 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 842-856 |
| ||||||
| 842. We are all familiar with the expression "the dirty old man" which describes, in derogatory terms, the allegedly peculiar to the older men weakness to fantasize about younger women. Yet, apparently, the reverse is also true - some younger women do fantasize about older men, although how widespread this"anomaly" is is hard to tell - the subject for the obvious reasons is almost a taboo. But if one can put aside for a moment the perversive aspect of this phenomenon and begin to think about its causes, the overriding one would immediately spring to mind: the things we are longing for must be the ones we feel lacking in our lives. Thus, in an older man, weary of the prosaic triviality of his emotional life, it must be the unquenchable thirst for romantic love which he, condemned to life imprisonment in the nostalgia for his youth, thinks only a younger woman can offer. From their side, the younger women, who often feel unappreciated and used by the sex hungry young males, hope to find in the older men better understanding and caring, if for no other reasons than at least in gratitude for their gift of youthful beauty. Now, whether each side actualizes its respective fantasies and in what form is an entirely different matter. 843. The problem with stereotypes, no matter how comforting they are in relieving us from the rather tiresome duty of paying close attention to each new particular individual or phenomenon, is that almost as soon as you have settled cozily into one here comes an Exception, threatening to upset your certainty. So, it is mainly the inclination and ability to resist and disregard the unsettling exceptions that separate "a bigot" from "a broad-minded" man. 844. There are no men (proverbial "renaissance man" including), who have, as far as I know, the equal power of discernment whether looking at the things near at hand, or observing them from a distance. Thus, those who are preoccupied with the small details are paying little attention to a larger picture, while those who tend to step back far enough to fully comprehend the whole are uninterested in the minute parts of it. The first may be called, by analogy with the physiological faculty of sight, "near-sighted": for like their namesakes they can see very distinctly at a close range but, as they move away from the object of observation, the clearly separated parts of it begin more and more to merge into the indecipherable homogeneous mass. The second, their counterparts, could be called correspondingly the "farsighted": for when looking from afar, they can see each object in the group of several as a distinct entity, and also the connections between them. But when, in order to gain a more detailed knowledge of each, the "far-sighted" person tries to approach them, they begin to dissolve into each other and into their surroundings. The combination of these two opposite, "microscopic" and "telescopic", types of vision in one individual is as unnatural physiologically, as intellectually and artistically. For it is hard to imagine Aristotle who, as if looking from the outer space at our world, had reduced its infinite complexity to ten, all-encompassing categories of substance, quality, quantity, relation, place, time, position, possession, acting and being acted upon, devoting much of his time to the artistic pursuit which presupposes, in painting of landscape, for example, the scrupulous attention to its many and various details. On the other hand, an artist who painstakingly transfers this landscape, with all its multiplicity and variety of trees, flowers, grasses, streams, birds, animals, etc., in all their distinctness of shapes and colours from nature unto a canvass, wouldn't even dream of starting to classify all this bounty into genera, species, sub-species, etc. At the same time, it is clear that each of these two contrasting abilities - "to concretize" and "to abstract" - are useful in their own right, and neither one is superior or inferior to the other. The fact that a person can only possess one of them does not diminish him as an individual, but only testifies to the imperfection of man as a species. 845. One cannot appease Life by surrendering one thing after another, by giving up dream after dream, desire after desire, need after need. For Life's such a ruthless tax collector, that no matter how already impoverished your life is, it still demands more to leave you alone, and when you give it up, hoping to finally have peace, here It comes again to get still some. It seems never satisfied until It robs you of the last and the least reason to live. And the only alternative Life offers you is to fight day and night, teeth and nails for anything of any value. And the fight it must be, for even a small gain, never mind a victory, is always in doubt. 846. One who is not good at using others to satisfy his needs, regardless of what it does to them, is inevitably going to be used himself by those who are not as scrupulous as he is. One is always either a victim or a victimizer - The Golden Mean is absent in human relations. 847. One who's accepted (assuming the free choice, which is not always the case) the role of a student should be very careful lest he shows as much, or, God forbid, more understanding and insight than his teacher does or has. The same cautionary rule applies to any hierarchy of rank, which (since it is always based, explicitly or implicitly, on the acceptance a priori of the superior knowledge, intelligence and ability of those at the top over those at the bottom of the "ladder") cannot survive for long any overt manifestations, contrary to such a fundamental assumption, on the part of the lower ranks. Most of us have learned this rule the hard way in the early childhood, and it helps us to go through life with the lesser amount of aggravation and hardship than if we haven't. Yet, there are always present amongst us the few "poor learners" who seem to be unable, even when trying very hard, to fit into any hierarchical structure: a typical person unfortunate enough to belong to this distinct group can neither be a teacher nor a disciple, neither a master nor a servant, neither a leader nor a led, neither a ruler nor a ruled, neither a wolf nor a sheep due, mainly, to the lack of ambition, self-assurance, drive, ferocity to fill the shoes of the first, and not being passive, self doubting, submissive, meek enough to wear the yoke of the second with equanimity. Accordingly, the name, or rather the label, applied to such people is "the social misfits", and it carries in itself the mixture of conflicting connotations - pity and disapproval - with the emphasis on the first, when we don't feel threatened by them, and on the second when we do. Which, though fair enough as an indication of how the rest of the society feels about them, fails to shed the light on the cause of their predicament. For my part (and disclaiming objectivity from the start), I would go so far as to offer, for the lack of a ready term, "inherently egalitarian and essentially democratic man" as a more accurate description of such a personality. And though it doesn't change his situation as that of a social outcast, but makes it even more inevitable, it does shift the blame and the guilt to where (again, from my admittedly subjective point of view) it should belong - the human society at large, forever divided into the FUHRER and VOLK, who equally abhor anyone unable to fit nicely into one of these two opposing categories. 848. When, as a compassionate response to misery, the charity is extended, there is unspoken understanding between the givers and the receivers that the continuation of help is predicated not only on the perpetuation of misery, but also on the recipients of charity remaining "miserable" (with all the usual implication of the term). Therefore, the recipients should be very careful not to show any signs of growing accustomed to and getting "comfortable" in their misery. They have to carry on displaying, at least outwardly, the requisite characteristic of those "in dire need and distress' lest the givers begin to feel they don't suffer enough now to deserve charity. And even if the objective conditions of the recipients haven't been improved at all the change in perception can turn the original compassion into resentment and ill will on the part of the givers. This, perhaps, may explain, for example, the growing negative attitude of the majority as a collective charity-giver toward permanent welfare recipients, who are being increasingly viewed as getting too comfortable in their situation and losing any incentive to try to get out of it. Such a hostility forces the welfare recipients, in their turn, to routinely overplay the absolute unacceptability to them of their admittedly miserable condition, when in fact they had resigned long time ago to its inevitability and learned to live with and to make the best out of it. 849. The sure sign of a truly successful association, especially if participation in it is strictly voluntary, is when it doesn't allow any of its members to become "invisible", or to be made to feel like one. 850. As far as I'm concerned, the people around me are divided into the two distinct group: those who are completely indifferent to whether I exist or not, and the others who try to impose on me their ideas of what I should be thinking and how I should be living. And I'm still waiting for someone to ask me what I want, and then to help me to do it. 851. Anyone, who had (like me) the opportunity to spend some time in different countries and managed to observe their respective inhabitants without the fog of prejudice obstructing the view, would have to admit that "the silent majority" or "the ordinary people" everywhere are but a grey mass sharing equally with the rest of humanity the same average mixture of merits and defects. It is then not difficult to discover that the national stereotypes are, paradoxically, based not on the common traits of the majority (for such are universal) but on the unique characteristics of the tiny minority in each national group, the minority which is the most noticeable precisely because it stands out of the group by its unusual behaviour. Then, thanks to their visibility and vividness, they are accepted as the typical representatives of their national group, when in fact the opposite is true, for it is clear that they are the exception rather than the rule. Is every Italian an opera singer? Certainly not. Any Italian will tell you that. Is every Jew a successful entrepreneur? Definitely not. Ask any Jew. So why a whole nation is viewed as millions of Carusos or Rothschilds? Because they, Caruso and Rothschild, are the most visible. And why are they visible? Precisely because they are so extraordinary. Then, there is another phenomenon that perpetuate the national stereotype. For once the stereotype is established, as false as it may be, the members of the particular group feel almost an obligation to uphold it in their own behaviour. Thus, a lot of Italians try, often to the dismay of the listeners, to sing whether they have singing voices or not (for their vocal chords aren't any different from those of other nationalities), and too many Jews, trying to live up to the image of a shrewd businessman, lost the last shirt of their back, so to speak, for an average Jew is neither penny nor pound wiser than an average Englishman, and anyone who doesn't believe it should spend some time in Israel to see that it isn't less divided into the rich and the poor than any other industrial country. To reiterate, the natural tendency of the human mind to be irresistibly drawn to the strongest single image amongst the many weaker ones, and then to become so preoccupied with it, that all the rest imperceptibly fades into obscurity of the background, leads to such a psychological conditioning of the Perceiver, that when the time comes to form an opinion about the complex whole, this partial but the strongest image is automatically assumed as standing for it (for all the rest at this point become virtually invisible). And such a cognitive process must be held responsible for the creation of all kinds of stereotypes, including the national ones. Needless to say, the fact that bigotry is mostly unintentional doesn't make it more tolerable. 852. Considering the enormous amount of facts and arguments we are all exposed to now, the ultimate question of today is how, while being as broad- and open-minded as one possibly can, to still save the central core of one's principles and convictions from a complete disintegration. For, in my view, no amount of knowledge and experience is worth such a high price. What is the use to have one's mind opened and then to lose it? 853. We don't mind the nomads. As a matter of fact, in the modern industrial age, we find them quite fascinating... as long as they stay where they are. 854.The end of the second millennium anno Domini is almost at hand. And if the Meek are still expecting "to inherit the earth", they better hurry up and do something about it. For, considering the way things are going lately, if they wait any much longer, there will be soon nothing left for them to take into possession as their promised inheritance. 855. A man is a task-oriented animal. This is most clearly visible in his daily activities which could be more or less neatly divided into several, relatively small and routine tasks, each of which goes through three stages - intention, execution and completion. And when each and all of these daily tasks are accomplished as planned, the satisfaction follows almost automatically as a reward in itself and no less important than others, more practical considerations. On the other hand, the failure to finish what was intended brings the unpleasant feeling of inadequacy and guilt. This purposefulness of man is less obvious, though still discernible, when tasks become larger and larger and, consequently, require longer periods of time - weeks, months, years - to be completed. Yet, rare is the man who views his whole life as the Goal, though at the end it must be the most important task of all the intermediate ones he has undertaken during his life, no matter how important they were, and how successful he was in accomplishing them. It is also the most difficult one to define, yet unless one has done so (and the earlier the better) the gnawing feeling of dissatisfaction never leaves him, even if all the intermediary goals be completed well. For the biggest question - what they all were for - always remains unanswered, and life seems but a collection of incidental desultory events, lacking overall purpose and direction. It is, therefore, absolutely crucial for one's peace of mind to find first of all what one's Goal or Mission in life is, by trials and errors, by successes and failures, by any means possible. Once this Goal is determined (within the humanly possible degree of certainty, of course), one has to stick to it, come hell or high water, and to endure and persevere for as long as it takes, usually the rest of one's life, to complete it. After that, the inevitability of death, which sooner or later we all have to acknowledge, wouldn't be as devastating as to the one who knows too well that his life has essentially been wasted. 856. There is some evidence (whether historical or anecdotal it's hard to tell) that Plato started as a dramatic poet but later, either because of the lack of success or after meeting Socrates and discovering the joy of search for pure truth, became a philosopher. On the other hand, judging by the considerable philosophical content of his plays, which display more than superficial knowledge of the contemporary thoughts and ideas, Euripides must have started as a philosopher and later became a dramatist. Now, lets imagine for a moment that each man had pursued his originally intended career - Plato as a dramatic poet and Euripides as a philosopher. How would the development of Western philosophy and theatre have looked like by now, considering the immense genius both men possessed and their enormous importance in the history of the philosophy and the theatre? Furthermore, if one subscribes to the notion that great ideas and great art have a great influence on the general history of civilization, how the above suppositions would have changed its course? And if one is looking for an example of a single individual altering the course of history, there is no need to travel so far back in to the past. For if Hitler, as a young aspiring artist, had been admitted to the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, the world we live in now would be a very different place indeed. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00907 |