 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 129-151 |
| ||||||
| 129. Members of a persecuted group often feel less animosity toward their oppressors than toward those in the group who try to avoid persecution. In a strange and perverse sense, the injustice committed against them as a group is perceived as a lesser evil than the one resulted from "unequal" treatment of those who have managed to escape it. Such seemingly paradoxical phenomenon is the result of what can be called socio-psychological induction, when repetition both produces and is viewed as validation. Thus, in the same way as lie repeated many times begins to be accepted as "truth", so the injustice inflicted repeatedly upon many becomes the "norm", and those few who try to escape it are looked at by the rest as "deviants". 130. Almost everybody loves pet animals, especially dogs and cats. Many people want to own them. So they have to buy their pets from somebody in the business of breeding and selling them. This leads to creation of the open market in pet's trade and when there is a market there is competition. In this competition, like in any other, the seller who has the lowest price wins. Now, to have the lowest price he has to spend as little as possible on making the product. In the pet market the product is animals. So the producer has to spend as little as possible on breeding animals and looking after them. As a result the animals suffer. Thus this "love" for animals produces their suffering. In addition, the love for animals as pets leads to yet another suffering, the suffering of other animals who have to be slaughtered to feed the pets who, no matter how cute, cuddly and tame are essentially carnivorous. When we are affectionately choosing for our beloved pets their favourite dog's or cat's food we tend to forget that it is made of other animals, killed so that ours can eat. Thus love again produces suffering. 131. The ancient Greece was the product of its geography - islands separated by the sea, city-states - by mountainous ranges, close enough to communicate and trade with each other, to exchange ideas, experience and knowledge, and yet far enough to remain, most of the times, independent politically, socially and culturally, thus avoiding the stifling forces of centralism. Social scientists often complain that, unlike their colleagues in technical fields, they cannot stage experiments to verify their hypotheses to gain more knowledge. The ancient Greece, with its multitude of separate independent island-states, and to a lesser degree city-states on the mainland, and also numerous colonies all over Mediterranean, was such a natural experimental laboratory to study human behaviour under the different yet similar circumstances. It was just waiting for an objective and keen observer like Aristotle to take all this available information and to make the social and political discoveries that are valid even today. 132. Not many men would dare to cut the branch they are sitting on. Let it be even dry and dead as long as this dead branch is strong enough to hold their weight. 133.Nationalism is, unquestionably, the most powerful weapon of the modern age. The strong and dominant, whether nations or national majorities, use it to justify and maintain their position. The weak and oppressed, both nations and national minorities, use it to claim equality and to struggle for liberation. Thus, though the means are the same, the ends are different. 134 We do what we do because of what we are. We are unhappy because we do this. We will be happy when we do that. But to do that we have to be what we are not. We cannot be what we are not. We will not be happy. 135. Those who are constantly looking for new experiences in the course of their lives undoubtedly accumulate a lot of knowledge in the process. Yet, precisely because of this constant search for the new, they seldom have the opportunity to utilize their great knowledge. And even if they had, it would have been of little use since this knowledge has always been acquired in more or less different circumstances, again because of the same perpetual quest for the new. 136. The French say "Vive la difference!" But they are, rightly or wrongly, considered to be one of the most egocentric, if not xenophobic people on Earth. Evidently, to them "la difference" means nothing more than the variation of things and qualities assumed to be intrinsically "French" and therefore the best. Consequently, they see no reason to look outside since to paraphrase Dr. Johnson "the man who is tired of France is tired of life for France has all what the man needs." The British usually have more interest in things that are different - different people, different climates, different cultures, etc. But this interest is of a rather "anthropological" nature. They seldom get intimately involved with "The Different" and almost never adopt or assimilate it. They always "keep the distance". It is as if they are saying to the rest of the world: "We are curious about you and we appreciate that you are different, but lets be honest about it - when all have been said and done, don't we all know that the British are superior to everybody else." And so, as far as they are concerned, the grass is always greener on their side of the fence, both figuratively and literally. The Germans are basically the same as the British, only in their own earnest German way, and sometimes could be deadly serious about it, deadly indeed, as we all know by now. All other nations have undeniably more or less the same ambiguous love-hate relationship with the "different". But what is the cause of this universal phenomenon? What is it about "The Different" that makes it superficially attractive but basically hateful? To try to answer this question lets start at the beginning. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep... And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." Thus, in the myth of creation one can see, in the allegorical form, the process of interaction between man and his world. First, he perceives it as a homogeneous and amorphous (without form) unity. In the next step, this unity is divided into the opposite and different things ("divided the light from darkness"). If only man could have stopped here and were satisfied with the simple establishment of "difference". But he wouldn't. He immediately makes the next step and starts evaluating this "difference" - "it was good" viz. the light was good. But what is the opposite of light? It is darkness. Then it must be bad, since the light, its opposite, is good. So we see from the beginning, that having established the difference we always proceed, consciously or subconsciously, to passing the value judgement and turn the difference in kind into the difference in quality. And it is not only the qualities that directly oppose each other and therefore mutually exclusive, like for example good-bad, beautiful-ugly, kind-unkind, etc., which attract our immediate attention. It is also different degree of the same quality, as in good-better-best, bad-worse-worst, etc. This almost automatic impulse to pass a value judgement and associated with it the power of qualitative discrimination are the products of evolutionary process. They both have been the indispensable tools in man's struggle for survival at the early stage of human development, when the ability to correctly and quickly identify what is good and what is bad, to detect the difference between good, better and best, or between bad, worse and worst, and, finally, to make what we call now the optimal choice was often a matter of life and death, either immediately or in the long run. And even today's man whenever he finds himself in primitive conditions, unprotected by the institutions of modern civilization, which most of the times makes those vital choices for him, would find the above mentioned abilities absolutely essential for his well-being if not for survival. Of course, the same abilities that Nature endowed us with for our protection can be and often are misapplied, being used either when uncalled for, or in a way completely opposite to the one they were intended for. Then, instead of protecting us, they unnecessarily harm others, as it often happens when the power of the qualitative discrimination turns into prejudice and rejection, or even, in the extreme cases, hate of what is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "different". As far as the initial and superficial attraction to the "different" is concerned, it is no more than another manifestation of curiosity, which comes from a need to know what has been previously unknown in order to assess its potential danger. And as soon as the "different" is recognized as such and therefore alien, it is treated accordingly, viz. with apprehension, mistrust, rejection and in the extreme cases even with hate. 137. It is a widely held opinion that the fear of strangers is the fear of the "unknown", and therefore potentially dangerous, but against which we feel totally defenceless, exactly because it is unknown. Thus, this lack of knowledge creates another, even deeper level of fear produced by this feeling of vulnerability and powerlessness. And this brings out anger as a manifestation of frustration, caused by the realization of our powerlessness to influence people or events and, ultimately, to control our own lives. Thus, the absence of knowledge produces fear and fear leads to anger, the anger toward strangers not only for being "unknown" but also, as we sense our inability to comprehend them, for being "unknowable", the same kind of anger as often exhibited by a child who, when unable to take the toy apart to find out how it works, smashes it in an angry frustration. It is clearly our inability to understand and our frustration caused by this that makes us angry, since for a man, in order to survive, it is absolutely essential to understand and to know. 138.In some sense almost everyone is arrogant, or at least aspiring to be while looking for the good reasons to think so. For being arrogant simply means to feel superior to others and to express it in a more or less overt way, and how many of us can claim in total honesty to be completely free of such feelings at one time or another. This feeling of superiority is derived from the possession, real or imagined, of certain commonly admired qualities which the others, in our opinion, are having in a lesser degree or lacking them altogether. Thus, the one who is beautiful feels superior to the one who is less attractive, smart - to the less clever, strong - to weak, tall - to short, healthy - to sick, etc. But in addition to that this feeling of superiority in a certain particular quality, which at least has some objective basis, usually leads to a totally unfounded presumption of superiority in the universal sense, as , for example, when somebody who is stronger than the other starts to think that he is also smarter, better looking, etc., and, in a word, better in general. This is happening because we all have a tendency to see the qualities we possess in a larger degree than others as being the most important ones and also critical to the definition of what is the best. At the same time, we are strongly inclined to devalue the qualities we find ourselves to be deficient in, by considering them to be of very little importance in defining what is the best in general. In other words, we constantly exaggerate the overall importance of our own good qualities while minimizing the overall importance of the qualities we are lacking. On the other hand, sometimes our shortcomings are so obvious even to ourselves that we just cannot simply ignore them. The power of self-deception, after all, is not limitless, though the ingenuity and skills with which we can manipulate facts probably are. One of the most common ways we deal with our undeniable deficiencies is by being, without realizing it, in a perpetual state of what can be called "compensation syndrome" the example of which are the following situation: I am ugly but smart, poor but beautiful, short bur strong, etc. One can see the manifestations of this "compensation syndrome" running through popular mythologies in a form of such fairy tales as "Cinderella", "Beauty and the Beast", etc. giving such "compensatory" pairs as "poor - but beautiful", "ugly - but kind" the same kind of legitimacy and almost universal acceptability as to the laws of nature. And it doesn't matter that in reality one can be both poor and ugly, or ugly and cruel, etc. Most of us tend to disregard what seems to be the obvious - that there is no causal connection between being ugly and smart, or poor and beautiful, that this connection is but a wishful thinking on our part, rooted in a deep psychological need to believe in Fate's justice. In our endless strive for self-acceptance and for respect, if not love, by the others we would never admit, even to ourselves, the lack of at least some of the qualities that should make us deserving the acceptance and love we are so longing for. 139. When listening to the others you have but a single choice - either to believe what they are saying or not. And the sooner you make this choice the better off you are. Nothing is worse than uncertainty. 140. The best dressed guest at masquerade was not the lovely elf, nor charming prince, nor queen of spades but man dressed as himself. 141. The river of my thoughts keeps flowing through my mind and carries in its wake all I had left behind What had been said and done through all those years of living became a part of me like threads are parts of weaving. 142. Those painful and seemingly indelible childhood memories, would they have stayed with us had they not been continuously reinforced by repetition of similar painful experiences throughout life, since neither we nor the world, especially the way it treats us, ever change. 143. Genius does not produce progress; at best, he inspires it, at worse - become its sacrificial lamb. The real progress is the collective work of mediocrities who cannot accept themselves for what they are. 144. The common and the most attractive feature of all religions, ideologies or other mass movements that capture the imagination of millions is the explicit promise to make a "nobody" "somebody" both psychologically and socially, that is, as individual and as a member of the community. Psychologically, it is catering to the intrinsic vanity of every human being and promises to relieve the burden of the inferiority complex. Socially, it usually assures of the eventual triumph of justice, of fair redistribution of wealth, and political and social equality, i.e. the fulfilment of the eternal longings of the powerless and dispossessed. "And many who now are last will be first" declared Jesus. "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth" promised he and Christianity was embraced by millions of the meek. "We have been nought, we shall be all" are the words from Internationale, a revolutionary workers' and Socialists' hymn sung for the first time on the barricades of Paris in 1871. "Proletariat has nothing to loose but its chains; yet, they have the world to win!" proclaimed the Communist Manifesto, and millions of workers have adopted Socialism as their faith. 145. To agree is to surrender "I" and to accept "You". To question is to oscillate between "I" and "You". To disagree is to assert "I" and reject "You". Let's now substitute "student" for "I" and "teacher" for "You", and we will get three basic modes of interaction between student and teacher which determine the process of education. But this process doesn't take place in a vacuum. The additional factor, one that defines how all three basic modes of interaction operate, is "power",i.e., who possesses it. It is obvious that in the interaction between teacher and student it is the teacher who possesses the power. As a result, the predominant mode of interaction, as far as student is concerned, is the mode #1 - "to agree" and, consequently, to surrender "I" and to accept "You". In general, all relationships between people are governed by the above mentioned three basic modes of interaction taking place in what can be called a "power field", created in each case by the specific kind of power play relevant to that particular situation. 146. To succeed in any system or institution it is not enough simply to submit to its rules and norms. One has to do it in a manner that shows eagerness and even enjoyment, making everybody believe that for him it is the most natural and desirable thing to do. On the other hand, the one who, while submitting to power, openly displays reluctance and displeasure is doomed, regardless of how well he is doing what is required of him, to failure. 147. One is always singing solo - one melody. Two can sing either in unison, when both are singing the same melody, or in a duet - two different melodies. Consequently, in a duet each singer experiences certain difficulties in singing his part correctly, while hearing a melody sung by his partner, because man's natural urge to mimic forces him to follow his partner instead of doing his own part. Thus, the most important skill which singer in a duet should possess is the ability to resist this impulse to imitate, to follow, to join in unison. And the easiest way to do it is by not listening to one's partner; but then it can and will create dissonance that destroys a duo. Therefore, in a duet each singer has to both listen and not to listen. If one is able to do that one becomes the perfect duo singer. Two persons speaking to each other are such a duo too, and their conversation is a "duet" sung by them. If both possess in equal measure the ability to listen and not to listen to each other and, moreover, to appreciate the arguments of the other side without losing one's own, to be in communion without surrendering one's individuality, etc. their intercourse will be as perfect as a perfect duet. If not, it could easily turn into a cacophony. Of course, when there is "trio" or "quartet", etc. the task becomes so much more complicated and much greater skill is required from each "singer-interlocutor" to create a harmonious choir. 148. If words or thoughts are not wedded to the paper by the printing press, are they less legitimate than those that are? 149. We had God who had chosen us, but they took him away and made him their God. And whatever possessions we ever had, they always envied us, and sooner or later would take them away too. And even when the only thing we were left with was our suffering and we thought that nobody will take it away, because who want suffering, we were mistaken. For they begrudged us even our suffering, our Holocaust. Now all of them have their own holocausts. 150. Everyone is personally responsible for his or her own sanity. 151. People prefer to turn their lives into games and play these games to avoid and forget Reality. For in a game there are rules, there are the beginning and the end, the game has a structure. But Reality has none of the above. It is totally chaotic and it can make you totally mad. The games people turn their lives into are like the islands of safety in the inhospitable ocean of Reality. And it is dangerous to stray away from those islands too far. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00915 |