 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 1200-1210 |
| ||||||
| 1200. There is an inherent danger in any claim to the universality in human affairs, to the all encompassing truth in the world as complex as ours, i.e. made up of numerous national and ethnic groups and cultures. Such a claim can be of a religious nature, as most vividly expressed in the two gargantuan offsprings of Judaism - Christianity and Islam, which have expanded the idea of a single god for a particular nation - the Jews to that of the universal, the one and only true God for all humanity. Or it could pertain to a politico-economic system and accompanying it ideology, as for example, Capitalism with its sanctity of private property and free enterprise, or Communism with its absolute devotion to public ownership and regulated economy, each proclaiming that its is the best of all possible systems supported by the one and only correct ideology. Now, in each and every case, if your truth is the one and only Universal Truth, then, naturally, anyone who doesn't share it must be wrong. And here comes this obsessive tendency we are all driven by, namely, to tell those who don't know, to explain to those who don't understand, to enlighten the ignorant. But what do you do when the benighted stubbornly resist the enlightenment? Then, of course, one has no choice but to use all the means possible, including, regrettably violence, if necessary, to force them to accept it, whether they want it or not. For it is surely for their own good, isn't it? To anyone, with at least a smidgen of the historical memory, it is clear that universal truths in all shapes and forms are the second largest scourge of humanity. The first, of course, is greed, that is the unrestrained desire to take, by hook or by crook, from others what we want for ourselves, regardless of consequences. 1201. In view of what has been said above the oppressive nature of universality (religious or secular), one may wish to reassess the much maligned national exclusiveness of Judaism (which is even accused sometimes by its harshest critics of being racist in nature) and begin to appreciate its unintrusiveness in other people's spiritual affairs. Compared with the perniciously overbearing missionary imperialism of the universal religions such as Christianity and Islam, the tendency of Judaism to mind its own business, so to speak, and not try to convert those with a different system of beliefs to its own, is certainly much more attuned to the present day sensibilities and ethos of multiculturalism and noninterference in somebody else's spirituality. Thus, paradoxically, at the end of the day despite being one of the oldest extant religions Judaism is also one of the most modern in its attitude toward the others which can be aptly described by such eternally commendable, even if somewhat worn-out, suggestion as 'live and let live". 1202. Yet another example of Americanization of Canada - a dying man asking his family to scatter his ashes over Florida beach. 1203. The "inspirational" message the modern romantic comedy, like "Four Weddings and a Funeral" for example, conveys to the eagerly receptive audience of twenty and thirty-something is that the seemingly endless chain of casual sexual relationships and one-night stands many of them went through were not the manifestation of rampant promiscuity, as some old-fashioned moralists would claim, but the noble quest for the holy grail of one and only true love, which undoubtedly is waiting somewhere everyone, no matter how jaded and disillusioned the years of the indiscriminate and insipid, easy to get and even easier to forget, sex have made him or her. And this is precisely the kind of message the countless casualties of the sexual revolution, the most obvious product of which have been the numerous dead-end sexual encounters with nothing to show of after all, want to hear. For they are driven by the same old longing for redemption, only this time not for the religious but for the romantic one. Which explains the tremendous success this type of films enjoys with the viewers in a certain age group, who still hope, despite many and failed attempts, to find the true happiness in the eternal ideal of romantic love. 1204. Even if it is true that "a sucker is born every minute", the clock must have stopped when I came into this world. For nobody ever has been able to sell me, from the material things to the ideas, what I didn't want to buy. 1205. As far as human nature is concerned, it has been a long time since I had ceased to have revelation and discoveries and began to register confirmations of the opinion I've already formed about Man as the most despicable creature that has ever walked on this planet. Surprisingly, this misanthropic view of humanity made my life from then on significantly more bearable than it was before, when I had still maintained the illusions in the intrinsic goodness of men. For now, not expecting, as a rule, anything agreeable to come from people around me, I grew to regard any small gesture of a goodwill as a gift greatly appreciated. Moreover, having no more high expectations, I've became much more tolerant toward my fellow human beings. For apparently the less one hopes for from life, the more he is grateful for the small mercies it occasionally deigns to offer. In conclusion, I would like to mention yet another personal paradox I could never explain satisfactorily to myself, namely, that despite my low opinion of the humanity in general and rather pessimistic view of its future prospects, I still care about each and every individual who crosses my path and always look for the ways I could be of some service to him. Perhaps it comes from a sense of solidarity. For I know that we all, including myself, can use all the help we can get. 1206. I've been reading recently The Book of Amos, one of the less known biblical prophets, in which God forewarns the people of Israel of impending and inescapable punishment. "The Lord says, ‘The people of Israel have sinned again and again, and for this I will certainly punish them. They sell into slavery honest men who cannot repay their debts, poor men who cannot repay even the price of a pair of sandals. They trample down the weak and helpless and push the poor out of the way... At every place of worship men sleep on clothing that they have taken from the poor as security for debts. In the temple of their God they drink wine which they have taken from those who owe them money". (Am 2.6-8) And again, "These people fill their mansions with things taken by crime and violence. They don't even know how to be honest". (Am 3.10) And more, "You have oppressed the poor and robbed them of their grain." (Am 5.11) And then The Lord declares his final judgment, "The time is coming when I will send famine on the land... I will kill the rest of the people in war. No one will get away; not one will escape... I am determined to destroy them, not to help them." Suddenly, while reading this Biblical tale of crime and punishment, it donned on me that God was actually going to penalize all the people of Israel for the sins of the few, for the rich and powerful are but a small minority in any society, Israel including, while the majority are always poor and oppressed. And though the rich and powerful were clearly the criminals in this case, yet the punishment was going to be inflicted on everybody, including the very victims of crime, the poor and the oppressed. At first, it struck me as a kind of perverse justice, or to take a wider view, as yet another appalling example, the history is so full of, of the unfair collective guilt followed by the equally unfair collective punishment, meted indiscriminately to the guilty and the innocent alike, only because they both happen to belong to the same family, or to the same tribe, or to the same nation. And like Abraham, who was pleading with Yahweh to spare Sodom if at least ten innocent men could be found in it, I wanted to ask God to spare the people of Israel, for in their case the innocent, the poor and oppressed far outnumber the guilty, the rich and powerful. Haven' they suffered enough already? Should they be punished even more for the crimes of their oppressors? "Surely you won't kill the innocent with guilty. That's impossible! You can't do that. If you did , the innocent would be punished along with guilty. That is impossible. The judge of all the earth has to act justly." (Gn.18.25) And then, as if God himself wanted to clarify such a glaring contradiction, it occurred to me that in a certain circumstances and, especially, in a certain sense there is such a thing as a collective guilt as, for example, in the circumstances and in a sense in which German people are held, at least tacitly, collectively responsible for what Hitler and Nazis have done. For though theirs was not a guilt by commission, but of omission, a guilt of remaining passive bystanders while others committed the crimes, a guilt of not fighting the evil, since they were not, as a modern saying goes, a part of the solution, they were part of the problem. And in this sense anyone who does not fight injustice, does not help the oppressed and persecuted is guilty, i.e. guilty of what is going on in this world, guilty not in the same way as the active perpetrators of injustice and oppression, but guilty nevertheless. For those perpetrators can only act as they do because we all acquiesce and thus become their silent accomplices in crime. Also, in this sense God was right to have condemn Sodom and all its inhabitants to the destruction. For there could not have been even a single righteous man in that sinful city, otherwise he would have fought and perished. And if he didn't, he was a part of the problem and shares in the collective responsibility with the active sinners. The justice of God is the all-encompassing justice, not the legalistic one. He judges not only what we do but also what we don't. Thus, while the rich are guilty of oppressing the poor, the poor are also "guilty", in their own way, for allowing the rich to oppress them, as the abused are "guilty" of allowing the abusers to mistreat them with impunity. And in the world full of misery and suffering we are all collectively guilty and deserve collective punishment if we do nothing to change it. Finally, coming back to The Book of Amos, we have to accept that in a just established sense the poor and oppressed in the ancient Israel were "guilty" too. For if they were a small persecuted minority, they probably wouldn't be, for in that case they would have been powerless to resist and therefore doomed, no matter what they did. But since they were the majority, like the poor and oppressed everywhere, they are "guilty" of not fighting back, for they had the potential ability to defend themselves but haven't done it out of passivity and cowardice. "For only those merit life and freedom Who battle each and every day for them". P.S. Though the perplexity I've experienced initially has been untangled somewhat by now, there are still some questions in my mind that remain unanswered: the first - if the degree of guilt of the rich and the poor are different, as they obviously are, shouldn't the degree of punishment be different also? And the second - why even when the collective punishment is inflicted on everybody the rich and powerful are so often able to escape the full force of it? 1207. I'm well aware of the fact that it has always been quite fashionable among the artists (in the broadest possible sense of the word) to make the taking care of their own physical and often economical well-being somebody else's responsibility. Nevertheless, when someone I know personally tells me that the burdensome daily concerns, chores and duties divert too much of his attention from the only thing which really matters - his art-and thus hamper his creativity, I would like to reply to such an artist that a creativity separated from the trivial and mundane reality of everyday living is but an escape into the fantasy land, into the dream world, and thus is not a true but an illusional, or to say it more bluntly, a delusional creativity. 1208. Since no two persons, with the probable exception of the identical twins, have the same gait and pace, which in each individual is almost as unique as the finger prints, when the two are walking together one usually tends to be faster than another. And so, if they wish to remain next to each other while walking they would have to try to maintain the same speed which could be achieved in three different ways: a) one who is naturally faster would have to slow down to the pace of the slower one, or b) one who is naturally slower would have to increase his speed to the level of the faster one, or c) they would have "to meet each other half-way", so to speak, i.e. the faster slow down a little, the slower speed up a little, until both can walk at the same pace. Now, there are certain psychological consequences inherent in each choice. In the first instance, the one who is naturally faster would inevitably resent the compulsion to move slower than he is equipped and accustomed to, and thus to spend more time to get wherever he was going than if he would have been walking alone. In the second instance, the naturally slower one would feel rushed and humiliated to move faster, under the threat of being left behind, than he is capable of, and thus to be continuously reminded of his inadequacy. By far the best solution to this problem of the "pace inequality" faced by the fellow-travellers is the third one, namely, when both compromise a little and the knowledge that each side has to make some sacrifices to contribute to harmony will greatly alleviate the mutual resentment. And so it is in all human endeavours, when collective actions are required from the people with different inclinations and aptitudes, and everyone has to contribute as much as everybody else, no more, no less, in order to maintain the mutual feeling of fairness, personal satisfaction and continuation of good will by all. 1209. For those men who still wonder, like Freud once did, "what does a woman want?" here is an answer: a woman with penis, which means someone who shares her feelings and thoughts, empathizes with her concerns and problems and thus fulfill her emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs in a way that only another woman can do, and at the same time will satisfy her biological needs, desires and passions in a way only man can. And, by the way, men in this respect are not different from women. For what a man wants in order to be reasonably happy (though men's happiness doesn't seem to be on the social agenda right now)) is "a man with vagina" which means (sorry for unavoidable repetition) someone who shares his feelings and thoughts, empathizes with his concerns and problems and thus fulfills his emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs in a way only another man can do, and at the same time satisfying his biological needs, desires and passions in a way only woman can. To those who disagree with my answer I have nothing more to say , for I am sure they have their own, which seem to them as reasonable as mine to me. But for those who are inclined to agree I would advice to postpone their consent for a while for there are some implications in it they, as heterosexual, may not like to accept. For if what had been said above is true then, the happiest people around are gays and lesbians, since they seems to be getting the best of both worlds. Which explains partially why homosexuality became (even with people who have no biological predisposition for it) so popular nowadays, when the quest for personal happiness has emerged as the main driving force of almost everyone. 1210. The human history, the ascent of man, the progress is but a continuous struggle of mind with body, of psychology against physiology in quest to overcome, or even overturn the laws of Nature. The religion with its beliefs in the supernatural, in miracles, in afterlife, etc., was the first attempt to escape these laws. But as far as the improvement of physical and material life is concerned, it has been a dismal failure. It may have elevated the spirit but it had done nothing for the body. The next came science and technology. They were vastly more successful, as long as they followed Nature, but even more harmful than religion when trying to rewrite its laws. Most recently, the persistent efforts, not only by feminists but by the society at large to redefine the traditional roles men and women play in life, is essentially yet another attempt to deny the determinism of biology and to rely on human will as the decisive factor. Much of the ensuing turmoil and unhappiness can be attributed to the impossibility of rearranging the biological imperative which is Life itself. And finally, science is called upon once more to accomplish the greatest miracle of all - the abolition of Death. Perhaps one day it would be technically possible. But what will it do to men is not easy to predict, though I'm sure about one thing - even the immortality itself, whatever shape or form it may assume, will never be able to completely eradicate the eternal conflict between soul and body. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 01100 |