It looks like nobody has been
competing in lying so far. Strange, for lying,
though it's hard to believe, needs an effort and force, too. Lying is a synonym of lack of
effort. Lying is effortless. We lie to avoid effort. Well, we
also sit after an effort, just to rest. However keeping
the body is any position, no matter horizontal, vertical, diagonal, straight, curved
or polygonal, always
demands some effort,
even a minimal one. How about tossing and turning? More, lying
in a position
comfortable in the beginning, can be hardly bearable in the end.
And bearing anything is always related to some
effort… Of course,
it would be difficult to indicate who was lying the fastest,
much more difficult than it is in the case of sitting and
standing, though absolutely fascinating – just to define the speed of lying can be a real challenge, taking
into account the simple fact that here fastest does not mean shortest (the fewest amount of seconds or
minutes) like in the running. In the lying a distance is not a space, but a
time, so the following bizarre question should be asked: who lay the fastest the distance of
twenty minutes? . . . . . Another
question has appeared: a speed, what is it? Because it's not only a distance
covered per unit
of time. Not only.
In this very case it's a time covered per unit of... It would be much easier to
indicate who was lying the longest – however here longest
would be the counterpart of furthest
in the running. Or: who was lying the longest?
would mean the same as: who ran the longest distance?
who reached the furthest point running?
…… Of course, we should not confuse
crawling with lying. Crawling is to move forward or backward
in a lying position, while lying is just lying, an action
that does not consist in relocating oneself (unless we
relocate in a dream, but this is something absolutely
different, though it could be a matter of competition). We
should reject also rolling, which not necessarily must occur
in a lying position . . . . .
With no doubt supporting would be difficult,
if possible at all,
especially when the competitors should lie
motionlessly – the lying
in motion would be a bit less boring, but only a bit.
Certainly, a lot would depend on what
the competitors would be lying
(as well as under
what, however not that much) – here the imagination seems to
have no limits.
Laying down is a different kettle of
fish. Yes, absolutely. Laying
not lying. No doubt about it.
For example: to lay
down in right order
on a few dozens of numbered coaches
scattered chaotically. Or: to lay
down on the ground a hundred times (to
lay, not to fall like a log!) - normally, supine…
AND SO ON. And so on. And so on. And so on . . . . .
The opinion that the
lying does not contain an element of
competing is wrong. It has been well known for very long
that there are two kinds of competing: against the others
and against oneself. Even if
it is hard to notice the first one in the lying,
the other one can be seen (and experienced) easily, and its
level can be higher than in many other sport disciplines. Paradoxically,
the majority of the overfence and overscreen competitors the
essence of competing will not consist in just lying, but in
to follow the Olympic motto faster
higher stronger we choose without any
hesitation faster. It
must be emphasized that in the case of this discipline faster
– which doesn't solve
the problem of the speed of lying.
Yet we count on faster.
We love preposterous absurd
abstraction, don't we?