 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
page 1
page2
page3
page4
page5
page6
page7
page8
page9
page10
page11
page12
page13
page14
page15
page16
page17
page18
page19
page20
page21
page22
page23
page24
page25
page26
page27
page28
page29
page30
page31
page32
page33
page34
page35
page36
page37
page38
page39
page40
page41
page42
page43
page44
page45
page46
page 47
page48
page49
page50
page51
page52
page53
page54
page55
page56
page57
page58
page 59
page59
page 60
page61
page62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page66
page67
page 68
page 69
page 70
Page 71
page 72
pare 73
page 74
page 75
page76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page92
page93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page98
|
|
| QUOTATIONS 246-271 |
| ||||||
| 246. Certain people can accept the others only after having found some faults with them and thus, in their minds at least, reducing "the others" to the level when they can look down upon them and, consequently, feel superior in some respects, if not totally. Then they can treat these "others", already "reduced" in such a manner with the mixture of contempt and compassion, condescension and magnanimity (and this, mind you, is the best scenario) all the while, of course, feeling good about themselves for being "so good", but especially for being obviously so much better than those pitiful "others". For it seems to be absolutely essential for such people's peace of mind to believe that there is somebody who is worse than they are. 247. The modern poetry is like a body without a skeleton, trying to compensate the absence of it by the extra flesh to support itself. Thus, the words-flesh are used as a substitute for a structure-skeleton to give to the poem-body some, however tenuous, stability of shape and form. But quite often this leads to such an abundance of "flesh" i.e., excessive verbosity, that instead of supporting the poem-body it makes it collapse under its own weight. 248. Time frightens me, it's running so fast, the deadly certainty, no pause and no delay, the future, at once, turns into the past, tomorrow's, in a flash, becoming yesterday. The desperate attempts to fashion an illusion, that time can be reversed or made, at least, stand still, had brought into my life much grief and much confusion, for simple truth is - time could not be willed. I have no more hopes, nor prayers left to slow the days' and years' inexorable flow, till death will break the ruthless clock of time, What shall remain of me then? Few words put in a rhyme. 249. Somebody's lines are glasses of wine, Like shots of hard liquor are mine. They cannot be sipped and put gently aside, they're drunk in one gulp that will burn your insides. 250. Some of the modern poetry resembles also a painter's palette just covered with paints of different colours and which, like many abstract paintings, doesn't say much beyond how many distinct colours of various brightness, shade, intensity, etc. are on it. 251. Another difference between the classical and the modern poetry is that when a classical poet wrote a poem his work was essentially completed, whereas when a modern poet finishes writing his and his critics' job just begins; now they have to explain and interpret what has been written. 252. The multinational state, which can be defined as a state consisting of several distinct national groups, each of which is united, historically, by the common territory, language and culture, and Democracy are, as the recent events in Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (to name just a few but the most vivid examples) have shown, incompatible. To begin with, the multinational states are invariably created by military conquest (although sometimes just a mere threat of war would suffice) and, consequently, held together essentially by military power, no matter how well this fact is disguised by modern treaties and constitutions. In contrast, Democracy, in its broadest sense, means the rule by mutual consent of at least the majority of population in any given country and also depends on the willingness of the dissenting minority to submit to this rule. But such a consent can only be based on the broad consensus, which, in turn, presupposes common interests, either real or imaginary. Yet, any modern society is divided into many different socio-economic groups, such as poor, middle class, rich, workers, farmers, city dwellers and those living in rural areas, etc. Each of these groups is distinguished from others by the set of specific attributes which makes it distinct, each having its special interests and its own agenda. The only interests all these divergent groups seem to be having in common are the so-called "national interests", for common interests depend on the common characteristics and one which is the most common to the various groups in one nation is their common nationality. But what unites people of one nation - common nationality - also separates them from people belonging to another nation who are, respectively, united on the basis of their own common nationality, and so on, and so forth. Ideologically, such a unity based on common nationality expresses itself as nationalism (in the most benign sense of the word). On the other hand, the absence of such one unifying force - common nationality - in the multinational state (which is by definition made up of several different nations, each with its own nationalism) makes the broad consensus of any lasting nature in such a state impossible. Yet, to attain its stability and permanence, Democracy requires, as a necessary precondition, the widest possible consensus. The objective impossibility of such a consensus, for the reasons stated above, makes, at least in any foreseeable future, the multinational state and Democracy incompatible. P.S. Of course, there are objective common interests of the similar classes within the different nations, as was expressed in that famous sentence from the Communist Manifesto: "Proletariat of the World unite!" But as history has shown nationalism is much stronger uniting force than class solidarity. It has also shown that those who put the narrow class interests above the broad national ones undermine the national unity and wide societal consensus necessary for the successful democracy to function. As a result, they are viewed by society in general as "the national enemies", for, in the long run, the idea of "the proletarian internationalism" is as unacceptable to any particular nation as a whole as the idea of "the capitalist internationalism" in a form of multinational corporations, International Monetary Fund, etc. 253. Anyone who believes he can persuade people to change their behaviour and to become different from what they are, namely better, should first recall the fate of those who had tried to do the same before. Socrates tried to argue the Athenians into changing the way they lived. But, as it's well known, they hadn't been convinced at all that they should. The Athenians were having a jolly good time being what they were and found Socrates, who prided himself on being a gadfly, rather annoying. As a result, finally, he shared the same fate as his namesake. Plato was more careful and limited his preaching to the converted, mainly his disciples - the students of the Academy. Both of his attempt to convince somebody outside this safe circle, like the tyrant of Syracuse, to alter their behaviour had almost ended in tragedy for Plato himself. And if those two examples are not enough to convince anyone to forget about saving mankind and mind his own business, let him think about the fate of Jesus Christ. 254.Symbolically, Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land. But instead of punishment this should be considered as an act of mercy on a part of God - the dreamer was spared the disappointment of discovery that the Promised Land was not what it had been promised to be, thus beginning the long tradition of the creators of utopias saved from disillusionment by their timely death. 255. The contradiction between Democracy and Nature is as irreconcilable as between the limitless and limited, for Democracy presupposes and inevitably leads to the ever increasing consumption of Nature's resources which are finite. When the number of the rich was small and, especially, when they were the only ones who had the right and the privilege of the conspicuous consumption that goes above and beyond what is necessary to sustain man's existence, even the comfortable one, the Nature could cope with it. But such a blatant inequality of consumption was never accepted as fair by the majority of population - the poor. Throughout history every revolution, be it of slaves, serfs or workers, was as much about their political as about their economic rights, namely, the more equitable redistribution of wealth and, as a consequence, higher level of consumption by the poor. Until now this has been achieved (only partially, of course) not by taking away from the rich and giving it to the poor but by producing more goods. Technology, and the engendered by it increased productivity have always been the universal pacifiers. Such a solution, however imperfect it was, is no longer available due to the limitations imposed by the finite environment on the one hand, and by the seemingly limitless desire of ever increasing masses of population to consume on the other, the desire unleashed mainly by Democracy. Democracy is the first political order in history that proclaims the absolute political equality of all the members of society. But having said this, it has to inevitably take the next logical step and proclaim the economical equality as well, for the political democracy is based on the economical one - the democracy of consumption. As long as a worker can, or thinks he can, at least potentially, have what his supervisor has, and supervisor - what the manager has, and manager - what the owner of the company has, and so on, everybody feels kinship as a consumer and a certain degree of consensus on the economic level, necessary for Democracy to function, exists. The problem is that Nature cannot support the democracy of consumption. It cannot support five billions cars, five billions refrigerators, five billions yachts, villas, etc. Finally, we as the human species have come to a point when we have to address the problem of the real redistribution of wealth. Otherwise, the World is going to face the most violent revolution of them all - everybody against everybody. So, we are either going to destroy each other or to agree and to learn to live an a world of planned and more or less equitable consumption. Our only salvation, after all, is some form of socialism, no matter what would be the name of it. 256. Every political system has been, from the times immemorial till now, nothing more than a glorified organization for the distribution of wealth. Or, in other words, different political systems are just the different means to achieve one and always the same end - the division between all members of society of what has been produced by the labouring segment of it, the division which is invariably not in favour of the latter. 257. In some general sense we, as the unique personalities, are all strangers to each other. But the degree of this universal estrangement varies and so do the difficulties to be overcome and the means and efforts needed to breach the dividing walls. A stranger, as little as he has in common with the group to which he is a stranger (and that what being a stranger essentially means), can still be accepted by the individual members of this group, providing they are both willing and able to adjust and accommodate each other, as for example in the interracial or intercultural marriages and friendships. But in doing so this individual member of the group has to act as an individual per se and not as a member of the group he belongs to, for by his action he separates himself from it, both psychologically and behaviourally. He even runs the risk to be separated socially and to become himself a stranger to his own group. It is not as painful, or unexpected if such an individual already feels he is somewhat different than the rest of his group (and he probably does, for most of us feel this way from time to time, if only to a lesser degree), and is looking, consciously or subconsciously, outside of his group for a more kindred spirit. Yet, the Group as a whole can never accept a stranger unless, as rare as it is, its very survival depends on this (witness Moses and Hebrews) and even then it is far from certain that the Group would be able to maintain this acceptance without periodical revolts and reverses. To begin with, it is seldom willing to do so, but most importantly, the Group - the complex social organism created and shaped by forces of history for self-preservation and perpetuation - becomes far too rigid and inflexible because of this and therefore is incapable of adjustment to and accommodation of something foreign to it. On the contrary, the Group by its very nature as a social body is programmed to reject the stranger as the biological body rejects a transplanted organ. For in order to accept the stranger it, as a group, has to change its habits, rules, traditions, etc. - precisely the set of things which holds a group together. For to accept something is to adjust to it, and to adjust - is to change, and to change is to cease to be what it was before. Moreover, each member of the group individually and the whole group collectively have to undergo such a radical transformation practically all at the same time, which is altogether next to impossible. The solution to this problem is, of course, as old as the World itself - it is the stranger, and in a more general sense, the individual who has to accept and to adjust to the Group, not vice versa, no matter how politically unfashionable it is nowadays. And woe to those who can't or wouldn't. 258. The infinity of loneliness, the loneliness of infinity. 259. Like some collective species in their struggle not just to survive but to preserve and perpetuate their privileges, the ruling classes of society through the successive generations, have perfected the specific ways of behaving which, amongst the other things, help them to maintain the dominant position in the social hierarchy. Thus, the children born into these classes are brought up to emulate this "class behaviour" both by instructions and by emulation of the adults around them. These children, if they are successful in adopting and mastering such a "proper behaviour", could be almost guaranteed the membership and the privileges of their class. 260. A man can and does a lot of harm to a woman, and a woman, though in a somewhat different way, can and does a lot of harm to a man. Yet, neither a woman can completely protect herself from a man, nor a man from a woman. Against each other they are defenceless because of their mutual dependency - they need each other to survive. But those in need are always viewed as weak and those who are considered weak inevitably become the target of abuse. 261. I've heard how many books you'd read, but does it mean they're in your head? 262. You throw the world out of the door but it keeps coming through the window. What's the best way to say good-bye to such annoyance? Simple - die. 263. Never before in history so many people knew so much and, as a result, were so confused and uncertain about everything. 264.As the recent, and largely unforeseen by the best and the brightest of the political scientists, events in Eastern Europe have shown it is the spontaneous and disorganized actions of the masses that, at the end, create history. And if it is true, then one who wants to know the future should not ask "the wise men"but have to look for an answer among the "ordinary men". For it lies in their feelings, passions, prejudices, miscalculations, etc., which are more true to reality in a sense that they are going to determine the way the reality will eventually unfold. 265. The lesson of the Jews, as a people with a small territory and big ambitions, is - make your territory bigger or your ambitions smaller. Immigration, i.e. moving into somebody else's country to live and to prosper, is a wrong and dangerous solution, because the indigenous population will always violently resist the displacement by the newcomers. 266.The Apology of the Athenians. Though eventually they condemned him to death, during his long life of 70 years, Socrates received from the Athenians a gift that would be highly desirable by any man, but was especially valuable, even priceless for a man like him, who has been blessed (or cursed) with the curious and inquisitive mind and with insatiable hunger for conversations and communication with other men. This was a gift of being listen to, since for many years the Athenians always heard him out. They didn't ignore him, they talked to him, they answered his questions, no matter how annoying or pointless they sometimes seem to be, they didn't tell him: "We have to get together sometimes". Whether loved or hated he was never confronted by silence, by blank and stone faces. The chair - the Athenians - always recognized Socrates. In our society where the majority of people have no time to talk, even when they have plenty of time, Socrates would have experience psychological death long before the physical one. It's also probably true that when the private discourse is stifled, because the reticence and the reluctance to express one's views and opinions is considered to be a virtue, the public discourse inevitably suffers the same fate. As a result, in such a society, unlike in the ancient Athens, neither philosophy nor genuine democracy can thrive. 267. One can never escape from the reality for there is nothing else besides reality. 268. I am so tired, so tired, I have to, have to run away, I can no longer be quagmired in trivia of each new day. But there is no place to go from the pervasive petty strife, from nuisance of relentless blows by the banality of life. 269. When "Don Juan", both as a literary personage and as a generic type, was a child he probably was not loved by his mother and suffered greatly because of that. Consequently, through all his life he is looking for this love in every woman. But as soon as he finds it the memories of the childhood's suffering surface and call for revenge. Again and again "Don Juan" abandons the woman he just conquered as if saying to her and through her to his mother: "You had rejected me when I needed you. But now, when you need me, I reject you. You made me suffer before, but I make you suffer now. And I want you to know that I can do without you." But then he immediately contradict himself by chasing yet another woman, For "Don Juan" can live neither without love as a conquest nor without betrayal of it as a revenge. 270. Neither living only for oneself nor only for others can bring happiness. Satisfactory life is a life which equally embraces both egotism and altruism. Life which is mainly altruistic leads at the end to self-pity and bitter regrets. Life that is predominantly egotistic results in bad conscience and invites resentment and hostility from others. The real wisdom is the ability to maintain a healthy balance between the two - egotism and altruism. One has to do what one likes to do and, at the same time, make it useful for others. 271. Genius is never a natural product of a particular society. On the contrary, he comes into being in spite of it, and, as a result, always remains its strongest adversary. For genius is both the driving force and the living symbol of change. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00882 |