 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 99-128 |
| ||||||
| 99. In 1990, Canada is faced again, as in 1980, with the threat of Quebec's separation. Ten years ago those who wanted to preserve the Canadian unity, the so-called federalists, used as an argument against separatists the notion that Quebec would not be able to survive economically alone. This time federalists' argument is somewhat different. "Look at the European Common market" - they are telling the Quebec separatists. "Don't you see that today's trend is toward unity, not separation. The European states who had been fighting each other for centuries to obtain and preserve their independence, who virtually had invented the idea of the modern nation-state, are willing now to surrender the substantial part of their sovereignty for the benefits of unity". This argument, of course, is only partially valid; because at the same time and in the same Europe, albeit in its Eastern part, the completely opposite trend is being observed. The countries which had been united under the Soviet domination into the seemingly monolithic politico-economical block, are striving to regain their full independence. Even the Soviet Union itself, this "unholy Moscow Empire"composed of 15 republics and 100 nationalities, is on the verge of splitting apart with, as a possible outcome, the creation of 15, if not more new independent states. The wrong question to ask today is which one of these two contradictory trends is now more in step with the time. Because the true answer is - both. It is as natural for those that had been united for a long time to long for separation, as for those that had been separated to look for unity. Either of these two opposite states has its positive and negative features. With the passing of time, the benefits, like everything which is good, tend to be taken for granted and become almost invisible. But that which is bad, even if it is only a minor grievance, because of the constant irritation seems to be getting worse and, like proverbial pea in the princess's bed, produces the amount of discomfort and pain all out of proportion to its actual size. As a result, at any given moment in history there are states and nations which are in a process of unification and others which are separating. The fact that at this or that particular point in time one group is bigger than the other is purely accidental and does not necessarily represent a trend, unless proven otherwise, which, in my humble opinion, is impossible to do. The only certainty is that countries, like individuals, would usually chose, given the opportunity, the situation opposite to the one they are already in. And though each group, "unionists" or "separatists", claims that the change it is looking for is for the better, the end results in reality are far from obvious. Whether their respective aspirations are eventually fulfilled or not depends on many, mostly unpredictable circumstances, which, being in a state of perpetual flux cause the continuing evolution of those aspirations. What remains constant through this process is the desire for change. It is so deeply ingrained in the human character that, quite often, even the change, which is to any objective observer for the worse, is embraced just to avoid stagnation. Perhaps the ultimate expression of this tendency is a suicide, when somebody changes into nobody, the nothingness. And nations, though not as often, or as conspicuously as individuals, are capable of committing suicide too. 100. The fact that, as they say, "life goes on" should not be viewed as a special reason for optimism. For it simply means that, as the life goes on, it will contain as much happiness and as much misery as it always had, which could be a cause for being both optimistic and pessimistic at the same time, one no more than the other. 101. Immortality of the great men (and especially of the great philosophers) depends, to a large extent, on triviality of the ordinary ones. 102. We are all naked emperors dressed in the clothes made of our opinions about ourselves. 103. Is one picture really worth a thousand words? Certainly not if it is a modern one, which is practically worthless (and meaningless too ) until a thousand words are spent to describe and explain it. 104. Everyone, whether he is fully aware of it or not, wants to be a "renaissance man", that is to be able to do many different things, as equally well as possible. It is probably because most of us, if not all, are never completely satisfied with ourselves and justifiably so, since each one of us, at least in potentiality, is capable of much more. But the constraints of reality, which are so aptly expressed by such famous maxims as "you cannot be at two different places at the same time", or "between two stools one goes to the ground" prevent us from actualizing our full potentials. We are always forced by life, one way or another, to make a choice, often against (but not necessarily so) our will and therefore are never completely happy with it, even when the choice had been a good one. This basic conflict between potentiality and actualization persists through our lives and , even under the best of circumstances, never gets resolved, because of the another fundamental conflict between the limited and the limitless. 105. Braking other people's idols is not only a thankless but also a dangerous job , because people never forgive those who've done it to them. For their "idols" give them a sense of stability, the system of references and the foundation of their behaviour. The "idols" help them to make moral choices and relieve from paralysing hesitation and overwhelming uncertainty. Therefore, as a useful and prudent addition to the Ten Commandments, an eleventh one could be introduced: "Thou shalt not brake other people's idols unless you know they are looking for the new ones, and also know where to find them". 106. Religion has always dealt with the unknown and unexplainable. In the beginning there was darkness. The men were confronted by thousands whys: "Why the Sun and the Moon?", "Why day and night?", "Why rain or drought?", etc. And religion has always provided the answer - because of God. But as the human knowledge grew, more and more whys have been answered and those answers did not have God in them. Yet, at any given moment in human history, there were still some whys left unanswered. Also, as the old questions were being answered, the new ones would arise at the same time. And again, when men could not answer them, religion would offer the same old explanation - because of God. Thus, as long as there is something unexplainable it seems there will always be a place for religion to explain it as a work of God, and for science to prove that it is not. In this sense, religion and science can be viewed as rather complementary than contradictory: for both come from men's need to know, though each achieves it differently, in its own particular way. Human mind, to paraphrase the famous expression, abhors the vacuum of ignorance. Man has to know and will use science where he can, and religion where science is powerless, to obtain this knowledge. 107. Any religion, simply stated, is a relationship between Man and God or gods, whoever or whatever they may be. To be mutually satisfactory these relations like those between man and man, which they closely resemble, have to be also mutually beneficial. It is invariably achieved through some sort of a barter: Man gives to God, God gives to Man. Depending on what Man offers in exchange for God's blessings, the religions could be roughly divided into two types: "material" and "behavioural". In the "material" type of religion, Man gives God mostly material things, e.g. human and animal sacrifices, food, objects of art, valuables, etc. In the "behavioural" type, Man tries to live in a particular way, he imagines would be pleasing to God. This type can also be called "moralistic" and "spiritual" because of the heavy emphasis on the morally proper behaviour and on the supremacy of spirit above matter. The majority, if not all, of the ancient religions which appeared at the dawn of civilization whose most prominent feature was the extreme material scarcity, were, naturally, of the "material" type. But, as the burden of the purely physical necessities was easing of, due to the economic progress, other, spiritual needs began to dominate man's mind, and, eventually, gave birth to the modern religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which could be classified as "behavioural" and "moralistic". Another thing, separating the ancient religions from the modern ones, is that the majority of the former were polytheistic, while the later are, mainly, monotheistic. The explanation for this difference lies, perhaps, in the fact that while man's material wants are many and varied, all our spiritual needs can be reduced to one - the longing for happiness. 108. Poetry and philosophy are similar in a way they both strive to reduce the overwhelming multiplicity of human experiences and emotions to a few succinct and seemingly manageable thoughts and expressions, bringing, as if by magic, the order of mind to the chaos of life. 109. One of the unintended and, to the best of my knowledge, never mentioned by-products of the invention of a written language, must have been the dramatic increase, if not the introduction, of the freedom of speech. Anyone who has ever tried to speak up his mind in a group of people holding the views and ideas opposite to those of the speaker might appreciate the validity of this hypothesis. Because having the opportunity "to talk to a sheet of paper" (or for that matter to a roll of papyrus, clay tablet, etc.) in private, releases one from the immediate and intimidating censorship of the crowd. It provides, at least potentially, the means of free expression by removing the fear of arousing displeasure and, in the extreme cases, even retribution of the angry opponents. Needless to say, this newly acquired intellectual freedom must have been largely responsible for the spectacular and unprecedented progress of science, philosophy and arts in seventh and especially in the sixth century B.C., which will always be regarded as one of the greatest periods in the history of civilization. 110. The fate of a man is to live simultaneously in two worlds - one real, another symbolic. And while we can, to a certain extent, control our relations with the world of reality, in the world of symbols, which completely dominate us, we are powerless slaves. These two worlds seldom coexist peacefully. Most of the times, they are in a state of the irreconcilable conflict, of which we ourselves are the first casualty. 111. Our parents are like a door separating us from death. When they die, the door is suddenly open and we have to face our own mortality. Then it is our children who have "to save" us from death. They are part of us, as we are part of them. As long as they live, at least something of us lives too. But if our children die, then this last illusion and reason for living dies with them too. 112. I have been told the truth and I have been told the lie. And the lie is better. 113. I am the rule, the others are exceptions. 114. The means are not only justified by the ends but create them too. 115. One and many are the opposites not only in an abstract philosophical sense but also in a concrete social one. In the later, this opposition is usually confrontational and antagonistic, because more often than not the interests of one are contrary to those of many. In the totalitarian state the one is the oppressive government, the many is the population at large, finding its unity in opposing the government as a common enemy, which gives to everybody, even to the most alienated, a sense of belonging. In the democratic society, ruled by consensus based on conformity, one is an individual oppressed by many, by the majority which forces him to make a choice between being like everybody else or to face contempt and condemnation, indifference and rejection. As a result, in the democratic society it is the individual, who is either unable or unwilling to conform, that becomes the common enemy. Consequently, being separated from his own community, such individual experiences the kind of total loneliness that is seldom seen in the totalitarian society. 116. We dislike certain people not so much for what they as individuals are, but for the particular way and the philosophy of life they epitomize, the one which is so contrary to ours that it undermines our self-esteem and confront us with very unsettling and sometimes potentially devastating questions, like "what if they are right and I am wrong?" or "what if my whole life has been one big mistake?" It is no wonder that we dislike or even hate such people, since they seem, by their very existence, to threaten our peace of mind, validity of our believes and purpose of our lives. By the same token, we like certain people not necessarily for what they are as individuals, but for the particular way of living and thinking they symbolize, the one we perceive as similar to ours, and thus justifying what we are and what we do, and, in the process, making us feel secure and satisfied with our own lives. 117. One's prosperity is usually derived from others. But one's survival depends to a large extent on self-sufficiency. 118. We are the most vulnerable when seeking love and approval of others, because nothing in life is as uncertain and unpredictable as somebody else's feelings and judgement. In some, this need for love and approval of others permeates their whole existence. As a result such individuals are seldom, if ever, happy. They live in a state of perpetual fear of doing or saying something which might make them unloved or ill spoken of. On a top of that, their continual quest for love and approval of others makes those others very uncomfortable under this constant pressure to show love and approval. Naturally, very often they react in a manner quite opposite to that which had been sought, bringing to the individual, longing for love and approval, an additional and unnecessary unhappiness instead. 119. Before, there was "a right time for everything under the sun". Now - there is everything all the time. But there is no time for anything. 120. One of the psychologically important functions of religion has to do with the way we see ourselves. We know, more or less, what we are, either consciously or intuitively. We also know, with some degree of certainty, what we ought or would like to be, and religion, especially of the "moralistic" type, like Judaism, Christianity or Islam, give us, if only for a short period of time, the opportunity to realize it. Religion in this case, providing both the script and the stage, functions as a theatre in which we are allowed and even forced to play a part of ourselves not as we really are but as we ought or would like to be. It let us, for a while, pretend to be faithful though we are treacherous, generous though we are greedy, kind though we are cruel, etc. It makes us love and respect ourselves, at least for a duration of the performance, and may be even a little bit longer, which is absolutely essential for our psychological well-being. 121. The majority of us spend our entire lives as if walking in uncomfortable shoes. The shoes are either chosen by or, most likely, for us at the beginning of the life-journey. Almost immediately, they don't feel right, but we are told to be patient and are assured that eventually we will get used to and even like them. However, sooner or later, most of us begin to realize that these shoes would never fit, and we try to exchange them for another, more comfortable pair. Then, to our dismay, we make another discovery - we can't take them off. They have become a part of our body, and we will have to wear these uncomfortable, even painful shoes for the rest of our lives. 122. No matter how cute a woman's ass is, it doesn't give her an automatic right to position it permanently over a man's head. 123. The life of a man is like his body, for both are made of two inseparable substances, the body of flesh and skeleton, the life of deeds and purposes. As the skeleton gives support and shape to the body so the purpose gives form and meaning to life. Brake up the skeleton and the flesh will collapse, deprived of its frame. Destroy man's goals and purpose and he would lose the ability to act, for his life lost its structure. On the other hand, as the muscles keep the skeleton together , preventing it from falling apart, so the deeds of man sustain the purpose of life preventing it from disintegration. Thus, there is a symbiotic relationship between the deeds and purpose in life, as between the flesh and skeleton, for one cannot exist without the other. 124. The Western philosophy is greatly indebted to Xanthippe, the shrewish wife of Socrates. For it is in order to defend himself from her incessant demands for the material things - food, clothes, money, etc. that Socrates developed the notion of primacy of the spiritual over the material. He also, in order to escape the constant harassment by his wife, who evidently treated this notion as another excuse of a loafer, had to spend a great deal of time on the streets of Athens. There, having nothing else to do, he would engage anybody who was willing to talk into a conversation and, while doing this, use successfully the argumentative skills he had developed in quarrels with his wife. And, as if trying to compensate for the numerous defeats on the domestic front, he would put all his energy and passion into those discussions, bent on winning every argument this time. 125. Let's call the process, in which the needs that are not sexual in nature are being sublimated into the sexual ones because of the objective impossibility or/and subjective inability of a person to fulfil the former, the reverse sublimation. The process of sublimation always proceeds in the direction of the least resistance. In the Victorian age, in which Freud lived and used as a paradigm for his idea of sublimation, the sexual desires were much more difficult to satisfy than the intellectual ones. Hence, the direction of sublimation was from sexual to intellectual. In the modern times, the reverse phenomenon has taken place. For whatever reasons (it is the subject of a somewhat different discussion) the intellectual aspirations are more difficult to fulfil than the sexual ones, and sublimation, consequently, proceeded, as always, in the direction of the least resistance. Only this time it was in the direction of the sexual fulfilment. Now, if we substitute the notions "intellect" by "spirit" and "sex" by "body", we can see the same old and familiar pair -body and spirit - in its unending dialectical struggle, when the opposites constantly change their places, depending on the prevailing conditions in the society at any given moment, always sublimating into each other. 126. Like docile sheep we are led to the slaughter house by egomaniacs. 127. Multiformity of the reality overwhelms the weak mind, forcing it to adopt the simplistic and thus inevitably prejudicial view of the world. 128.Intellectual honesty and logical thinking are absolutely necessary and sometimes even sufficient preconditions for finding the truth. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00940 |