Cineva mi-a trimis un link catre un montaj din Actorul si Salbaticii.
Cel care a pus laolalta mesajul a identificat doi destinatari. Prima parte este adresata politicienilor iar cea de a doua intregului popor.
Si are mare dreptate. Amandoi destinatarii au, fiecare dintre ei, cate o mare responsabilitate. Problema este ca n-au inteles inca necesitatea imperioasa de a lucra impreuna.
Politicienii nu pot face nimic, nu pot implementa nici un fel de politica, daca nu sunt ajutati de cei care pun in practica aceste politici. Ca atare politicienii initiaza si promoveaza exact acele politici pentru care reusesc, cat mai usor, sa mobilizeze suficient de mult sprijin popular astfel incat acestea sa fie aduse la indeplinire.
Populatia, cetatenii cu drept de vot, nu pot sa actioneze haotic, fara nici un fel de reglementare. Chiar daca ar schimba, cumva, intreaga clasa politica actuala tot ar trebui sa puna ceva in loc. Adica o alta clasa politica. Si am ajunge in exact acelasi loc.
Ca sa iesim din cercul asta vicios ar trebui ca intreg electoratul sa fie extrem de atent tot timpul, nu doar in momentele electorale, si sa dea continuu semnale catre clasa politica: ‘suntem cu ochii pe voi’. In acelasi timp el trebuie sa sprijine activ politicile care li se par bune si sa-si manifeste, civilizat dar ferm, opozitia fata de cele care i se par proaste sau neconvingatoare.
Pe de alta parte este imperios necesar ca si intreaga clasa politica sa inteleaga odata precaritatea in care se zbate intregul sistem si ca daca mai continuam mult in directia asta se alege praful de tot si de toate.
Altfel spus, ar trebui ca ambele ‘jumatati’ ale organismului social sa invete sa-si tina in frau “Oportunistii Fanatici”
Va recomand cu caldura acest articol al lui Ciprian Blidaru.
“Cea mai buna dovada ca masa nu adera organic la propaganda este usurinta cu care isi schimba orientarea”
God! Some relate to it as if it were separated from this world. The God from ‘Deus ex Machina’. The Creator who remains outside its Creation.
This benediction is about something totally different.
Here God IS the world itself.
This way each of us is no longer alone but a part of something that is both bigger than the sum of the individuals that compose it and meaningful.
A prayer for all of us…
As most of the kids my parents sent me to a public school, it was pretty exciting for me at the beginning to learn new stuffs about different subjects and meet new people… yeah new people…
I remember my years at the middle school where I was the most fat and the tallest girl of my class! yeah I was that BIG …
One of the greatest things that made me a target for those kids was being that BIG for them and everyone was like: LOSE WEIGHT FAT COW!! I have to admit that in the past it hurt me a lot to hear something similar from those I spent eight 
hours per a day with, and the most hurtful thing was when we were having a team work or a sport activity most of them avoided me….
I kept trying to interact with them at first but I failed
View original post 956 more words
But eyes alone are not capable enough.
To see ‘right’ one has to think first about what is actually going on in front of his naked eyes!
And you should also take into consideration that all the tricks shown below have been purposefully put together by people who command intimate knowledge about how our brains work.
http://www.smash.com/10-amazing-perspective-tricks-will-mess-mind/
Pentru cei ce locuiesc pe Luna voi face un scurt rezumat.
800 de fosti si actuali elevi ai liceului au facut un grup pe Facebook, loc in care si-au varsat naduful acumulat in timpul vietii de licean. Unii dintre profesori s-au simtit jigniti de modul ‘frust’ in care au fost exprimate aceste ‘frustrari’. Ca urmare o parte dintre elevi au ‘suferit consecinte’. ‘Asistenta’ este profund dezbinata.
Unul dintre cele mai pertinente comentarii asupra subiectului, cu toate ca destul de pasional si pe alocuri partinitor, mi se pare cel facut de presedintele Consiliului National al Elevilor, Horia Onita. Iata un scurt fragment:
Acesta este un bun punct de pornire pentru a intelege ce se intampla.
Pentru ca tabloul sa devina cu adevarat inteligibil trebuie sa ‘marim cadrul’ pana cand reusim sa cuprindem si pe cel de al treilea mare actor al acestei drame. Si anume “publicul”, format in cea mai mare parte din “rude/parinti”.
Rude si parinti nu doar ale elevilor ci si ale profesorilor!
Sa vedem ce cred unii despre ceilalti.
Parerea unora dintre elevi fata de o parte dintre profesori rezulta din pozele si comentariile deja publicate in presa.
Parerea majoritara a profesorilor despre respectivii elevi rezulta din ‘sentintele’ primite de acestia.
Parerea parintilor elevilor despre profesori rezulta foarte clar din lefurile primite de profesori. Destul de indirect, intr-adevar, dar pana la urma noi, cetatenii, prin vot, suntem cei care am tot hotarat destinul acestei tari. Adica noi suntem cei care am adus la putere generatii dupa generatii de politicieni care nu au reusit sa reorganizeze invatamantul.
Tot noi, parintii, suntem cei care discutam ‘fara perdea’ despre subiectul asta. Atat in familie, in fata copiiilor, cat si in media.
“Invatamantul romanesc produce tampiti”.
“Profesorii sunt corupti”.
In conditiile astea chiar ne asteptam ca odata ajunsi elevi copiii or sa nutreasca vre-un mare respect pentru ‘cadrele didactice’?
Parerea parintilor despre proprii lor copii rezulta din toate cele de mai sus.
Daca ne-ar fi pasat cu adevarat de ei faceam in asa fel incat sa le lasam mostenire o tara in stare de functionare si nu o vaca atat slaba din cauza mulsului excesiv la care a fost supusa incat abia mai sta in picioare.
Daca ne pasa cu adevarat faceam in asa fel incat sa avem timp si pentru ei. Degeaba le luam telefoane performante cu care sa faca poze in timpul orelor si calculatoare cu care sa ‘aranjeze’ acele poze si sa le puna pe Internet daca atunci cand ajungem acasa suntem atat de sleiti de puteri incat nu ne mai pasa de nimic.
Copiii nostri au nevoie de sufletul nostru mai mult decat de banii nostri.
Copiii nostri au nevoie de educatie, nu doar de informatie bruta. Iar educatia nu poate veni nici de la parinti spetiti de munca si nici de la profesori flamanzi, rupti in spate sau preocupati mai mult de meditatii decat de orele de la scoala.
Ce parere au copii nostri despre noi?
O sa vedem peste vreo douazeci de ani cand ne va veni vremea sa iesim la pensie.
Si nu va ganditi ca veti fi strans destui bani pana atunci incat nu veti mai avea nevoie de ajutorul lor.
Degeaba toti banii din conturi daca copii nostri se vor fi dus sa-i ‘stearga la cur’ pe batranii din vestul Europei sau de aiurea.
Banii nu valoreaza nimic daca nu sunt pusi in miscare de niste oameni suficient de calificati din punct de vedere profesional incat sa poata tine o economie in carca si suficient de educati incat sa isi dea seama ca o tara corupta nu poate supravietui prea multa vreme.
Karl Marx. The world is crooked – there is too much exploitation imposed by the haves upon the have-not’s – so it has to be righted by those who have the right answer to the problem. And because the world doesn’t know what’s good for it, the ‘enlightened’ – the communists who are at the forefront of the class struggle – have the duty to impose the revolution by force.
The crux of the ‘solution’ being the abolition of both private property and the state. The private property because it is the tool with which the haves dominate the have-not’s and the state because it is the tool used by the haves to protect their private property from the have-not’s who continuously try to steal it.
But what tool can be best used to enforce the dissolution of the private property and to insure that the misguided and the ill intended don’t revert to the ‘old and corrupt ways of the bourgeoisie’? The state, of course. Hence we’ll have to postpone a little its dissolution, only until the first chores would have been completed, of course.
Max Weber. The world is too complicated to be understood/run by a single man, no matter how capable. That’s why the decision making process must be rationalized. Weber’s main methodological tool was the ‘ideal type’, a mental construction that is to be substituted to replace the real problem that has to be solved or the real thing that is being studied. This ideal type being stripped of the ‘unimportant’ aspects of the reality will make it a lot easier for the ruler/decision maker/scientist to understand what is going on there and to come up with the ‘correct’ decision or ‘clear’ understanding of the matter. This means that Weber was convinced that individuals are able, in certain conditions, to reach valid conclusions. Which is, of course, OK. Furthermore Weber had ‘reached the conclusion’ that if larger problems are to be solved then the efforts of single individuals are not enough and that in order to fulfill this task in a satisfactory manner many rational decision makers (which have been properly trained in their strict domains) have to be inter-connected into a well structured ‘net’. This way the big problem will be sliced into more manageable sub-problems which will be analyzed by specialists and then the final solution will be re-assembled by people specially trained for exactly this task. Nowadays this entire concept is known as ‘bureaucracy‘. In theory it sounds right, doesn’t it? What could be better than an all encompassing net comprised of rational/professional decision makers who act according to a well considered and well intended ‘ideal type’? Whose ideal type? Good question, indeed. Just as good as ‘who and how trained the ‘decision makers’?’.
(There is something we must keep in mind when discussing Weber, as a person. He died relatively young, before having a chance to reach a ‘final conclusion’, or at least one to satisfy him. That also has to be the reason for which he hasn’t published much during his lifetime.)
Plato. Society (the city, the “Republic’) should be run by a specific kind of (dedicated) people and because “those with the philosopher’s natural abilities and with outstanding natures often get corrupted by a bad education and become outstandingly bad” this ‘special kind of people’ need to receive “the proper kind of education“. Meaning that ‘a true philosopher’ has to be versed in ‘the Forms of Good’, which are amply explained in ‘The Cave Allegory’.
The gist of the matter is two layered.
1. The reality is hidden behind some ‘veils’ (or in ‘shadows’ if you prefer the original metaphor) but properly trained professionals (the philosophers) can be taught to see what Plato describes as ‘the ultimate truth’.
2. These professional truth seekers have not only the right to lead the rest of the people ‘into the light’ but the obligation to do so! Furthermore, for Plato the ‘ideal political structure’ – the Republic – would be so organized as to ‘force’ into public duty those who have been specially ‘bred and trained’ to perform such duty:
“Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of their class are not obliged to share in the toils of politics: and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their own sweet will, and the government would rather not have them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the cave, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.”
I believe that by now you have grasped where I’m headed to. There is not much difference between Marx and Plato and a very close relationship between these two and Weber. Still, the fact that Weber was not yet done thinking about this matter at the moment of his untimely death makes me believe that if he had some more time at his disposal he would have understood what Laozi taught us about the concept of “nonaction”:
And isn’t it very strange that the best (short) presentation I was able to find about Laozi is hosted by a site called “Plato.Stanford.edu”?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
http://www.academia.edu/4192854/Weber_s_methodology_understanding_concept_of_ideal_type_as_necessary_element_of_Weberian_comprehensive_sociology_Working_paper_
http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/weber12.html
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laozi/
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-the-wicked-leader-is-he-who-the-people-despise-the-good-leader-is-he-who-the-people-revere-the-lao-tzu-188515.jpg
I happened to stumble on an article about the tragic fate of Sophie Chotek.
The beautiful daughter of an impoverished aristocratic family attracts the attention and later becomes romantically involved with the heir of one of the most important European thrones of the time. Looks like a prequel for ‘Love Story’, right? … only worse, unfortunately. The reigning Monarch wasn’t happy about the whole thing and, to make things worse, ‘the law’ wouldn’t allow their union.
After huge complications that involved the intervention of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Tsar Nicholas II and Pope Leo XIII in favour of the ‘young lovers’ Emperor Franz Joseph gave in and yielded to the marriage, on condition that the children of the couple will not be able to inherit the throne and that the bride will never be treated as a queen or attend official functions at the side of her future husband.
And the worse was yet to come. After 14 years, to a day, of happy marriage both she and Franz Ferdinand, her husband, were assassinated together in Sarajevo.
Reading about the treatment she had to endure cannot but make me wonder about why would modern democracies still ‘entertain’ royal courts? Specially after what happened to Lady Di…
So?
Well… It’s not so easy to dismiss the fact that some of the most successful nations, by any standards, are exactly those that have managed to balance the survival of the monarchy with ‘full blown’ democratic government. Not only in Europe.
Great Britain, Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Thailand, Japan … There must be something here!
Two things constitute the common denominator between these countries, besides being run as constitutional monarchies. They have all found their own road to democracy/rule of law and they had traveled this road in a relatively peaceful manner. Don’t be fooled by the fact that Japan had been ‘opened’ up by Matthew Perry and then defeated in the WWII. The Japanese emperor had been powerless since long before Perry and the ‘fathers’ of the Meiji Constitution might have been inspired by the German Imperial one but the transformation was instrumented by the Japanese politicians themselves, not by nor after being prodded by a ‘foreign power’. Furthermore by 1915 the Japanese Constitution was modified to include universal male suffrage.
Meanwhile the XX-th century has witnessed a very mixed performance by the rest of the democracies, with the notable exception of the US. No, I haven’t forgotten Canada, Australia or New Zealand. They are constitutional monarchies too.
Latin America. I don’t think you’re going to dispute the fact that there is no single nation inhabiting this part of the world which hasn’t ‘enjoyed’ at least a few years of dictatorship that has started with ‘free elections’.
Africa. Until very recently there wasn’t a single functional democracy on this continent.
Asia. With the notable exception of India – which has inherited strong democratic values from her imperial power and enjoys special circumstances – no other real democracy besides Thailand and Japan until very recently.
Europe, the birth place of democracy. Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected before becoming two of the most horrendous dictators in the history of humankind. Eastern Europe countries, including Russia, were governed for many decades as ‘popular democracies’. In reality they were ruled by oligarchies which were hiding their criminal nature behind ideological smoke screens.
Any explanation for this?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/28/1310194/–Franzi-and-Soph-the-personal-tragedy-that-sparked-WWI#
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/373298/Meiji-Constitution
nicichiarasa 
