" and the "psychological" second. Why not?

I conceive for my part rather fright as fear of a definite thing space, rodents, death) and anxiety as fear of a vague thing (what returns this feeling really frightening).

I ask a question to my turn to the cantonade: is it necessary to be afraid of fright?

I join vincent of course isi and on differentiation fright / anxiety. By adding this that fright can be saving when anxiety is only killing and destroying.

I will add what I wrote to a common friend some weeks ago: that fright is at the origin of many human troubles: prejudices, free aggressiveness, racism, lies, etc. but that she undoubtedly also vouches for our survival.
Roughly, that, contrary to anxiety, fright is very PP in the fact that it contains in itself all petrol united by the good and by the trouble!

to beat a dead horse, I have an impression that fright comes from what is cannot see not or what is not understood.

To name fright, it is a bit to define her, to delimit it.

Therefore not, you should not be afraid of fright!

atta, anxiety it is really good for nails, they grow back more thick!

to return to the primitivit of feeling, it seems that the instinct of survival of reptiles (first animal reign) is just based on the reaction to fright.

bah from a physiological point of view, fright, it is just a very useful knack which helps to run more quickly acceleration of heart rate, adrenalin, etc.

for the psychological and cultural sides, see some small nice things on wikip dia

I I am afraid of death, decline and space

You are you an elf, you can not be afraid of this knack there!

In my opinion, it is in the dreams that there are the most striking demonstrations of our fright.

For the birth of Bettylou they began preparing the block because they thought that I made an clampsie (19 of tension), but in fact not, it is fair that I was afraid! :-) there cellars not so this was very useful!

Since Yast does not answer the question of the 2nd comment:
A not rational fright?
In the pif: the phobia of the mice.

Written by Pascal Quignard:

The fright of the grandmother

The fright of the mice is the fright of the grandmother. There are 4 500 kinds of mammals.
The ancestral form of mammals is a kind of shrew which lived in the oc ne.
All bearers of mammelles divert of a kind of rat tiny insectivore who makes howl as the sudden appearance of a sorceress or the apparirition of a ghost.
We howl in front of the grandmother.

(Abysses, Last kingdom III, Grasset, on 2003)

Mouais it is a bit far-fetched, but it is odd (and this makes link with the article on " Our most distant ancestor ")

To pull by hair , they have the right, for me, to the blog of the Prehistoric Party!

To develop the fright of others (as offers it Yast in the comment 4) it is necessary, in my sense, to put down aggressiveness first (the archaic impulse which encourages to eliminate the congeneric of our territory) highlit by the thologie.

Written by Pascal Quignard:
(on fright)

Fright is decisive. It is the east. What do you make? a Norwegian ethnographer a small inuit community asked one day. All answered it: We are afraid.

(Pascal Quignard the loner, Meeting with Chantal Lapeyre-Desmaison, Flohic, on 2001)

*

If they name outdated what dates the age of caverns and that they pretend to eliminate from it return, then concupiscence, shame, death, sexuality, anxiety, language, fright, voice, desire, vision, heaviness, hunger, joy must be proscribed.

(Abysses, Last kingdom III, Grasset, on 2002)

*

Henry James told the story of a man who entrusts to a young and nice woman, in Italy I believe, terror which oppresses him. He says to him that one day he has the feeling that an extraordinary fact is going to come into sight in his life shortly and, absorbing completely unexpectedly, will devastate it forever. He puts all his energy to get ready, to watch for this event which he fears. The young woman likes him, assistant, encourages him to tame her fright, to appease her nightmares, the shoulder in her the most terrible panic attacks, helps him for years, ill tomb, dies.
The man is not more moved than it of his disappearance, he accompanies him in death, he wails on his loneliness, he cries without sadness.
Once going on its tomb, by looking at her, what he so much feared flows with an extraordinary delay, and devours it.
Air did not quiver above the tomb.
Title is also Paleolithic as this history: The Animal of the jungle.

(Pascal Quignard the loner, Meeting with Chantal Lapeyre-Desmaison, Flohic, on 2001)

If we are to believe the last extract of Abysses (of uncle Quignard), anxiety distinguishes itself very apparently from fright, but is however not less archaic.

I would have tendency to share this point of view.

"Uncle Quiqui" for the intimate!

Knowing only the face and the words (therefore the "public" part of the iceberg) I do not consider myself to be intimate sound.
Would you know him in another way?
Will you tell us?

I have just fallen thereupon (on the blog of Assouline).
This appears to me in subject:

What do you say about it?

the film is too old to frighten really I find.

The recent films took back all twines of the ancient films always leaving farther in realism and ingredients to frighten.

Suddenly, this one seems a bit flavorless

the not rational fright which I offered that of others was well makes it

and you think surprising not ca that they succeed in reading fright on a face of man or of animal?

I, I find ca fascinating as much as the laugh besides

Just, Yats , I find a film as untenable Shining of tensions and of horrors! Much more than of the most recent more realistic except that just there, this returns to border between fright and anxiety, and except that it is the lack of details, the simple density of the atmosphere, qu return the Shining almost impossible to look

It seems to me that they succeed in reading everything, on a face, as on a body. no more fright than something else
finally, on fish it is harder

I the knack which makes me hysterical of fear, it is people who are not what they appear to be. (perhaps pure this that Shining works well on me). My worst nightmares sotn those where one or a friend smiling and gentle turns the head one instant and when he / she turns round towards me, he is transformed completely a kind of monster there, but without letting anything appear

I had the phobia of the mice also, but it passed with the wild nights in the middle of the fieldmice!

what gives me cold sweats, it is the fright at not succeeding in resolving a problem (computer, relational, etc)

What you describe in the comment 31, Am lie, well enough seems to me to sum up what is, I believe, the mechanism of what causes panic fright: that things are not in reality what they think that they are. The sun which does not return at the end of the night, the soil which evades under our feet, a child who speaks as an adult (or the opposite), a dead - living being, a friend who suddenly wishes ill us, a writer who in fact does not write, etc All these springs were used by the cinema of horror and work every time because they sabotage the principle of identity ( a thing is a thing and not other one ) which is the foundation on which is based this fragile tool which is our thought.

Written by Clement Rosset:

Any object can become terrible; he only has for it to fluster one instant the certainty with which we consider generally to be insured party that a pot is a pot and a cat a cat. I am afraid of walls, of pieces of furniture, of familiar objects , writes Maupassant in Him? . What is it? and "who is it? " two big questions of fright are. The simple formulation of such questions implicates a shaking of the real announcing all fantasies of the double, all characteristic symptoms of the dissociation of schizophrenia: is of this "decomposition" of soul by who Maupassant just defines fright. But this uncertainty of fright uncertainty as for one and any thing is at the bottom that of any imagination, and particularly imagination most ordnaire the real, the one who anticipates reality continuously as this one comes true, becomes present.

(The philosopher and bewitching, Midnight, on 1985)

It is one of (many) reasons to be which I consider lie in horror

Written by Clement Rosset:
(on the fright of the real in its nearness)

Of the fact that the test of fright becomes confused with the apprehension of the real of what there is in him a constitutionally unforeseen and as a result of unknown it follows that fright always intervenes preferably when the real is very close: meanime who separates the security of the distant of that of immediate experience. When they are very far, nothing still is to fear, the future event being too distant to be felt as formidable, whatever it could be. When they arrived, nothing is more to fear, formidable event having already taken place. Fright has every reason to be only little before arrival: when the real is not either distant or present, but very near. The same goes for for civil aircrafts, which incur hardly in-flight risk or on the soil, lorqu' they are already far from the earth or already in earth, but pass by a short critical stage to instant of take-off or of the landing, when they is nearby immediate of the earth.

*

What is there therefore a so formidable in the dimension of "very near " that it is possible to disclose there, in a general way, the dimension of fright? Nothing surely, except the simple fact of nearness that, to be neither completely far nor completely here, is enough to procreate uncertainty: geographical expression of ontological ambiguity where is lying any fright. Any terrible object is an ambiguous object, from which they come to doubt if it is this or it, the same or other one; but also because it returns to the same if he is here or there, present or absent: and it is the case of any close object there.

*

The cinema of terror often exploits, sometimes successfully, this spring of fright founded less on the atrocity of a danger than on its nearness, its imminence. So in a recent film, Terror on the line: a young baby-sitter keeps children the evening, in a villa of immediate periphery, parents having dinner in city. While the children sleep on the floor, the girl stayed in the living room accepts a series of worrying phone calls: a man in the expressionless voice repeats it that he is very close to her and that he is about to kill all inhabitants of the villa. She notifies the police, which first re-erases, then ends up operating on a control t l phonqiue routine. A last and terrible phone call happens then, which emanates this time from no killer but from the police: Be sure your guards we arrive immediately we identified the line: these phone calls come from your home. Thanks to a double line, the murderer is be neither in surroundings of the villa, nor in room, but somewhere in home. Here is who illustrates well fright and its object: a reaction of panic regarding something that is neither far or here but lodges nearness in indeterminable one. une r action de panique l gard de quelque chose qui n est ni loin ni ici mais loge dans une ind terminable proximit .

*

It is the fate of any reality that to be potentially terrible as she is close in time and in space, without being still present or visible. It is certainly possible to be sure more or less of what is going to take place, leans on the most sensible predictions to anticipate reasonably; it will however be necessary to wait always for the test of the real in person, here and now, to raise about last and secret doubt, to wait for his apprehension in the flesh to dispel the apprehensions of imagination. A player of bridge, however sure there are its calculations, breathes absolutely comfortable only when opposing pair admits its defeat and slaughters its cards; also a player of chess, when his adversary leaves. No one is ever assured completely, or reassured as a result, on the side of future.

(The philosopher and bewitching, Midnight, on 1985)

Reason for which it is undoubtedly better to confront the things than to fear them, the closed eyes. The imminence which is imagined is the well worst of thing!