 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 893-905 |
| ||||||
| 893. As we are approaching the end of 20th century, despite all the wonderful scientific discoveries and technological advancements it has brought us, the struggle between science and religion for the minds of people, the struggle most vividly exemplified in the perpetual evolutionists versus creationists controversy, does not show any sign of abating but, on the contrary, is heating up. And I would say, for purely utilitarian, rather than ideological or theological reasons. For the most important criteria by which both Science and Religion are judged by the ordinary people is not their competitive abilities to reveal the Truth ( the preoccupation of but a few philosophers and theologians), but their comparative utility in teaching human beings to treat one another better, and making the world as a whole a more hospitable place for all of us to live in. Now, the initial promise of Science at the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment was that by freeing itself and humanity from the constrains and superstitions of Religion it will lead all of us to a better, more civilized and more humane life. But, as any unbiased witness would testify today, the results have been less than spectacular, and the promise essentially has not been fulfilled. People are not any better than they were 300 years ago. They don't treat each other with more kindness and compassion. Cruelty is rampant, morality has never, probably, been held in such a low esteem as today and, consequently, disintegrating with a frightening speed. Life is becoming even more dangerous, brutal and degrading than it was at the end of 19th century. All this has happened while Science was given the uncontested, for all intent and purpose, reign at least for the last 100 years. As a result, more and more people, disappointed by this failure of science to improve the most important aspect of human existence, are willing to go back to religion (even while being aware that is not scientifically valid) and give it another try. In conclusion, I think it would be a mistake to equate the present growing popularity of religion with the increase of the religiosity in a strictly spiritual sense. Rather, in our pragmatic age, it is viewed by many ( albeit without openly admitting it) as a means of improving and preserving moral and social quality of life, which science and technology was not only inadequate to accomplish, but are seen more and more as one of the causes of their deterioration. Of course, nobody knows for sure whether the renewed and improved religion will do better than science. Therefore, I would not be surprised (or even disappointed) when, if religion won't succeed where science had failed, the humanity will abandon it again, like it did in the past, and try science once more, or even ( call me a wild optimist) come up with something totally new. 894. How am I to reconcile the constant urge and overpowering desire to express myself and speak up my mind, with the equally constant and all-pervading worry and fear of offending or hurting somebody by what I've said or how I've said it, which is almost unavoidable, no matter how careful one is. My only self-excuse is, though I'm aware that many will find it insufficient, that the offence, if given, is the result of an inadvertent oversight, rather than of an intentional malice. 895. The traditional Marxist idea of Communism - from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs - is based, ultimately, on the premise that as soon as the productivity, driven by technological progress, creates such an abundance of goods and services that anybody could satisfy all his needs, the equality and happiness would ensue. Anyone familiar with human nature could have told Marx that this assumption is wrong. And the reason it is wrong is because the overwhelming majority of humanity cannot separate their ideas of needs from their notions of wants, and most of the times tend not only to equate them, but invariably let their notions of wants to determine their needs. Now, if one takes into account the insatiable inventiveness humans possess in continually multiplying and magnifying their wants, it is perfectly clear where all this leads to. As the 20th century, the most productive in history, has shown, as far as human desires are concerned, the sky is, literally, the limit. Judging by the past - 200-room palaces for a family of three, private yachts as big as ships, personal jets, etc., (my knowledge in the area of conspicuous consumption, I must confess, is rather limited) - it is obvious that there will always be people who make the extraordinary and extravagant demands on societal resources. It is not hard to imagine that in the near future some people might even consider having personal inter-galactic space ship or spending a couple months of each year vacationing on Mars as their inalienable rights. And what's more, many more will demand the same thing as absolutely essential to their happiness. Like chasing one's own tail, there is no end to it. It is also abundantly clear that the satisfaction of such outrageous desires of even a few will, as it always did, deprive the many of even basic necessities of life. So, it is not the utmost development of the productive forces, but the collective determination of the majority to achieve the equality here and now, at whatever level of productivity and consumption possible at the moment, that will bring happiness and peace into the world. And until those who dream about Communism will significantly lower their expectations and realize that in our imperfect world it is only possible if everybody gets a little bit more than those at the bottom, rather than as much as those at the top, and redirect their efforts accordingly, Communism would remain just that - an impossible dream. But if one finds such philosophical musings too abstract and unconvincing, then let facts speak for themselves: not a single country, from the huge Soviet Union to the tiny Cuba, which have embraced socialism - the so-called preliminary stage on the road to Communism (another way to avoid full equality here and now) - was ever even close to the level of productivity Marx saw as the necessary precondition for it. On the contrary, the countries which were the first to implement socialism were all on the brink of economical and social collapse, and had welcome it as the best possible, under the circumstances, system to distribute their meagre resources more equitably to save their population from starvation and death. Even the developed, ultra-conservative capitalist countries, like the United States, had to adopt some socialist measures during the Great Depression to save themselves from disaster. On the other hand, as soon as economic situation improved due to increased production and productivity, the socialist ideas have became less and less popular. Again to explain that, we have simply to observe the behaviour of a single individual. The one who is poor will eagerly take advantage of equal redistribution of wealth, for he has nothing to lose and everything to gain from it. But, as this same person gets gradually better off, to the same degree his attitude and opinion about the desirability of equalization diminishes, until, when he reaches the point that it is his "wealth" that has to be distributed to those who have less, he becomes the staunchest opponent of such "unjust" measures. The society as a whole does not behave any differently. In the rich countries of Western Europe, in USA, Canada, etc, where the majority of population is relatively well off, it is only the poorest who will benefit and, consequently, will support material equalization. But since they are in minority, these countries under the present conditions will never welcome even socialism, never mind communism. The fact is, that despite the occasional fits of "generosity", (mostly forced, unnatural and therefore short-lived), those countries remain essentially conservative, as far as redistribution of wealth is concerned, and consistently vote largely conservative government (albeit under different disguises) into power. Which is a clear manifestation that the "comfortable" majority, the so-called middle class, does not really want to share their wealth with the less fortunate. And if, by a fluke of election roulette, the ever so slightly left-leaning government comes to power and forces them to do so, it engenders a growing resentment and, given the first opportunity, will be voted out of office by this majority. As depressingly regrettable as it may sound, it is only when: 1) the majority of population is poor and 2) if these poor acquire, by whatever means, power, that the ideas of equality and communism have any chance (but never certainty) of implementation. P.S. Today is June 8, 1995. I've finished typing the foregoing at 10 o'clock in the morning. It is 10 o'clock in the evening now. It just has been announced on the radio that in the largest province of Canada, Ontario, the pseudo-socialist New Democratic Party after being in power (by pure accident) for 5 years has been defeated, and the most extreme rightist government in the recent history of Canada (in my memory, at least) has been elected by promising to cut the welfare benefits and force their recipients to work for them. The great Ontarian middle class, joining the great American, Italian, French, etc. middle classes, has spoken. And the message is loud and clear: "We don't want to share any more with the poor. And if you ask us what will happen to them, the answer is - we don't give a damn." Welcome to the end of the millennium. 896. I don't believe that the dispassion is capable in any field of human activity, from art to science, of anything other than mediocrity, perpetuation and stagnation. The true creativity must have, in order to move, the passion as a fuel, though just by itself it will take it nowhere , not only in science but in art as well, without thought and reason as the driver. 897. Women, especially those who find me attractive, always make me feel guilty for paying more attention to my "books" than to their "looks". It is as if they trying to tell me that my priorities are all wrong and unnatural, and that the only reason "male and female created He them" is for a man and a woman to be totally preoccupied with each other and anyone who isn't giving it his fullest attention must be against Nature itself. Of course, most of women, the compassionate creatures as they are, don't mind men's other pursuits , of which there is a great variety, from a purely intellectual to simply physical, men invented and enjoyed, but only as long as men remember that these must be secondary to the sexual ones. Perhaps because women feel much more responsible personally than men for continuation of Life, which is involved reproduction, which, in its turn, is inseparable from sex, that they see it as the most important function of a human being, with everything else as a complimentary and subservient and, at the end, leading to it. In the light of this, it is clear why women feel that whatever men do must be done, ultimately, to win women's favour and love. In addition, while for the majority of men sex begins and ends with the sexual intercourse, which by itself takes relatively little time, thus freeing men to do other things, for women it is only a small part of the large as Life itself story, filled with dreams, phantasies, flirtation, courtship, romance, etc., etc. That's why women are so infatuated with poets, singers and artists who devote so much of their life and work to the celebration of Love, and, consequently, demand from the men in their lives to follow the example. Their constant message to men, to paraphrase Mr. Clinton, is "It is Love, stupid!" Now, coming back to myself, I have to confess that as a card carrying member of the male fraternity, sufficiently fortified by testosterone, I fully appreciate female beauty. But what I'm increasingly unwilling to do is to worship it as the only God, or even as the chief one. Life is too short to be devoted to a single pursuit. 898. It took me some time, too much time, as far as I'm concerned, to begin to understand that when a woman says she doesn't want to be treated as a sex-object it actually means that she doesn't want ALWAYS be treated JUST as a sex-object, and also, which is even more important, that it is up to her to decide how the man has to treat her at each particular time and in each particular situation. 899. There is this widely accepted notion that as we grow older, we become more forgiving towards the flaws and failings of others because we understand more and more, taught by our own life experience, how difficult it is sometimes to live up to the high moral and ethical standards, no matter how loudly professed and sincerely believed in. It is especially true in our continuous re-evaluation of the people we knew when we were young, and whom we judged then rather severely, fortified by the virtuous intolerance common at that "tender" age. I used to share this opinion myself, but not anymore. Now, I tend to believe that the reason we soften and modify with age our view of human behaviour, and become more tolerant has little to do with the acquired "wisdom", but much more with the fact that the longer we live, the more we have the opportunity (and seldom fail to avail ourselves of it) to commit the same unsavoury deeds we used to be so critical of in our pure youth. And since "a man is a measure of all things", we are strongly, almost irresistibly inclined to forgive the others what we are guilty of ourselves. For the virtuous indignation we all display (albeit in a different degree) when we are young is not the result of the deep and well thought out moral convictions, but rather a judgement of one who is still too young to have had sufficient time to accumulate his own baggage of "sins". Then, as the years go by, our views of other people's actions gradually change, becoming more and more liberal, and not because we now understand what before we didn't, but because as we do ourselves more and more exactly what we used to condemn, we are compelled to excuse the others in order, essentially, to excuse ourselves of the very same things we found so inexcusable when we personally didn't do them. Thus, as we grow older we lie more often and, accordingly, begin "to understand" those who lied to us in the past. And we also more often treat others badly and, naturally, begin to be more "understanding" of those who've hurt us... And so it goes - the more we become like everybody else, which is hardly avoidable for those who live long enough, the less judgmental and more forgiving we become. Is it the acquired wisdom, or is it the acknowledgment of one's weakness and admission and acceptance of defeat? 900. Man looks at the world as in the mirror to see himself. 901. What is it about the Canadian civic and political culture, that people, who find endless excuses for doing nothing, or next to nothing to solve the problems which demanded the urgent attention years ago, are considered to be "sophisticated", while someone who wants to do something here and now is called "terribly naive"? 902. It is well known and accepted as justified that women often complain about being treated as the "sex objects". But what about us, men? I, for one, nave noticed that some women, who initially express interest in me (which I vainly attribute to my engaging personality and sense of humour) upon discovering that our relationship has no potential to develop into a romance, but is going to be stuck forever in the unpromising swamp of friendship, lose eventually all interest in my persona, to the point that in their presence I begin to feel invisible. And if this is not being treated as a "sex object", what is? 903. How difficult and how frustrating it must be for a "born revolutionary" to be born in Canada, a country whose credo can be more or less accurately stated as "The evolution by any means (and the slower the better) possible", which is quite a sensible precept to live by when "times are good" and what is desirable (but not urgent) is to make some small adjustments here and there to make it even better. But when the things are progressively turning for the worse, to continue to cling to such a comforting philosophy eventually will spell the inevitable and irreversible disaster. 904. "for though he has been tempted in every way we are, he remains without sin." Hebrews 4:15 I have probably had as many opportunities and temptations to get corrupted morally or otherwise as the next person. And yet, as if I'm covered by some kind of Teflon of virtue and decency, nothing "dirty" could ever stick to me. Throughout my life many have tried to corrupt me - my school friends, my co-workers, my acquaintances, even some of my relatives (for it is the people and not the circumstances that usually corrupt us). But none of them have succeeded. Sometimes I almost wish they did, for then my life would have perhaps been much easier, because "the road of sin is wide and easy and many take it but the path of virtue is hard and narrow and only a few find it'. The sexual corruption, the most common one, was never appealing to me, and not so much because of some strong moral conviction, but mostly on aesthetic grounds. Either the words - double entendres, bawdy jokes, risque flirtations, etc., or the deeds - adultery, sleeping around, all kinds of sexual experimentation, etc. - it all seemed to me in such a bad taste that I've never been able to imitate it. For I always found sexual corruption so aesthetically unappealing, even revolting that nothing could induce me to behave in such a manner. Furthermore, as far as material and social corruption is concerned (which is only slightly less universal than sexual one) my social ambitions and material desires were always so weak or practically non-existent, that no great efforts were required on my part to remain uncorrupted in this area as well. Finally, to be totally honest, perhaps a certain amount of cowardice played an important part in saving me from doing something which could have entailed punishment or other unpleasant consequences. And I'm not ashamed to admit it, for the fear is the most useful tool of survival we possess. So, all in all, for the reasons mentioned above and probably some others I can't come up with now, I've remained throughout my life essentially the same as I started it - "as innocent as a babe unborn". 905. Most people want to believe, despite the numerous and unmistakable evidences to the contrary, that no matter how crowded the skies are, there is always a place for one more star - theirs. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00771 |