 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 1005-1020 |
| ||||||
| 1005. Sorry, let me mention just one more good thing about being old (I'm afraid I'm beginning to like it). It is that my relationships with the other men are no longer marred by rivalries and competition for physical strength, attractiveness, women's attention, wealth, position, fame, etc. And now I can finally enjoy the brotherhood of men, completely free of mistrust and fear that plagued my life so much when I was younger. 1006. Agreeing in advance that neither the absolute freedom nor the absolute absence of it is possible, the degree of personal liberty or slavery depends on the degree of separation of an individual from his or her environment, both human and material, i.e. the less one is connected to the other people or things, the more free one is, and, on the other hand, the more one is entangled in the affairs of the world, which is the mixture of both, the less freedom one has. In a word, self-sufficiency equals freedom, the dependence spells slavery. 1007. Though "there is nothing new under the sun", one who succeeds (or simply lucky) in coining a new term to describe an old phenomenon observed, contemplated and discussed at different times and by many before him, nevertheless usually goes down into history as the sole discoverer of it, and not just as a clever inventor of a catchy name. Consequently, his own name begins from then on to be associated with, or sometimes even used as an eponym for this particular phenomenon, while everybody else, no matter how perceptive their observation of it were hitherto, who had failed in this seemingly most important from the historical point of view act of naming, are forgotten. So, the answer to the question "what is in the name?" as far as apportioning of the credits is concerned should be -everything. Now, what makes one term to be so much more popular than all others before it is difficult to tell. Perhaps it is just an accident of good timing when everybody is ready and eager for the "new and improved". Or maybe it is something as impalpable as the sound of the word that makes people feel on a purely auditory, phonetic level that it belongs here, and so much so that all the rest is discarded as inadequate. And the one who introduces this, from now on the most favourite term or definition, reaps, rightly or wrongly the accolades of the future generations. Oh Fame, how fickle, unpredictable and often undeserving you are! 1008. For everyone who has something to give, there are always many more who are eager to take. So, if the greatest reward of generosity is, as it is proclaimed (and rightly so) to be, that the gift is accepted, the giver should never be discouraged by the apparent ingratitude of some of the takers. For the very act of taking is the best proof that one's generosity, if not oneself, is appreciated. 1009. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that is worse than talking to somebody who has a misfortune of being both poorly educated and stupid (the qualities which may or may not belong together) is to endure a "conversation-cum-discussion" with someone labouring under the grievous misapprehension that prolonged studies automatically bestow superior understanding and even wisdom on its practitioners. And though neither narrow-mindedness and intolerance of the illiterate, nor the arrogance and conceit of the educated are inevitable, it is still distressingly common and dangerous in its consequences to be alarmed, regardless whether one can or cannot do something about it. 1010. Contrary to the popular thinking, being a non-conformist can save sometimes from a lot of aggravation and pain, while the following the accepted rules of conduct could put one in harm's way. For though it is true that conformity with the prevailing and approved pattern of behaviour is rewarded and the failure to do so is punished by any group, from family to a state, in certain situations when this group embarks for whatever reason on a perilous journey, one's refusal to join could be of a great advantage to an individual with enough common sense and courage to disobey something he knows in advance to be potentially dangerous. On the other hand, history is full of examples when blind conformity brought terrible disasters and distraction to its numerous faithful practitioners. And if one has to write a prescription on how to deal with this common predicament, the best advice as always would be to be flexible. For "there is a time for everything under the sun" a time to be a conformist and a time to be a non-conformist. And the trick, I guess, is to know which is which at any particular moment and in any specific circumstances, and not to confuse one with another. 1011. To analyse a literary text into its elements and modes in hope to uncover the mystery of writing craft is like putting separate pieces of the dismembered flower under the microscope to learn about its underlying cellular composition - in both cases one can penetrate the deep structure of the subject of an inquiry but the fragrance and the colorfulness, the aesthetic impression and the enchantment are gone. 1012. The more I live, the more I tend to agree with this famous pronouncement by Leo Tolstoy that "all happy families are alike". Moreover, what I find is common to all successful marriages (which nowadays means people staying together long enough for their children to grow up) is the diametrical opposition of the character roles each partner is willing and able to play. Thus, for a marriage to survive one of the spouses has to act a part of a romantic, impractical dreamer, while the other that of a pragmatic realist. For without the first quality the relationships get stale and boring and without the second they are practically unsustainable. But since nobody can possess such contradictory characteristic traits as realist and romantic, dreamer and pragmatist simultaneously, the "division of labour" in a marriage, if it is to last, is of paramount importance. It is preferable, of course, that a couple enters into relations already assuming their respectively opposite modes of behaviour which they think suits them the best. But often the division of "characters" develops in the process of marriage (for it is never static but continuously evolving), until after some period of trying on different roles the partners finally settle into the ones acceptable to both sides. Those who can stick to this once established arrangement should be considered the luckiest. But sometimes people who were happy with their original roles eventually get dissatisfied or simply bored and want to switch. Now, if the other partner feels the same everything is more or less all right, for then they both can at least try "the switching", and even if unsuccessful, the mutual satisfaction of being able to express one's longing for a change and of being wholeheartedly supported in such a very personal quest by the other human being ( an extremely rare luxury indeed) will make a strong union even stronger. But if the other spouse, happy and content playing his or hers "character", has grown accustomed to it through long years of practice and has no intention to try another but, on the contrary, resist and fight the change with all means available (and there are too many both fair and unfair ones) the trouble, the family strife and endless struggle ensue and in today's climate of unwillingness to compromise it often ends in the break-up of a marriage which seemed so sound even a short time ago. 1013. One who was born as a Jew, but grew up wishing to be and trying to become a gentile, has a perfect right to feel and to act this way, for the individual self-determination must be as sacred as the collective one. But what such a person has no right to do is to turn into the super anti-Semite to justify and to excuse his "conversion". And the same commandment applies to a self-hating Catholic, self-hating Muslim, or to self-hating anyone who by virtue of birth belongs to the "less respectable" ethnic, religious, or social group than he would have, given a choice, wished to - you are free to leave but not to blame, for the decision is yours and so are the reasons for it. And if one had a misfortune to be born into a persecuted group, he should not vent his frustration and anger on the fellow-victims, but direct it towards the real culprits - the victimizers. 1014. Had Hamlet lived today, the most pressing question on his mind would have probably been the mundane "to wear or not to wear condom" instead of the profound "to be or not to be". Yet, come to think of it, nowadays it can easily amount to the same thing. 1015. Several years ago I've written the following verse Who've said small children or big fools are only ones to tell the truth? Nor child neither fool am I, yet it's so hard for me to lie. It is clear to me now, looking back, that at that time it was simply a realization and acknowledgment of the bitter-sweet fact, a mixture of self-admiration and self-pity. But lately I've been thinking more and more about the reasons people like me act in such a particular manner. Lets first assume that one's behaviour is the product of "nurture" (to use modern psychological dichotomy of "nature" and "nurture" as two main causes in creation of human personality). Then our common daily experience tells us more often than not that lying in certain circumstances could save us a lot of grief. And yet, there are undeniably some people who could not lie to save their lives. On the other hand, some professions demand of their practitioners to always give the true and unambiguous answers as, for example, in my case I was trained as a structural engineer to operate in this way. Yet, during my career I've come across more than a few engineers who were very skilful in the art of deception not only in personal but even in their professional lives. Thus having observed, in the course of my life, the numerous instances when neither life's experience nor professional training were strong enough to make one either a liar or a truthful man, I've come to conclusion that it is not the "nurture" that should be blamed or given a credit for either outcome. But if it isn't the "nurture" that is responsible for what we are, it is the "nature", isn't it? But what is the "nature"? Is there such a thing as the "truth gene"? Hardly, for the honest parents often produce deceitful children, and it is not uncommon for a truthful child to be ashamed of the parents who constantly lie. Or perhaps there are some specific and separate centres for "truth" and "lie" in our brain and the difference between a liar and a truthful person is caused by relative predominance of one over the other. As tempting as such explanations may sound, I'm personally not aware of any scientific proof of them. And if neither social nor medical sciences provide the satisfactory answers, what is left as always is metaphysics and religion and to account for the obvious differences in human behaviour one has to resort to the notions of Soul, God, and Grace and to assume that it is by the grace of God that one man is endowed with the soul of truthfulness and another with the soul of a liar, and each has to make do with what has been given to him. And to the same cause and with equal justification can be attributed the other differences in men's characters, like bravery and cowardice, generosity and stinginess, kindness and cruelty, etc. For the same parents and the same conditions can produce both kinds with equal probability. And so "here if not by the Grace of God goes I". 1016. The easiest way to get along with almost everybody is to never ask anyone for anything. For everybody loves to be known as being kind and generous, especially when to obtain such a lofty and enviable reputation one doesn't have to lift even a finger or spend a penny in order to justify it. 1017. As far as I'm concerned, there is no great mystery to how succeed in life. It is mainly by ingratiating oneself with as many people as possible, but especially with those who are in a position to give something to us, and it could be done quite easily by simply telling everyone what he or she wants to hear, i.e. to confirm their perceptions, feelings, opinions, and ideas, thus validating, in essence, their very existence. It may be objected, of course, that this isn't as simple as it sounds. And I tend to agree. For it requires actually paying attention and not just a lip service to the psychological needs of others, something few of us have time or inclination for. Yet, if we are willing to put even a minimal effort into it, the returns could be tenfold. For peoples longings are not as impenetrable as it may appear to the inattentive bystander, but could become sufficiently transparent to be seen through by the one who is capable to forget for a moment about one's own needs in order to discern those of others. And because it happens so seldom, the peoples' gratitude is usually disproportionately larger than our efforts. Yet, like with everything else in life, there is a caveat. And it largely depends on whether one genuinely enjoys telling others what they like to hear or not. First, if one doesn't (which is not as common as it would seem, for some really do) then despite the all obvious benefits of putting oneself in good standing with the potential benefactors, one gets simply tired of doing what comes unnaturally. Moreover, because of growing "fatigue of constant pleasing", one's "performance" becomes less and less convincing, until it reaches the dangerous point when even those who were blinded by flattery start to detect insincerity and falsity and begin to dislike the flatterer. Secondly, since "pleasing" must be a life-long commitment (for the more is received the more is expected), if one feels pressured to act against one's natural inclinations, the artificiality of such a forced conduct leads to the gradual accumulation of resentment and even hatred toward the very same people one is trying to please. And this pent up frustration will sooner or later burst out in some angry and insulting remark which in a single moment can destroy the years of cultivating good will. Finally, there is a danger that with so much time and energy devoted to please others, to cater to their psychological needs one tends to forget and neglect one's own, which can lead at the end of the day to the bitterness of a wasted life. All in all, however potentially profitable telling others what they want to hear may be, it's a special skill, and like any other skill not everybody is good at or even suitable for it, no matter how hard one tries. 1018. Though most of us don't have even the first, all desperately want to believe in having a second chance, and then the third, the fourth, etc., etc. almost till the day we die. 1019. When the first Spanish female toreador was asked what motivates her to enter the arena, which hitherto has been solely the men's preserve, her reply was "bull, danger, death". Now, come to think of it, some women get it by simply marrying the "right guy". 1020. When I hear nowadays the famous actors, singers, painters, writers complaining, with increasing frequency, about being cheated out of the huge parts of their earnings by their business managers, lawyers, agents, dealers, I want to ask them a "simple" question: "Have you done it for money?" And if the answer is categorically unequivocal "Yes", then You should have been your own accountant and ,as a consequence, also accept the inevitable loses to your art. For the more attention and energy you would devote to financial considerations, the less is left for the artistic creativity. You cannot serve both Art and money. But let me suggest to you that your real motivation was never money, but the Recognition, Fame, Glory, and the joy and ecstasy of creation. And if you get it, I assure you "you have already been paid in full", and nobody can take it from you. So, do not blame the money-changers for what they are, but pity them. For they shall spend the rest of eternity in obscurity or infamy they richly deserve. But your name will be imprinted in peoples memory for a long time to come. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00879 |