1647. As this world rejects me, so I reject it in return.
As this world despises me, so I despise it in return.
As this world hates me, so I hate it in return.
As this world inflicts pain and suffering on me, so I want it to be in pain and suffer in return.
As this world seek my destruction, so I want it to be destroyed in return.
...life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot...
My soul is like a volcano ready to erupt and bury this world in the ashes of my grief. It is like a stormy sky ready to burst and drown this world in a flood of my bitterness.
The world that watched us being slaughtered and did nothing has no right to exist.
Bring on the Apocalypse, oh Lord! The time is now! What are you waiting for?
1648. I don't think that people who ostensibly profess their belief in God and continue to attend churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. can be persuaded to do otherwise by any facts or arguments, even by the absolute proof that God doesn't exist. They remind me this indomitable suitor in a movie "Some like it hot", who proposes marriage to Jack Lemmon, dressed as and pretending to be a woman. To those who forgot or never saw the picture let me describe the scene. They are in a boat and Jack Lemmon is trying to say "no" to the proposal. First he says that he had many lovers in the past to which the suitor replies "I forgive you". Then he tells him that he can't have any children. The reply:-"We will adopt." Finally, in frustration, he takes of his wig and screams: "You don't understand! I am a man!" And the quiet but determined suitor replies: "Nobody is perfect. I still want to marry you."
In a similar fashion, suppose someone comes with the irrefutable proof that God doesn't exist, what do you think the reaction of your average church, synagogue, mosque goer would be? Probably something like this: "I know God doesn't exist but I still believe in Him and certainly have no intention to stop going to my church, synagogue, mosque, etc."
1649. One's true esthetic taste can be fully revealed only when one is completely free to choose the type and form of art to enjoy. I knew people who were regulars at opera performances and concerts of classical music, but in the privacy of their house wouldn't tolerate for any considerable length of time such a sophisticated fair, and would rather listen to the popular tunes of the day or not listen to music at all.
I also knew people who while at school or university studied quite diligently the best of the world literature, wrote good essays and received high marks, but when later in life, freed from the obligations to continue in this praiseworthy pursuit, would read nothing but crime mysteries, spy novels or Harlequin romances and enjoy them.
I can go on by bringing other types and forms of art and the changing patterns of preferences depending on the degree of freedom in choosing them, but I think i made my point. It looks like esthetic sensibilities cannot be taught, that they are innate and any external (or even internal) imposition of them, either by force, persuasion or even personal conviction, can produce only temporary results. Sooner or later when force is weakened and imposition removed one's the true immanent esthetic preferences, the origins of which shall forever remains a mystery, reassert themselves with all their primal irresistible force.
1650. A reasonably intelligent person, fairly cognizant of the major political and social issues of the day, often arrives, by observing and listening long enough to the prominent public figures, at conclusion that they are not more informed, more articulate, more intelligent than he is.
Which may lead to the wrong assumption on his part that he is as (if not more) qualified to occupy the position of prominence as they are. The reason for this mistaken assumption is that it is not these qualities of the superior intelligence, knowledge and eloquence which are primarily responsible for their elevation above the rest of us but drive and ambition, toughness and brutality, callousness and moral duplicity which these people are smart and skillful enough not to show in public and the innocent observer therefore never see. It is not what is up-front and on stage but what is behind closed doors, so to speak, which determines where we find ourselves on the social hierarchical ladder.
1651. I remember someone saying that if you listen to a woman(without interrupting her) from 10:00pm to midnight she is yours. Now, if national character could be classified as either masculine or feminine, as far as such an overwhelming need to be listen to, the Jews would belong to the second category. For there is this one thing about your average jew - if you give him an opportunity to sound wise and (which is even better) prophetic you can take anything from him, he wouldn't mind. Probably, wouldn't even notice. For the quality the majority of the Jews I ever met with share in common was "vanity of intellect". Not that the others are immune to this weakness, but they (non-Jews) display it less often and with much less intensity.
1651. The time has come to extend a definition of "non-profit" organization. Together with the traditional non-profit institutions like churches, service clubs, various charities, etc. some of the privately owned corporations should be included.
Take, for example, Air Canada. Hasn't shown a profit for years, and there is very little reason to believe it will ever yearn a profit in the future. As such, it clearly deserve the status of non-profit organization and I am sure Air Canada would be the only private company in this new category. Perhaps, these companies should begin to accept charitable donations. They certainly will benefit from them.
1652. To keep a man at her side for any extended period of time nowadays a woman has to master an intricate art of sending simultaneously two conflicting messages: one that she could do quite well without him and another that he is responsible for her happiness and will commit an unpardonable crime by abandoning her. Thus, in dealing with her man, she has to project strength and vulnerability, self-sufficiency and dependance, clearly not an easy task.
1653. I could never exhibit the obligatory enthusiasm one has to display, as if on cue, when certain geographical location (e.g. Venice), artist (e.g. Picasso) writer (e,g. Joyce), composer (e.g. Stravinsky), etc. mentioned are mentioned, almost as a shibboleth of the tribe, a password to enter it, a badge of belonging. I am not that kind of person. I have my own standards which are the natural outcome of my personality, artistic sensibilities and experience and I am not eager to join the crowd, no matter how high brow it is, in unison of either esthetic approbation or denunciation. Needless to say "the crowd" doesn't look favorably on such an act of independence.
1654. Paradoxically, the European anti-Semitism allegedly aroused by the wealth of the few, in practice was always directed against many, who were in most cases poorer than their accusers and persecutors. The Jewish bankers, these symbols of Jewish wealth and influence, had never experienced the sorrowful fate of the overwhelming majority of their co-religionists who possessed neither. For the Jewish financiers and rich merchants due to their proximity to the state power knew , before any other Jews, of impending persecutions and their wealth, most of the times, provided the means to escape it.
1655. For any great idea (always a product of a superior mind) to become widespread it has to be diluted and distorted so that it could be digested by the inferior minds of the common people. The fates of Christianity and Marxism are the obvious cases in point.
1656. One can only be truly envious of someone he considers to be his equal and yet possessing some admirable qualities in the higher degree or occupying a position superior to his own. Consequently, one never truly envious of those significantly high above him in abilities or status.
For example, the boys playing basketball in the school yard will envy one who plays much better than the rest of them because he is one of their own. Yet, they will never envy but admire, even worship the stars of NBA because they are removed from them almost as far as the real stars.
Or, to bring another example, one is never envious of the great and established writers, but one is envious of a classmate writing a better essay.
The sibling rivalry has the same foundation. My sister shouldn't be prettier than me, my brother shouldn't be smarter than I am. Aren't we suppose to be equal?
Thus, presupposed equality is a prerequisite of envy.
1657. Archeology could not and, more important, should not be used and abused to justify territorial claims by people competing for the same piece of land.
1658.Judging the quantify and concentration of broken pottery at different archeological sites on territory of ancient Israel can we surmise which women, Phoenician, Philistine or Israeli, had the greatest propensity to braking the dishes.
1659. 100 years since the birth of Zionism people tend to forget one of its most important causes and goals. Contrary to the popular belief the main goal of Zionism was not to preserve the Jewish People qua "jewish" but qua "people". Many Jews who survived the Holocaust done so by concealing their jewishness -faced with the imminent death they valued their lives more than their national identity.
It was not the threat of assimilation, both political and cultural, into the mainstream society but a failure of it that made the small group of European intellectuals of jewish extraction to conclude that even in enlightened and emancipated Europe Jews will never be treated as the full-fledged citizens (we are talking here de facto not de jure) and therefore the only solution to the Jewish Question is to create the independent Jewish State. For if even in France in 1894, after 150 years of enlightenment and 100 years of the legal Jewish emancipation, an artillery captain Alfred Dreyfus of Jewish faith was treated not as a French but as a Jew (and in consequence unjustly condemned), what hope the other Jews would have.
Let's also not forget that Theodore Herzl, a founder of modern political Zionism, has started his intellectual and ideological career as a strong believer in the gradual assimilation of the Jews with the Christian people of Europe as the best solution to anti-Semitism. It is only after he witnessed the explosion of the violent anti-Semitism in France - the land of liberte, egalite, fraternite - as a result of the court-martial of the Jewish-French army officer Alfred Dreyfus, he came to conclusion that assimilation is impossible, that though the majority of the European Jewry would like to assimilate in order to escape discrimination and persecution, the majority of the Europeans would never allow them to do so and the discrimination and persecution, in one form or another, will never cease.
Thus, the most important goal of Zionism has always been and still remains the physical safety of Jewish people in the hostile and dangerous world. The other, by now largely forgotten but very prominent at the beginning of Zionist movement, goal was turning Jews into people like everybody else - with their own territory, their own state, their own government, their own stratified society, etc. And in this sense the creation of the state of Israel was not the end in itself but the means to achieve this sameness, this normalcy, to shake off the special status that brought nothing but grief to Jews for 2000 years. It may surprise some nowadays(especially the American Jews) that the majority of diaspora Jews have been immigrating to Israel for the last 100 year not to remain Jews but to stop being "jewish" i.e. the strangers in someone else's land, never accepted as equal, always rejected and persecuted. In a country where everyone is Jew no one is "a jew", like in England where everyone is English no one is "english".
1660. Not being unduly encumbered by excessive familiarity with a subject at hand is the necessary prerequisite for the independent and original thinking.
1661. Bringing different people together, both literally and figuratively, as in, for example: "discussing the controversial subject helps bring people with opposite views together" does not necessarily produce the positive result of mutual understanding and tolerance implied in this optimistic cliche. It may, just as well, and probably more so provide them with opportunity to smash each other faces, also both figuratively and literally.
1662. The usefulness of a "straw man" in all kinds of personal and political confrontations is indisputable and perhaps even indispensable when winning by any means possible is the goal. This proverbial creature is conjured up as a substitute for the real opponent for a sole purpose to be triumphantly demolished by the conjurer's arguments which otherwise would have been of doubtful usefulness when dealing with the real flesh and blood adversary.
Nevertheless, those who are in habit of building up a "straw man" which they can easily pull down must be warn not to destroy it completely by burning. Always leave enough "straw" to raise it up again.
And by the way, there is a historical precedent to this strategy which shows that it really works. For the Jews were the indispensable "straw man" for the Christians. Not the real flesh and blood Jews but the imagined "Jews" of the New Testament, the stubborn and blind, the treacherous and vile, the cruel and murderous. And while Christians have been persecuting Jews for millennia, they wisely never destroyed them completely (which they had ample opportunity to accomplish). There must always be Jews in the Christian world as a "straw man" to be pulled down for the glory of Christian faith.
1663. At its best the vaunted "Tolerance" is no more then the end result of the purely intellectual efforts to overcome the almost innate prejudice. (This must be the reason why the poorly educated seldom display tolerance and "tell you like it is".)
At its worst "Tolerance" is but a thinly disguised dislike, revealing itself every now and then in an belittling remark, unflattering opinion and even, at the moment of anger, in open hatred.
1664.Come to think of it, it is not surprising that England produced so many world leading naturalists, the profession requiring the inclination to acute observation of the numerous small details of the world around us. It is a trait shared to the large extent by the inhabitants of all small countries in which everything is given so much more attention than in the large ones. One has more time to observe more about the fewer things.
The 19th century which has brought the railroad to England made the travel inside the country cheep and therefore accessible to many who before could not afford it, while the traveling abroad was still confined to the few well-offs. This accessibility lead to this peculiarly English explorations of their small relatively isolated island in which a lot of attention was paid to every village, every small town, every cathedral, every ruins, etc.
Thus, being accustomed to paying attention to the small things, this habit was easily transferable to other things in nature, like flowers, trees, insects, birds, etc., which lead to development of British naturalists.
And accepting this as true would also explain why British science (and the way of thought in general) puts so much emphasis on observation and so relatively little on generalization, why so much attention is paid to the particulars and relatively less to the universals.
1665. A child, a youth, an adult - at each stage of life one needs attention and caring. Consequently, at each stage of life one expect and demand these attention and caring - a child from parents, a youth from friends, an adult from spouse. When one doesn't get it from the expected source one grows bitter and resentful.
However, ultimately, the source of attention and caring is not important in itself. If a child receives attention and caring from a grandparent, the other family member or even from a neighbor this could satisfy child's needs and parents would be "of the hook". Similarly, in youth one can always look for another set of friends to replace the inattentive and uncaring ones. And an adult may search for another spouse to get what he or she needs.
Again, in each case through life it is the need which is permanent, while the source is interchangeable, and it is only the total absence of any source of attention and caring that makes one bitter and disillusioned.
1666. When Nietzsche proclaimed rather over-dramatically: "God is dead!" he should have been equally honest about himself and added: "and so is philosophy."
1667. The moment of one's physical death is just that - a moment, passing from being into non-being. But before that final instant in time we are dying piece by piece with the death of each person who had played a significant part in our life: first of all parents and friends, but also writers, actors, composers, singers, etc. everyone who defined out times and made us what we are. And as they go, so something in us which were made by them, of them go as well. While alive they were parts of our living, and their death, connecting us again and again with our mortality, becomes part of our dying.
1668. It is almost inevitable, even natural, for the religious leaders - priests, pastors, imams, etc.- who exercise the spiritual power, i.e. rule the souls, to be drawn to exert the political power as well, i.e. to rule the body.
As a matter of fact these two inclinations are interconnected - those who rule body want to rule souls and those who rule souls want to rule bodies. For consciously or subconsciously the rulers know or feel that power over one without power over another is incomplete, that the true domination has to encompass the total person who is soul and body.
1669. I wouldn't mind to give my books as gifts, instead of selling them. But I have this nagging suspicion that the free things are not as valued as the ones we have to pay for, and in the case of books, with cash. When one spends, let say, $20 for a volume and puts it on the shelf, does one see only a book there? Not entirely, in my opinion. Somewhere at the back of one's mind there is a "picture", metaphorically speaking, of a $20 bill superimposing itself on this book. So, the book represents not only the object but also the symbol of monetary value, and as such demands certain "respect" of its own. Granted, you can't take this symbol and buy a couple of juicy stakes with it. Nevertheless, it represents the lost opportunity to have done so and thus can be viewed as more than just the bounded collection of pages with words on them to be read. In a word, it cannot be as easily dismissed as a free gift. It demands attention. It is basking in the reflected glory of a monetary sign.
|
