 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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 170-194 |
| ||||||
| QUOTATIONS 170-194 170. The Twentieth Century had exploded many a myth and now, when it is approaching its end, this iconoclastic century is about to dispose of the oldest and the most enduring one - the myth of a Leader as a Hero, sometimes almost a demigod endowed with the superhuman qualities and abilities, who would lead his people to the better, happier life. The institution of leadership is certainly as old as the human civilization itself and, if one considers Man to be a part of the animal kingdom, probably significantly older than that. The father of the patriarchal family, the primary unit of a society, undoubtedly was a leader, and even today, to all intent and purpose, still is, though his authority has been recently substantially diminished by the disintegration of the traditional family, emancipation of women, and the modern state assuming many responsibilities which used to be the prerogative of the family. If the family was the primary unit of social organization the tribe, made up of r elated families was the secondary one with the tribal chief as its leader. When several tribes were united into one state the head of this state - king, emperor and, in modern times, president or prime minister - became the leader. Usually the leader is one person, but occasionally the group of people can make a collective leadership, e.g. the counsel of tribal chiefs, the two kings of Sparta, the nine archons of Athens, and, to a certain extent, a modern parliament, to name just a few. The human society during its long history had produced many different kinds of leadership and all sorts of leaders. Certain things, however, they do hold in common - power and privilege, life that is much better than those in the subordinate and inferior positions, and willingness to do almost anything to preserve it. Because of that the majority of the leaders have always been resented (even if only in private), some were openly hated, and some yet were even overthrown and killed. But the idea of leadership, of its necessity in the conduct of human affairs, always endured, each time being resurrected like a phoenix out of the ashes and, whatever form it assumed, the basic structure consisting of the two main elements - the leader and the led - always remained the same. Accordingly, there are two main reasons for this phenomenon to persist. On the one hand, there are the masses of ordinary people, who "getting with suffering their food from the soil" and "eating their bread with the sweat on their brows", are forever looking for the way to get out of this predicament. On the other hand, there is seemingly unlimited supply of the ambitious, self-assured individuals, power-hungry and greedy, who has always been able to deceive the yearning masses into believing that they, as the leaders, know the way and therefore are eminently qualified to lead in its direction. As for those obstinate few who refused to believe blindly, they are either forced into submission or destroyed. Thus, as long as this supply of leaders is being met by the demand for the leadership or, to be more precise, the potential leaders are able to successfully create this demand, using the combination of deception and force, the conduct of human affairs would remain essentially the same as it has been from the beginning of civilization, deriving its stability from the balance, however precarious sometimes, between the above mentioned supply and demand. But as the Twentieth Century draws to a close, the possibility of maintaining this balance much longer is getting to be less and less certain. The revolutionary upheavals of the Nineteenth Century had already made this balancing act significantly more difficult to perform than in the past. But it is the Twentieth Century, which has witnessed the events of the really cataclysmic proportions, that had, probably, struck the death blow to this increasingly tenuous equilibrium. First, this myth-shattering century has drastically reduced the demand for leadership by showing that many roads, e.g. national liberation, socialism, democracy, etc. which were for a long time believed to be leading to a better life, had led, when tried, to either more suffering or to the dead end. And while the old roads had been shown, one after another, to lead nowhere there was a glaring scarcity of any new directions to go. But, if there are no roads to take, who needs a leader, especially the one that does not know where to go either. In other words, when judged by its end results - the inability to bring good life to the vast majority (and leaders had often been blamed, rightly or wrongly for that)- the basic structure of any existing social organization, viz. the leader and the led, had been proven to be a dismal failure, particularly in the view of the fact that leaders' own lives have always been incomparably better than those of the led. The realization of this, especially offensive in the era of the alleged equality of all, fact by ever increasing number of people toward the end of Twentieth Century was the result of the second most important revolutionary phenomenon of this century - the explosion of mass information. The mass information and the knowledge it has brought has dealt a mortal blow to the myth of a Leader as Hero. What has been revealed to all willing to look was the unflattering and often revolting portrait of a leader as an egotistical and ambitious maniac, a corrupt and unscrupulous politician, pathological liar, conniving and scheming manipulator, cruel tyrant, greedy embezzler and profligate, treacherous scoundrel, immoral adulterer... The list can go on and on. It is hardly the portrait of a hero and only blind fools can still believe today that any leader can be at least a decent human being, never mind a hero. But both - the mass information explosion and mind-shaking catastrophic events of the Twentieth Century - have substantially reduced (though regrettably not totally eliminated) the numbers of such blind fools. The majority of people today are not as credulous, gullible and trusting as they used to be even quite recently, and they are getting more knowledgeable and, as a consequence, more disillusioned and cynical about any kind of leadership almost by the hour. And as the amount of the blind believers decreases and the number of those who has to be forced into submission grows, it is becoming more and more difficult for the modern leaders to exercise their power. In desperate efforts to salvage their diminishing authority (and enormous privileges) they try to develop more "democratic" forms of the same old scheme - the leader and the led- in order to make it more palatable to the significantly more discriminate and sophisticated masses of the ruled. But all these talks about "listening to the people", "building the consensus", "power sharing", etc. do not deceive the people any longer, for they already know the leaders for what they really are - "wolves in sheep skins". To repeat, what we are witnessing now is the destruction of the very idea of the Leader, of the very necessity of the leadership in the conduct of human affairs. The people are not blind anymore and therefore do not need a guide. Whether this will lead to the abolition of such positions as president, prime minister, leader of a party, head of an organization or of a department, etc. remains to be seen. But one thing is clear by now - the process of dismantling of the institution of Leadership has began in earnest and there is no way back. The only question that remains is what would take its place in the people's collective mind. For it is not going to be easy to find a replacement for the institution, no matter how discredited it became, which is the embodiment of the myth of a leader, the myth that has been and still is deeply ingrained in the mass psyche, permeating all forms of human relations: family, nation, religion, work, play, etc.,etc. Will it be another, albeit totally unrecognizable reincarnation of the same old myth, or a completely new one that would inevitably be exploded some times in the future too? Or would Man be able, at last, to discover the kind of human relations that are based on the true and absolute equality and justice? For such relations surely will last forever and will never again end in disappointment. 171. In a strange twist of tragic logic, the AIDS and associated with this horrible disease the inevitability of death have brought dignity and acceptance to one of the most reviled and hated group in society -the homosexuals, thus giving to the dying what has been denied to the living. Moreover, in some well publicized cases it literally has elevated the previously despised "pervert" to the status of a hero defying the ultimate - Death. It also has given the homosexuals the badly needed self-respect and allowed many of them to openly declare who they are. There is undoubtedly something ennobling about death, probably its finality, that makes everything else insignificant in comparison and everybody equal at last. There is a dignity in death that at the end we all possess. The sheer finality of it makes all the rest just obsolete. 172. While denying to others the right to use certain definitions as axioms, Plato nevertheless freely allows this luxury to himself, being completely oblivious, evidently, of the contradiction between what he does and what he preaches. And again, while denying to others the right to express themselves as poets or dramatists, he proceeds to write dramatic dialogues and poetic myths. Thus, by doing that, he consistently displays the same double standards as all of us. 173. Everyone survives according to his natural state and abilities: optimist - by being optimistic, pessimist - by being pessimistic, each using optimism or pessimism, respectively, as a tool to cope with life; the later no less than the former, for pessimism is usually employed by those who are too sensitive or too vulnerable to go on absorbing the life's blows. They choose the surrender instead of the fight in order to protect their fragile egos from the devastation of the inevitable, in their view, defeat. 174. Anything Man does above and beyond the mere necessity to sustain his biological existence is unnatural and, therefore, is harmful to Nature. 175. First, they just ask to be accepted like everybody else. Then, when they are accepted as everybody else, they want everybody else to be like them. 176. Can one imagine Ecclesiastes (assuming there was such a person) going on a promotional tour to sell his Book the main message of which is "All is vanity". 177. Few words have such a magic power as the word "Love' has. It is especially potent when spoken to a woman who would endure the seemingly endless amount of abuse and deception as long as her man utters this magic word once in a while, at which moments the fact that what this man has been doing to her has very little to do with love apparently becomes completely irrelevant. 178. The improvement of economic conditions of the poor in the modern capital-democratic state can only, unfortunately, be gained at the expense of those who are just marginally better off. The so-called "redistribution of wealth" takes place primarily between these two social groups. The rich do not play this "silly game". They consider their wealth to be almost sacred and untouchable and use, very skilfully, the power it gives to get "exempted" from the wealth sharing. The examples of this phenomenon are numerous and well known, though not always recognised as such. The whole taxation system of the modern capital-democratic state is designed to take money from the working poor to support the ones who are not working (which brings relative social stability and helps to maintain the level of consumption necessary for the modern economy of mass production) and at the same time to exclude the rich from the participation in this process (though they are the main beneficiaries of it). When accused of the refusal to share their wealth, the rich usually defend themselves by saying that there are not enough of them to help the poor anyway so they shouldn't do it at all. Strangely enough, this perverted logic has been widely accepted ( even if not so overwhelmingly approved). 179. The mixed origins of the British, namely Germanic (Anglo-Saxons) and French (Normans), had influence not only English language but also, to a certain extent, the so-called British character or at least its stereotyped version, widely accepted around the world as such. By combining the notorious German arrogance and rudeness with the proverbial French pretentiousness and conceit it had produced the unique blend of the arrogant rudeness and pretentious conceit. 180. Yet another definition of the word "work" - something you would rather not to do if you had any choice. 181. I am independently wealthy. I am independent therefore I am wealthy. 182. It is not only the generals who are always fighting the last war. We all do. 183. My entire life is a text. And whatever I do or say at any particular moment of it is always, in a certain sense, taken out of context. For before I do or say something I think, before I think I feel, before I feel I experience and not just now but during my entire life. Yet, you can only see what I do or hear what I say now and miss all the rest. So, the more your experience, your feelings, your thoughts are similar to mine the more you are able to understand what I am saying or doing. 184. We are often looking for exceptions when we cannot accept the rule. 185. Despite all the progress in science and technology, the most crucial problems of today are still being solved the way they had always been solved in the past - through the suffering, misery and depravation by the overwhelming majority of the people in the world. 186. The so-called "parties" in Toronto sometimes resemble gathering in the funeral parlour. And the only thing that seems to be missing is the body of the deceased. Or is it? 187. If a city can be defined by a specific colour, the one most fitting Toronto would be - a fading grey. Faded dresses, faded faces, faded thoughts and common places. 188. Books are friends of lonely people. There is a close connection between reading and loneliness. First, reading by its very nature is a solitary pursuit. Second, the books present to the reader a subjective reality which is always different from the objective one, since it is already processed, organized and largely explained by the writer. Thus, the more we read the more we grow accustomed to the "processed" reality, which inevitably leads to alienation from the world around us and, consequently, to loneliness. When for whatever reasons it is difficult for us to relate to others, those who are "addicted" to reading almost automatically reach for a book to relieve their loneliness. But the more we read the lonelier we become, thus finding ourselves in a vicious circle which makes books not only the friends of the lonely people but also their enemies. Yet, on a positive side, some of these lonely readers, and probably the loneliest ones, eventually become the writers of books themselves and by doing so join the others who turn their addiction into a profession. 189. For a long time the modern art has been, and to a great extent still is, in a state of ambiguous vagueness, perpetually pregnant with meaningful significance, and yet seemingly unable ever to give birth to it. 190. The biggest and the most convincing lies are made up of half-Truth. 191. Rare are the men who find joy in the good fortunes of others. As it is, despite the fact that all religions preach love and compassion, the majority of us still derive inner satisfaction out of somebody else's misery. 192. I wouldn't mind to acknowledge your superiority, as long as you do not assume that it entitles you to receive a bigger share of what we both consider to be equally valuable in life, especially when your gains come at my expense. 193. The fate of the world "super-power" can be compared to that of a dominant stallion possessing a herd of mares. First, he has attained this dominant position because of the superior to his numerous rivals - other stallions - strength. Then, having in his sole possession this herd of females, he has to protect such a " monopoly" by constantly fighting young and upcoming stallions, and to prevent the individual mares from running away. He also has to "service", so to speak, his herd of mares in order for them to produce the next generation of horses. This triple task will eventually exhaust this dominant stallion - "super-power", no matter how strong was he at the beginning, to the point when one day he shall inevitably lose a battle with a younger and stronger rival and be deprived both of his position and his harem. 194. The so called Platonic "ideas", e.g. "idea of chair", "idea of bed", etc., have been simply the expressions of the purely physical needs of man to sit or lie down as comfortably as possible considering man's specific type of body, its anatomical and geometrical proportions. At the beginning, the primitive men satisfied these needs by using objects as they are found in nature. The gradual realization that some of these objects are more suitable for the intended purpose than others led to the progressive search for the better and better ones, but still using them as they were found, i.e. without changing them in any way. Taking an object as it is from Nature and improving it by the labour of man's hands marked the beginning of a new revolutionary phase in the relationship between Man and Nature - the phase of creativity. Next, from the improvement of ready found whole objects men gradually progressed toward the actual making them out of simple and separate elements and materials in order to satisfy the particular needs and in accordance with the preconceived ideas about form and substance of those objects, ideas produced by these needs in the first place. And, finally, the last stage of this process, one which is probably endless, is making those man-made objects better and better and in greater and greater varieties. Let's again take the chair, for example. And let's now try to retrace the entire process of its development, step by step, as it has been described above. First of all, by virtue of being erect and two-footed terrestrial animal Man has to sit down every now and then to get some rest. He can sit either on the ground (floor) or on some objects elevated above it. Anybody who tried both ways would agree that the later is preferable to the former. So, at the beginning any suitable stone or piece of wood, if available, would do and as long as people remained nomadic probably nothing more complicated was used. As a matter of fact, most nomadic people even today prefer sitting on the floor. When people had settled permanently in one place they also built permanent dwellings and brought those pieces of wood inside to serve as the first primitive chairs. Then they figured out that a chair made up of a seat and legs is more comfortable and easier to move around. The next innovation was the back of a chair to support man's own back. This basic design of a chair is still with us, and though seemingly infinite variety of it has been created they all serve one basic physical need of man - to sit. Thus, as we can see, the so called Platonic "idea of chair" is nothing more but the end result of the long evolutionary process of creating the perfect object for men to sit on and rest and as such it certainly does not precede Man but on the contrary is developed by Him and therefore is neither eternal nor unchangeable. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00975 |