 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 152-169 |
| ||||||
| 152. Reality, as it is, is too complex for any of us to handle. So we use different games to simplify it and to make it more manageable. All our laws, rules, regulations, morals, ideologies, religions, etc. are the different kinds of games we play to live. 153. In dealing with reality our most important faculty is our ability to think. But not everybody thinks in the same way. Though there is a big grey mass in between, people can be roughly divided into two main groups - those who think logically and those who do not. In the course of their lives members of each group, one no more than another, are trying to find refuge from reality by using their specific modes of thinking, namely, those with logical minds by being logical, those with illogical minds by being illogical. Contrary to the popular belief that having logical mind is more useful or even necessary in order to cope with life, one group is usually as successful or unsuccessful as the other in achieving this universal goal. Ultimately, it all depends on the kind of reality each individual member of either group is faced with at any particular moment of his or her life, because the reality itself is not uniform and homogeneous. Like a human mind, which is its product and therefore a reflection of, Reality can also be divided into two opposite (though not contradictory) kinds - the logical and the illogical. The logical reality consist of events that always come to pass in the same way and therefore are deemed to be governed by the laws of logic derived from necessity, i.e. given certain prior conditions as the premises certain posterior events would follow, out of necessity, as the conclusions. The illogical reality comprises the events that never occur in the same way, but always differently, and, as if by chance, at random and spontaneously. Within the realm of such events, it is impossible to establish causal connections because when certain prior conditions are given as a premise any posterior events may follow but none as a conclusion and of necessity, thus placing all such events outside the sphere of the logical reality. Now, the people with the logical type of mind always try to explain and subsequently cope with all reality (both logical and illogical) by using logic. As a result, they are successful when faced with the logical reality and, understandably, unsuccessful facing the illogical one. Similarly, the people with the illogical type of mind while dealing with reality do not use logic on the assumption that all reality is illogical. Accordingly, they are successful when faced with the illogical part of reality and unsuccessful confronting its logical part. Both kinds can't help but to behave in a way they do, because that's the way they are. It is as unnatural for the logical type to think illogically and to accept that the reality is chaotic and unpredictable as for the illogical type to think logically and to believe that there is any consistency in the world around them. How do these two types get along one with another? It wouldn't be an overstatement to say that they do not mix very well. The profound and seemingly irreconcilable difference between their types of thinking is probably one of the leading causes of conflicts in human relations, especially in a family situation where people have no other choice but to strive to attain at least some kind of harmony. Needless to say, quite often the only result of their efforts is an unending and futile struggle since they can no more understand each other than the people who speak different languages. 154. The behaviour of the Crowd can be partially explained by the fact that the Crowd consists of individuals who seldom, or most likely never, have the opportunity to express themselves in public, especially politically. And so the Crowd's, or as it sometimes disparagingly called the mob's, behaviour is like that of a man who after a long and imposed on him period of silence suddenly is given an opportunity to speak. Such a man, knowing by his previous experience that he can be stopped at any moment, would usually speak very fast, feverishly trying to compress in a few short moments the thoughts and feelings which have been pent up for a long, long time. And, inevitably, it sounds like an explosion. The Crowd also knows, collectively, that its brief chance of freedom to act and to express itself can be stopped at any moment. And it explodes too. 155. Unless the whole is known, its different parts seem having nothing in common or even being contradictory to each other. 156. The real Socrates was in all probability much more open, clear and a straightforward man than the shrewd but vague and shifty character depicted by Plato obviously for purely dramatic effects. The clear thoughts express themselves in clear sentences as well 157. Many a poet are often facing the dilemma: either to remain a true poet and wait for inspiration, or to force oneself to write despite its absence, thus turning into a craftsman, even if a skilful one. 158. The sexual revolutionaries of yesterday, like Freud, Joyce, D.H.Lawrence, etc. have become today's idols. Not so with the social ones. The former were catering to the whims of human nature, the later condemned it. 159. Beholding ancient ruins, be aware that once upon a time they were new as the just built office tower that casts its shadow over the city square. 160. Plato puts his ideas in a form of dialogue in which his alter ego, Socrates, always wins an argument. This is a very clever and convincing stratagem since the reader usually identifies himself with Socrates's interlocutor-adversary and thus takes, albeit vicariously, a part in the dialogue. As a result, when the opponent of Socrates is persuaded to agree with him such a reader feels automatically convinced also, without actually putting forth any of his own arguments against Plato-Socrates. People who do not have a natural inclination for arguments of any, especially of intellectual sort, feel quite comfortable in a such situation. But those who do have the desire and ability to argue rendered impotent and frustrated. 161. In a book when a character has, so to speak "nowhere to go anymore" the author must obviously do something about it. The standard solution to such a problem is "to finish off" this "dead end" character, which is customarily arranged through his/her natural or accidental, even violent death, whichever the writer feels will fit the plot. But in life it is quite different. In real life people who have "nowhere anymore to go" usually go on anyway. 162. Everyone wants his share of glory, no one wants his share of shame. Everybody wants to be a part of the mighty, nobody wants to be a part of the weak. All want to play cowboys (they always win), none want to play Indians (they always lose). Lets join the winners, lets leave the losers. Rejoice with the happy, Shun the miserable. All want to survive, None want to perish. 163. Labour unions, undoubtedly, had been and still are playing a positive role in the struggle for the improvement of economic conditions of the unionized workers. Yet there is a negative side to the unions, one which cannot and should not be overlooked, namely, how they relate to the rest of the working class. Here are some manifestation of this negative side. 1) A labour union benefit only its members. This is its one and only task, and all other union activities lead directly or indirectly to the achievement of this principal goal. 2) Socio-economic and technological conditions of the modern production makes it possible only for a small fraction, 15-20 % of the working class, employed mainly in the leading manufacturing industries, to get unionized. Yet this relatively small group uses its ability, derived from its predominant position in the modern economy, to effectively paralyse production, by shutting down the main industries, and thus to wrestle from the entrepreneurs at least some portion of the surplus value while the rest of the working class is denied any. As a result, though it appears that unions push all wages up, in relative terms their demands produces disproportionate wage increases for them while keeping the wages of the nonunionized workers below the otherwise possible level. 3) This wage inequality inevitably creates economic and social divisions within the working class and to such a degree that at the advanced stage of this process the working class can be roughly subdivided into three distinct sub-classes. The first and the smallest one, sometimes called "working aristocracy", represents the unionized workers employed either by the government or by the leading manufacturing industries and whose wages and other benefits are on a par with that of a lower management. The second group, which can be called the worker's "middle class", comprises the skilled and semi-skilled workers who for different reasons (but mainly because the first group, the "working aristocracy", being as protective of its privileged position as its name sake, jealously controls its numbers in order to minimize competition within the union for the limited number of jobs) could not get jobs in the major industries or in a public sector. As a result, they are employed largely by small or medium size businesses in the secondary manufacturing sector, subordinated to the primary one. Most of them are not unionized because it is extremely difficult to organize workers in the industries with low level of concentration and specific working conditions of the small enterprises. But even those of them who are unionized, because of the above mentioned reasons, have little clout to achieve any meaningful improvements in their economic conditions. The third group is the working poor, perpetually oscillating between unskilled jobs in a light manufacturing or a service sector at a minimum wage level (always in fear of being replaced by someone even more desperate than they are) and chronic unemployment or welfare. These are the people who live below the so-called "poverty line". It should be mentioned in passing that moving up in a working class society from the lower pay and status job to the higher one could be as difficult as the upward mobility in society in general. 4) The unions weaken the working class as a whole by bleeding it of its most skilled, intelligent, educated and especially able to organize themselves members. 5) The unions contribute to the stability of the capitalist system by entering into the "private", self-serving agreements with their capitalist employers and in the process becoming totally dependent on the success and perpetuation of this system. Moreover, they are doing it with the complete disregard for the common interests of the rest of the working class, and quite often the end results of the union activities are detrimental to these interests. Thus, in effect, the unions ally themselves with the capitalists against their fellow workers. 6) Consequently, the unions will support labour and socialist parties as long as they could help the unions' narrow parochial interests. But the unions would not hesitate to oppose the very same parties when they feel that their interests are threatened by those parties' politics, the examples of which are numerous. 7) And finally, the fate of the working people in other countries, especially in the Third World, seldom if ever enters into any real considerations of the trade unionists of the West unless their jobs are threatened by the movement of the capital into the low wage countries. All of the above has helped the union members to carve in the recent years a rather comfortable niche in the poor house in which the rest of the working class continued to subsist even through the unprecedented in history growth and prosperity of the post war years. But as their economic situation begins to get progressively worse, due to the emergence of the global economy in which their temporary monopoly on skills and technology is for all intent and purposes increasingly becoming the thing of the past, would the unionized workers be able to realize finally that they cannot go on living forever on the paradise island surrounded by the ocean of misery, and that their particular fate is inseparable from the universal welfare of all working people? Furthermore, would they be capable of overcoming their natural tendency to be preoccupied exclusively with their own interests, and instead use the experience and organisational strength of the union movement to place themselves at the head of the unified working class in the struggle for better life of all working people regardless of their union affiliation. And (which probably is the most difficult) would they in this struggle be able to sacrifice, if necessary, for the common good their gains and privileges. The answers to all these questions are not yet clear. On the one hand, as the unions are getting weaker, it seems that changing the attitude toward the rest of the working people is in the unions own interests, for the losers are always looking for the allies. But on the other hand, in response to the generally worsening situation, the unions can turn even more inward and circle the wagons, desperately trying to preserve the substantial gains made in the post war boom, by concentrating, as usual, on their narrowly defined interests to the exclusion of everybody else and disregarding even more, if it is possible, the plight of the rest of the working class, both domestically and abroad. One thing is clear that at this moment in history which is far from ending, no matter how much those in power would like us to believe, but, on the contrary, is at the threshold of fundamental, revolutionary change, it is hard to predict the future of anything, including the future of the union movement. 164. If nothing can come out of nothing or to disappear into nothingness, all which exists now, including us, has existed and will continue to exist, albeit in the infinitely various modifications, as long as the Universe itself. 165. What we're mistakenly perceive sometimes as passion's fire, turns out after all to be the mire of desire. 166. To think about immortality, in a sense of being remembered by the future generations after one's death, is a luxury most of people most of the times can hardly afford to indulge in, for they are constantly preoccupied with much more immediate problem - how, while they are still alive, to get recognition of this fact by attention from their contemporaries, since, contrary to solipsism (the theory that nothing but self exist), proof of one's existence here and now lies not in the self but in others who have to acknowledge this fact. And it is this psychological need to be confirmed by others and the fear of social non-existence, of being an "invisible man", that drives people to do all kinds of foolish things just to get attention and, through it reassurance that they do exist. 167. The fear and denial of dying includes also the realization of the fact that we would never know what happens after our death. The thousands and thousands of events will take place, the history will go on unfolding, but we would not be there to see and to know. That's why the universal and eternal truths are so appealing, because they somehow allow us to get a glimpse of the future. And though the detailed knowledge of it is denied to us, at least we can have a general one, thus observing the future without being present in it and, in this sense, "live" after we have died. 168. The quality of books, that are advertised in the same way (and, probably, by the same people) as toothpaste, inevitably starts to resemble that of the toothpaste - there is as little difference in the concepts and styles of these books as in colours and substances of the different kinds of toothpaste, and neither of them, books or toothpaste, would touch one any deeper than the skin of one's teeth. 169. The desire of a minority to assimilate into the majority is a necessary but insufficient precondition for the achievement of this goal. The majority itself has to allow the assimilation to proceed first by accepting it and then by creating the favourable condition for this process actually to succeed. But the majority almost never acts this way out of the fear of losing its privileged position in society. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00840 |