 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 1110-1122 |
| ||||||
| 1110. One who endeavours to support this or that particular point of view by the examples (which are invariably selective) from history is treading on the treacherously thin ice, made of the few hard facts surrounded by a lot of soft fictions. For considering the notorious uncertainty and ambiguity of even the recorded history, the validity of any theory or opinion relying on it can be in most cases as easily confirmed as denied. The first thing to keep in mind when trying to use History as a guide is the well-known but often conveniently forgotten fact, that it never repeats itself twice (unless in the highly generalized sense) and the famous pronouncement about interchangeability and equal possibility of tragedy and farce in similar situations is the case in point. And because we all, like the generals who are always fighting the last war, base our forecasts of the future on the experience of the past, the results of such divination are understandably unpredictable. Secondly, while the power of the outstanding personalities, especially if they are at the head of a powerful nation, to influence the current events should never be underestimated and could be under certain conditions absolutely crucial, their appearance at any particular point in time can never be anticipated. When after the WWII the West used the disastrous policy vis-a-vis Germany after WWI as the justification to wage the Cold War against the Soviet Union, it forgot, perhaps intentionally, one glaringly obvious fact, that if not for the unique personality of Hitler, the so called policy of appeasement, reconciliation with, and accommodation of Germany during the Thirties, driven by too fresh memories of senseless horrors of the Great War and desperate attempts to prevent the repetition of it, the policy much maligned afterwards, might very well had been proven successful. For judging by what we know about Hindenburg, if he remained for another ten years a president of the Weimar Republic, the European history between 1933 and 1945 would have been quite different. By the same token, if not for the emergence of Gorbachev as the leader of the Soviet Union in 1985, the Cold War might well had been proven to be a total disaster for both superpowers instead of just one. Thus in politics, like in a life of an individual, one cannot know in advance whether this course of action will be right and that wrong. Only after the results are in, the judgement can be pronounced always bearing in mind that the multitude of accidental variables make any prediction of outcome next to impossible. 1111. Where had this preposterous , contrary to everyday's experience of anybody who ever lived there, notion that America had been founded by Puritans whose rigid self-discipline and stringent and uncompromising moralism profoundly affected the American national character and still runs deeply underneath all this obvious flotsam, come from? Is it because one hundred of them had indeed arrived on the Mayflower in the year 1620? Are they so important and their influence is so immense in comparison with the millions and millions of "the wretched refuse" who have been coming for almost 400 years after that and who hadn't a slightest idea about who the Puritans were and what the word "puritanism" stood for? Unfortunately for those who would like to perpetuate this ridiculous myth, the simple and brutal truth is that America had always been and still is the cesspool of the vulgar vice, the obnoxious contents of which spills increasingly all over the world. And the fact that every now and then a small minority of American citizens get outraged by some of the most revolting excesses of the "American way of life" testifies not to their inbred neo-puritanism but to the quite natural human need to protect themselves against the complete degradation and insanity. 1112. It must be clear to anyone whose attempts to criticize someone very close were often met, despite the best intentions and extreme care taken not to offend, with standard accusation like "You don't understand", that as far as our psychological well-being is concerned we all, contrary to a saying "Deeds, not words", crave much more the moral support (words) than one expressed in action (deeds). For apparently our ego and self-esteem are significantly more important to us than the actual state of our affairs. Otherwise how can one explain that frequently observed phenomenon when given a choice between "not being understood" (criticized) and yet generously offered a totally disinterested aid (as by our parents), and being understood (agreed with, praised and flattered) by people who ordinarily wouldn't move a finger to help us, unless expecting something in return ( like our "friends"), we invariably prefer the latter over the former. 1113. The older I get the less and less I hope for revelation and the more and more am willing to settle for like-mindedness and confirmation. 1114. The love of a child for a parent grows out of the initial total dependence on a parent for a child's well-being, both physical and psychological, and as such to a large extent is but a self-love. Later in life, when this dependency is no longer there, this love of a child for a parent does diminish but seldom goes away completely, for what became an integral part of one's personality in the most formative period of one's life - childhood - hardly ever totally lost later. A living parent therefore continues to provide the psychological sense of security long after his or her role as the protector in practical terms becomes less than negligible. Furthermore, though the love of a parent towards a child seems to be wholly altruistic, deep down it is also essentially self-serving, for a child provides a parent with the only promise of immortality one can ever have. Which is proven by a well-known fact that grandchildren are loved even more, for they give even greater reassurance of life beyond one's inevitable death. That is why the loss of a child or a parent are the greatest tragedies in one's life, for the first destroys the hope and the second the illusion of the possibility to avoid death. 1115. Though the quest for justice is common to all human beings, there is, besides the obvious dissimilarities, a great difference between the modest and unambitious on the one hand, and the arrogant and ambitious on the other, in the ways they perceive what justice and injustice is. Since the ordinary and humble see themselves as either somewhat inferior or, at best, equal to others, the most they aspire to is to be treated as everybody else is. The haughty and anxious for power and prestige, on the other hand, being in their minds superior to all around them, tend to view such an even-handedness as a great injustice done to them. For considering themselves to be so much above the rest of humanity, they naturally expect the admiration, praise and obedience as their justly deserved rewards. Needless to say the second, because they are willing to do anything to have what they want, no matter how extravagant it is, get it much more often than the first, who because of their meekness rarely ask for anything, no matter how little it is, and consequently don't usually get even the crumbs of respect and justice they would be happy, in their modesty, to settle for. 1116. The beauty (or the ugliness) must be truly in the eye of the beholder. For though strictly speaking the eye sees everything which is in front of it, the individual vision is highly selective and different people see more or less different things looking at the same objects. I am often reminded about this selectivity and idiosyncrasy of one's vision when reading the descriptions by the professional travel writers of the places I've visited myself. For mine and their impressions are often so distinct that the places we both have in mind might as well be located on the different planets. Moreover, their planet for some reason is invariably much more colourful, picturesque and exciting than mine. Which makes me often wonder whether I'm visually impaired, or they're wearing pink magnifying glasses. 1117. Besides the obvious differences between the unbridled freedom of the modern democratic state, as epitomized by the United States of America, and the almost complete suppression of it by the extreme totalitarian regimes like that of the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, there is a parallel difference in the kind of Art each of these diametrically opposed political systems produces. For in comparing the popular art of the democratic and totalitarian societies one cannot help but notice how large in the first and how small in the second a place the graphic and explicit love making on one hand and infinite brutality of man to man on the other occupies. Now, one doesn't have to be particularly observant to discover that what characterizes the American popular art today could be summarized by these two familiar and almost inseparable in the modern collective psyche words - sex and violence. But even the very superficial acquaintance with the state of arts in former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany makes it abundantly clear that they were almost completely devoid of it, unless one call the highly exalted romantic and often unrequited love - sex, and heroic dying for Motherland - violence. The question therefore arises naturally why the political system of democracy is conducive to so much sex and violence in the popular art and the totalitarian one is so hostile to it. To answer this question we have to begin with the acknowledgment that as far as the mankind is concerned sex and violence have been from the time immemorial its favourite pastime. One can go even so far as to claim that sex and violence are the two main ingredients of which human nature is made, the first being the product of our biology, the second - of psychology. Keeping this in mind, it is not surprising that these two main human passions have been the central themes of mythology, religion and, finally, of art. The ancient Greece whose culture has been best preserved for posterity, affords us the perfect example to support this assertion. For the Greek mythology followed by Homer and then by the Greek Tragedy is but an unending tale of brutality, rape, murder, incest, patricide, infanticide, etc., etc. In the same vein the Biblical stories of the Old Testament are intermittently drenched in blood and seasoned by lust. And, by the way, those were the products of the societies if not totally democratic like Athens, yet, nevertheless, such in which the power had been highly fragmented and widely diffused, and where the will of the people at the end of the day would always ultimately prevail. With the advent of Christianity which coincided (and not by accident) with the increasing centralization of power , first in the late Roman Empire and then in its successors Papacy and separate European states, the Government together with everything else took charge of culture too, making it a tool for imposing morality, civilized behaviour, law and order, love of the Motherland, purity and fidelity in personal relationships, etc. All of which, not surprising, are conducive to turning the unruly and unpredictable men, the playthings of uncontrollable passions into obedient subjects. Which would be all nice and well if stability and security were men's highest aspirations. But since it is sex and violence that are people's main preoccupation in real life, it is no wonder that they like to see it reflected in art, as well. That is why as soon as modern democracy began, from the end of the XVIII century and on, to reclaim their role parallel to it sex and violence started creeping back into art, until in the late XX century they became again as much a part of the popular culture as they were in the times of Paganism. For the main difference, as far as popular art is concerned, between the democratic and totalitarian states is that the first gives people what they want, while the second - what the government thinks is good for them (and for itself). Therefore, in any democratic society sex and violence would always be the mainstay of popular culture, be it Oedipus Rex of Sophocles or Casino of Martin Scorsese. One just has to look at what has happened in the Soviet Union after the collapse of communism. The first and until now the most visible fruits of democracy in the New Russia have been the explosion of gangsterism and prostitution in life, while the blood-drenched and bullet-riddled movies, a la Hollywood, are preferred by 90% of viewers, and the avalanche of pornography is sold on street corners like hot cakes. Apparently in art, when you want to give people what they wish the most, you don't have to guess, you know what it is - sex and violence, even in a country which for decades had been considered the foremost champion of the classical ballet, music and opera in the largely modernistic West. P.S. Yet another reason why the sex and violence in art are suppressed by the totalitarian state. For being the basic human passions, the freedom in expressing both of them leads inevitably to the expectation and quest for equal freedom in other areas of human existence, which is against the very nature of the totalitarian state. 1118. There is nothing inherently wrong or particulary degrading with trying "to work within the system". This has been the fate of men since the dawn of civilization. What is wrong is the system in which, no matter how hard they try, the ever increasing number of its members would never be able "to work" themselves into it. 1119. How important is it for us, living in the XX century A.D., to know whether the Biblical Book of Esther is a true record of the real historical event happened in the V century B.C., or a religio-national myth created at a much later date to uphold the spirit of the people threatened with yet another possibility of the complete annihilation, similar to the one described in this book? And secondly, even if this particular historical event did occur, how important, again, is it for us to know whether the names of the central characters in the story are Esther, Mordecai and Haman? For, first of all, the fact that the Jews have always been a persecuted religious and ethnic minority is certainly beyond disputation. It is equally true that, in general, all religious and ethnic minorities have been mistreated with varied degrees of harshness at one time or the other throughout history. And even if we just consider how minorities are treated today in ours, supposedly enlightened age it should suffice for us to accept the story of the imminent destruction of the Jews as it is depicted in the Book of Esther as being very close to the truth, both logically and experientially. And that is as much as we need to know about the validity of the so called "historical truth", especially if it is concerned what had happened 2500 years ago. Secondly, on a purely personal level, there is nothing extraordinary or unbelievable about the circumstances, character or motivations of the main protagonists in the Book of Esther, whether Esther, Mordecai and Haman are their real or imagined names. To begin with there is nothing unusual about someone like Esther who despite managing "to pass" from being a member of persecuted minority to becoming a part of the privileged majority had never completely cut the psychological ties with her less fortunate brethren and, at some crucial point in their and her own life, would go back to share their fate, suffering and struggle. And if one is looking for another case of this phenomenon, there is no need to go beyond the Bible itself, for Moses presents the most famous example of such a reversal of heart and fortune. There is also nothing unusual about someone like Haman who, having developed for whatever reasons, whether justified or not, a strong dislike or even hatred towards a particular individual, would transfer this hate on the whole group this individual is a part of. For we all, no matter how impartial and fair we are trying to be, often base our opinions about the whole class of objects on a very few instances, which is why such opinions are called prejudices. And finally, the behaviour of Mordecai is not unusual either. For after doing the king by saving his life the greatest favor one man can do to another, he naturally expected to get the very same position Haman has been appointed to, and feeling being treated unjustly refused to bow to his more successful rival, which precipitated the whole tragic chain of events. So again, in the greater scheme of things, neither the historical nor personal truth of the Book of Esther could be questioned, regardless whether the specific events had happened or the specific persons had ever existed or not. For the lessons the posterity would have to draw from this story would remain the same in either case. 1120. If a man can be proud unreservedly of anything it is of his knowledge. For the beauty and the stature one receives from parents. And one's wealth and position almost unavoidably results, in one way or another, in someone else being deprived of either. But the knowledge is never taken from anybody. It learned by its possessor solely by his own labor and not to detriment of anybody else. Moreover, one can share it infinitely without losing a smallest portion of it. It is hardest to gain and the easiest to give away of all human possessions. And one has nobody to thank but himself for having the knowledge and therefore can be justifiably proud of it. 1121. Meddling constantly in the affairs of others, no matter how near and dear they are to you, by making their lives in general, and day to day conduct in particular, appear to be contingent upon your approval or disapproval, is a sure way to alienate them, sometimes to the point where they literally begin to avoid you. Which is exactly the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish, and no matter how good your intentions are the most probable reaction you are going to encounter in the end will be that of rejection and hostility. The human gratitude is such a fickle thing that one can never be sure whether he is doing too little or too much to deserve it. 1122. Despite the persistent Siren call of modernity throughout the 20th century, the Russian poets have never completely abandoned neither rhyme nor reason. The unshakable, almost religious allegiance to the rhyme is the natural outcome of the specific phonetic qualities of the Russian language itself. For having more than a half of its words (feminine and neuter) end with pronounceable vowels, the Russian language lends itself so easily to rhyming that it is almost impossible to resist the aesthetic temptation to follow its inherent musicality. The reason for not abandoning Reason lies in the well-known oppressive harshness of the Russian reality which will not grant even to the flightiest among the poets the luxury of totally escaping it. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 01004 |