 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 1318-1340 |
| ||||||
| 1318. It is no more a sign of prejudice when the one, who is by virtue of birth is a part of a Western culture, uses the Western terms of reference, Western mythology, Western allusions, Western religion or ideology to relate and explain the world around him, than for a Frenchman to speak French, instead of English or German. 1319. The overly excessive metaphorical usage of the precious metals and stones (a common practice, according to Vico, among the primitive people, who due to the poverty of the abstract universal terms in early languages often expressed spiritual and intellectual ideas by the notions taken from material world) to describe the glorious attributes of God in the Old and New Testaments, was taken, unfortunately, quite literally by Jews and Christians alike. Both expended enormous amounts of money and labour on building and adorning their houses of worship and on other material symbols of faith, including opulent priestly outfits, expensive utensil to perform the rituals, etc., etc., and both suffered the dire consequences as a result of confusing metaphors with reality. It wouldn't be a great exaggeration to connect the huge sums of money spent by king Solomon to build the First Temple, and the heavy burden of taxation and forced labour it caused, with a wide spread revolt and splitting of his kingdom into two parts -Israel and Judea, the division which would lead latter to the ultimate destruction of both. Likewise, the Catholic Church with her heavy reliance, in order to uphold the faith, on the continuous erection of the enormous cathedrals decorated with the vast amounts of gold, silver and precious stones, and the expensive works of arts, most of which paid by money collected or extorted from the impoverished peasantry and poor city dwellers, provoked eventually the universal enmity and indignation among the faithful and was split into two, hostile to each other part - Catholic and Protestant, which started the decline of Church influence in the society at large. 1320. If the managerial and clerical personnel, from CEO to receptionist of every corporation, would be split 50/50 between women and men, is it going to affect the exploitation and greed which are at the heart of the corporate world? I doubt it. If president of the USA were a gay man and "the first lady" his male partner, would the governmental policies regarding equitable distribution of wealth, fair taxation, unemployment, welfare, etc., etc. look any different? I doubt it. If 20% of American billionaires were black, to parallel the percentage of blacks in American population, would life in black ghettoes of Detroit and Chicago, LA and NY become any safer and healthier? I doubt it. So, what this feminist, gay, black struggle is all about? As far as I can see it, it is to make a very small privileged minority at the top to reflect more accurately the general composition of the society at large, while the overwhelming majority in each of these, now disadvantaged groups, will gain absolutely nothing except of the dubious vicarious pleasure of seeing somebody who looks like them in the places they have no hope ever to reach. 1321. What the famous police motto "To serve and protect" really stands for is this: the police serves the rich (as the guardians of their property and privileges) and the rich, in return, protect the police by allowing them to commit with impunity the acts of violence (for which an ordinary citizen would surely be condemned as a criminal) against the poor. And neither, the police or the rich, can survive without each other. For the money the police helps the rich to extract from the poor are used in turn to pay the police to do it. Like the Siamese twins sharing one heart (or is it one pocket) any attempt to separate them would cause the demise of both. 1322. In quest for knowledge, the gnawing uncertainty of the worst superstition is potentially more productive than the complacency of half-truth. It is better to have a wrong explanation than not even to feel that any more is needed. Better still is to continue asking the questions, discarding one wrong answer after another, until, at last, the right one is found. And here, I believe, lies the fundamental difference between the Western and the Eastern approach to the puzzles the world is so full of. In the West, it all starts with the rejection of the "reality", of the way the things are. The senseless violence of Nature, the unjust cruelty of Man is acknowledged but never accepted. The questions why is it so are being asked, not always the right ones, the answer are being given, often preposterous. The mythologies, religions, philosophies are created and discarded, and then created and discarded anew. The process repeats itself again and again, until after several thousands of years of trials and errors both Questions and Answers begin to make more and more sense. And, finally, the "reality" itself is forced to yield. This, in a nutshell, is the way of the West, the way from the gross ignorance and superstition to knowledge and enlightenment. And it starts, to repeat, with the rejection and nonacceptance of reality, and then proceeds from the wild fantasies of the Greek mythology and "All things are water" of Thales to Marx, Freud and Einstein. The East, on the other hand, as it is epitomized by China, began with the realistic acceptance of the ways of the world. It started with Confucianism, undeniably the most sensible system concerned with the good conduct, practical wisdom and proper social relationships, and not just in theory but in everyday life. And because Confucianism was so good there were apparently never enough incentives to look for something drastically different. Silly and naive questions were not asked because everything was obvious and accepted as such. The impossibility of Change was taken for granted. So, why to bother. One had to endure both nature and man, and try to make the best of it. Civilized behaviour, and not the great ideas and innovations, is the key to well-being. Consequently, all new philosophical systems, either domestically produced or imported, were always measured by the Confucian standards and, sooner or latter, found wanted. And so China, for better or for worse, has begun with Confucianism and ended with it. Admitting the inevitable bias, as a product of Western culture, I see a certain danger in arriving at too good of an answer too early in time. For the satisfaction and sense of accomplishment it naturally entails becomes an obstacle in search for the better one. In such a case, contrary to a popular saying, it is "the good" that becomes the enemy of "the better". The Chinese, undoubtedly, perceive it differently. They would probably say that "if it ain't broken why fix it", or something of this sort. And perhaps, as far as they are concerned, it is true. All in all, it is hard , if not impossible to reconcile what is based, like West and East, on the completely opposing views of the world. And there is really no need for it either. P.S. It is because of the rejection, both in the past and in the present, by the West of the "reality' as it is, that the Western thoughts and ideas had been always heavily permeated by the eschatological, apocalyptic, ‘end of the millennium", "end of the world" tendencies, the tendencies which the East, due to its acceptance, essentially, of the way things are, had largely escaped. 1323. Here is one of the reasons (some others were mentioned before) why homosexuals, both men and women are, proportionately, more successful in their chosen careers. For being, unlike the majority of heterosexuals, unburdened, for obvious reasons, from the familial and parental obligation, they can devote, if they wish, all their mental and physical energies, all their time and efforts to pursuing whatever goals they set for themselves. Consequently, unencumbered by the necessity to sacrifice their dreams and aspirations to the good of the family,, free from constant pressure to make a choice between their own interests and those of the significant others they could be very successful in public life. 1324. Unlike in not so distant past, when people would do almost anything, no matter how unsavoury it was, not to be identified with this or that persecuted group (the type of behaviour so well described by this famous quotation from Martin Niemoller : "In Germany they first came after the communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came after the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came after...), nowadays, in yet another bizarre twist of public attitude, the total reversal has taken place. As soon as a new kind of victimization becomes "fashionable" there is a rush, seemingly by everyone, to declare oneself, whether justifiably or not, to be a victim of this particular persecution as well. Thus, to paraphrase Martin Niemoller: "when sexual abuse is the rage of the day, I scream at the top of my lungs that I'm a victim of sexual abuse. Then, when the struggle for civil rights of "people of colour" is on the agenda, I try desperately to find some "colour' in my blood. Then, when the gay bashing becomes a hot topic, miraculously, I begin to feel uncertain about my own sexual orientation. And so on, and so forth. Though, it should be acknowledged, there are some exceptions to this rule. For despite the ever pervasive climate of antisemitism we still live in, I don't see either in the present or in any foreseeable future too many people eager to identify with the Jews. 1325. There is one thing that the husbands of the strong willed, powerful women, who always have the last word in family matters, have in common - comparing to an average man their life-span is rather short. 1326. Hardly ever giving it a second thought, boys, as a rule, spend their most formative years training their bodies for the always present possibility of physical confrontation, while girls, almost instinctively, try on and explore the wide range of emotional responses and moods which eventually will be their main weapon in the life ahead. Yet, despite of the years of preparation, at the end, few are really up to the task when it's truly needed. 1327. You know what Marie Antoinette would have probably said to all those disgruntled drivers steaming in their overheated cars, stuck in the traffic jam: "Let them walk." 1328. Love is always tinged with resentment toward those on whose reciprocity its survival depends. 1329. As strange as it may seem at the first glance, the pessimists derive as much satisfaction (perverse, no doubt) from the bad things happening to them as the optimists from the good ones. For apparently, the confirmation of our views of the world is more important to us than what the world really is. And having pessimistic or optimistic outlook on life is much less dependent on personal experience than on one's natural general disposition. 1330. To make up for the lost time has been the driving force for at least half of my life, if not more. But while pursuing this, familiar to many aim, with perhaps uncommon vengeance and determination, I never stopped, until now, to think if such an elusive goal is actually possible to achieve. For the longer I'm at it, the more it seems that the gap, due to the "lost time" between the promise and the fulfilment, cannot be bridged, and the best I may hope for is not letting this gap grow any wider. 1331. The hope, at the early stages of feminism, that a fairer sharing of the household chores like shopping, cooking, washing the dishes, cleaning, etc.,between the spouses will not only liberate women "to do better things" but also, in consequence, would make the domestic scene more peaceful and tranquil, never materialized. First, the uncertainty and ambiguity of who is doing what and how much of it led to endless arguments and perpetual negotiations and renegotiations and thus became the source of permanent conflict in the family. But more important, the more housework has been done by men the more it undermined the women's claim to domestic supremacy. Traditionally, since women did most if not all housework, they felt entitled to (and legitimately so)and exercised almost absolute power over the decisions pertaining to running of the house, like food, furniture, interior decorating, buying, etc. Men, on the other hand, who spent most of their lives outside the house and did very little if any of housework, surrendered, albeit reluctantly, this power to women, considering it to be a fair arrangement that the one who does most of the work should make most of the decisions about and around it. But now, as men begin to do more and more of it, they also (and understandably so) begin to ask for a greater role in making these decisions. Unfortunately, the exercising of power is a zero sum game. The more power in making domestic arrangements men demanded, and sometimes took, the less power women were left with. Hence the new conflict, that of sharing the power, largely unknown before in traditional families with husband as a bread-winner and wife as a ruler of the household. Thus, instead of making women happier by relieving them from some of the domestic drudgery, this new redistribution of rights and responsibilities made them less and less happy, by taking, proportionately, away their domestic supremacy, which they, most emphatically, didn't want to surrender. Men also became increasingly unhappy, because despite doing more and more of housework they were still denied the right to make any substantial decisions, as far as running of the house is concerned. Two unhappy people, each for his/her own reason can hardly make a happy family. It is also hard to imagine how to get out of this predicament, for it is clear by now that the sharing of power is much more difficult to accomplish than the division of duties. But since the return to the traditional family, where powers were divided, seems to be impossible, the domestic wars, for some unforeseeable future, shall go on, and on, and on. 1332. Those who are too rich or too poor tend to be excessively self-absorbed: the Rich because having a lot more money than is really necessary for happy life, they devote too much of it to constantly looking for yet another way to spend their wealth, the Poor because having a lot less than is needed for a half-decent living they are condemned to spend every single moment of it to find a way to simply survive. 1333. I think the time has come when in the name of intellectual equality (the last frontier of egalitarianism) the reverse-intelligence test, specifically designed for those who are too intelligent to fail, has to be introduced. Though, come to think of it, isn't life itself already such a test? 1334. In ours 500 channel universe (or is it 400 or 300...) if you are patient enough everything, sooner or later, comes to the theatre nearest to you - your own TV set. 1335. 50 years after the most devastating war in History, it seems that banality of Evil is going to be by far surpassed by the ever increasing triviality of Academic research of it. 1336. Why does implementation of some of the best ideas bring so often the worst possible results? It is because of the time lag between their conception and realization. And the larger the lag, the worse is the outcome. The main reason for this lag is that ideas are produced by individuals but need for their implementations the wide consensus of society at large. Given the inherent inertia and procrastination of the masses, it always take so long for them to make up their collective mind, that by the time society is ready to put the great ideas into practice the conditions which prompted their production are largely gone or drastically altered (especially in our times of accelerating change), thus rendering these ideas no longer appropriate, or even harmful - the social theories driven by the social ills of one time are simply unsuitable as the remedies at another. Take, for example, the idea of deinstitutionalising of psychiatric patients and releasing them into community. This seemingly great and progressive approach came out of horrible experience of insane asylums in the 18th and 19th centuries, and, if implemented then, would have probably produced a positive result, because in those days "the community", in a form of extended families, small villages and towns, and the moral obligations to take care of "your own", still existed. The main problem with releasing the mentally ill into community now, at the end of the 20th century, is that after the enormous dislocation caused by the industrial capitalism there is no longer "community", for all intent and purpose, for them to be released to. The modern society is divided into the numerous special interest groups. And in order to cater to their specific needs numerous institutions have been created. Thus, as regrettable as it may be, the only place that can take care of the mentally ill today is the mental institutions. 1337. I don't think that the people of the Future are going to be substantially different from us. The material and technological side of life will certainly undergo some change, but the psychological side, the human relations will essentially remains the same (the outcome of biological imperative, I suppose.) The moral and ethical questions which exercised the greatest minds 2500 years ago are still being asked Today, and the answers aren't getting any clearer, despite the enormous progress made in science and technology since Pythagoras and Archimedes. I would go even further. The search for life in other galaxies, if successful, would satisfy our curiosity but add very little to our knowledge. For any intelligent biological being would act in the same way man does. They will be born and die, love and hate, create and destroy. There will be joy and sorrow, hope and despair, there will be quest for immortality, religion, etc., etc. So, what's the point of wasting all these zillions of dollars to find those mysterious creatures millions of light years away: I looked for Aliens... and they are Us. In this sense "Star Trek" is very instructive. Despite all the fantastic forms of life in the different worlds the creators of this popular series came up with, under all this fancy dress-ups there is the same old tired face you see looking in the mirror. 1338. For those who are uncertain of their individuality, to follow the well established formalities is the easiest and the safest way to acquire at least some kind of personality. 1339. Mania of persecution is often a product of megalomania: a strong belief in one's importance provide an easy explanation why one is "worthy" of persecution. 1340. If an impartial observer would consider the fateful history of the Jews after the Exodus he may conclude that they probably would have been better of staying in Egypt. Of course in this case the world would have lost a lot. Judaism, Christianity and Islam would have never existed. Neither the Old nor the New Testaments - some of the greatest achievements of the human spirit - would have been written. Moreover, the humanity would have been deprived from many illustrious contributions the Jews have made. But the horrific price the Jews had to pay and are still paying for all those glorious deeds is way too high. Nothing, no matter how great it is, is worth so much suffering. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 01003 |