4 Decembrie 2013 Recital Harry Tavitian la ARCUB in cadrul Festivalului de Muzica Veche
Archives for category: Culture
Modern day feminism baffles my wife the same way it baffles me: “I don’t want to be your equal! I just want us both to be considerate of each-other and to do our respective ‘bests’ towards our common goal: for our entire family to be as happy as possible, as long as possible!”
To me ‘equality’ is indeed important but I never forget it is nothing but an idea that needs people to put it into practice and I always remember that the results of its implementation rely heavily on the individuals involved in the process.
On the other hand ‘justice’ has a very powerful practical side. “Fiat justitia ruat caelum” is supposed to mean “let justice be done though the heavens fall”. I strongly disagree with this interpretation. Romans were extremely practical people and I’m sure they meant “let justice be done OR the heavens will fall”.
Back to feminism. My first real problem with it arose when I kept the door open for a lady (?!?) in New York and she hissed at me: ‘Move or I’ll scratch your eye-balls, you misogynistic perv!’ (Please note that I am a Romanian living in Bucharest and even if communism has done a lot to improve the status of women relative to that of men – while lowering both – we didn’t give up common courtesy).
So are women equal to men? Some say yes – I somewhat tend to agree, at least with their intentions – while others deny it vehemently citing, among others, differences in size, stamina, etc…and sometimes even differences in how our brains work or how we respond to what is happening to us. I find this arguments to be very flimsy. If anything women should be considered superior to men because they need only a small amount of sperm to give life to another human being while all we man can do about this, after donating the sperm, is to help them in raising the offspring. So yes, we work a lot better in tandem but if push comes to shove a single woman is able to fend for herself (and for her children) a lot better than a single man would be.
The hard reality is that we function differently and we do this for a very good, if overlooked, reason: we are wired differently. Having different sexes means a lot more than being programed for different reproductive roles, it means that we transmit differently genetic information to the next generation and I’m not speaking exclusively about the genes that determine the sex of the child.
There are chances that you have already heard about ‘mitochondrial DNA’ (If not this is about some genetic information that regulates not only the way the human cells generate energy by oxidizing glucose but also other important processes). Now the funny thing about this is that even if we men believe ourselves to be the ‘more energetic gender’ we inherit the ‘software’ that determines how we generate and use energy exclusively from our mothers. Weird, heh? So men, contrary to the widespread belief that they contribute with half the genes of their offspring, have in reality nothing to do with an essential part of the metabolism of their children while women pass along this kind of information to both genders alike.
But wait, there is some more. Some people would jump to say there is a similar situation with the Y chromosome, the one that differentiates man from woman and which comes directly from the man, right? Well… not so fast. Having a Y chromosome helps but does not guarantee maleness while having two X chromosomes does not always insure feminity. It seems that each and everyone of us are not only wired differently but also our fate is heavily in debt to the particular environmental conditions that surrounded our development.
Now that we reached the subject of the ‘environment’ lets see how it has evolved in the last 100 000 years or so.
No, don’t worry, I’m not going to ramble about the global warming, this is about the social environment. You see, by the time we are born there are about 1.06 boys for each girl, when we get near to the 20 years mark the numbers are roughly equal while as we get older the sex ratio is skewed in the favor of women. And the fact that “the percentage of men aged 65 and up grew faster than the percentage of women aged 65 and up, according to the 2010 census” suggests that there is nothing wrong, biologically, with men only they tended to live more riskier than the women.
So humankind evolved while the norm was for two generations – parents and children – to be present at the dinner table at one particular time while a third generation, the grandparents, was a rare exception and it was not uncommon for a widow to raise its offspring, maybe with some help from the relatives or from the older children. The proportion of single women rising children tended to rise shortly after major wars.
And these things are not without consequences. Social change is, in general, slow but increases its pace after great wars. Yes, probably the driving force behind the change may have been people’s dissatisfaction with what had just happened but i’m convinced that the change was facilitated by the fact that the single mother who had to provide for her family had less time to interact with its children so she had less time to pass over to them the ‘values’ and customs valid for those times. And so it was easier for the young generation to effect change because they were less imprinted with the ‘good old ways’. Another thing. Who were the most conservative sections of the society? The better off-s? Surely because the status quo was beneficial for them! Yes, probably this was the driving force but the fact that wealthy people had a tendency to live long enough to meet their nephews was also helpful: the grand parents contributed to the imprinting of the younger generation.
So what am I driving at? That women should stay at home and raise the kids in the shadows of their almighty husbands? Not at all, no way Jose. Restricting half the population to domestic chores only cripples a society, it is a waste to stifle the creative capacity of so many people.
I just propose for us to understand that even if we are able to survive, to a degree, separately it would be better to work as a team. Also we should accept that our innate abilities are different, even if they overlap considerably, and therefore we should not insist as much on ‘equality’ but rather on mutual respect and cooperation.
Also that we should teach our children to use their heads for thinking autonomously instead of memorizing like a parrot our already ‘old’ ideas. It is better for them to be able to discern what worked and why than to try to remember which is the pertinent ‘tradition’ for every problem they encounter. This way revolutions that happened because the society became stuck will eventually give way to peaceful and continuous fine tuning – evolution that is.
And one other, and last – at least for now, thing. We should never stop defending our freedom. Subordination has nothing to do with cooperation. (I am speaking now about the cooperation between genders, sometimes subordination works in other areas of human interaction)
Something nagged me back to school some five or six years ago so I took up sociology at the Bucharest University.
When faced with the hard decision ‘you need to write a thesis as part of your final exam, what will it be about?’ I had no problem in coming up with ‘the fate of a system is shaped by the way pertinent information is passed between the successive generations of decision makers relevant for that system’ (unfortunately this version is in Romanian but I’m currently working on a revamped one in English).
It seems that I was up to something.
Ghost Whisperer, a television drama about how unfinished businesses between successive generations might influence the destinies of the survivors.
Merlin season 5, episode 3, “The Death Song of Uther Pendragon” a passionate exchange about what ‘preserving the legacy’ means.
The roiling discussion about home schooling and about what higher education means today.
The renewed interest in ‘values’ that need to be passed over to the next generation.
And so on.
I can’t make up my mind.
Should I be proud that I belong to a species that is able to produce such technological marvels? And I don’t mean just the trucks themselves. High speed miniature cameras, the Internet, etc., etc….
Should I be sad because we go to such (unnecessary?) great lengths just to prove our prowess?
Why am I so confused about all this? Just because there is a woman involved in this stunt?
PS. Please notice that guy’s credentials: “Precision driver”.
and
“Femeile mai sunt batute si din vina lor”
Cu asta sunt si eu de acord.
Da, cei care isi bat partenerii de viata – sunt si barbati batuti sau batjocoriti de femeile cu care traiesc – nu au nici un fel de scuza pentru comportamentul lor.
Dar asta nu inseamna ca cei ‘batuti’ nu au si ei partea lor de vina!
De ce ‘stau’? De ce accepta sa fie tratati in halul acesta?
Si mai ales de ce accepta sa transmita copiiilor lor mesajul subliminal ca e acceptabil ca unul dintre membrii unei familii sa fie terorizat de celalalt?
Cititi articolul din Adevarul.ro.
Cati ani o fi rabdat femeia aia? Cati copii si nepoti or fi crescut crezand ca asa ceva e daca nu normal atunci macar acceptabil?
Some of you will say that yes, it is real because ‘look around you, He made all this’ while others will wonder ‘what happened, I knew you were a cool-headed guy?’.
Well, first of all, I didn’t ask ‘Who created the world?’!
Just to set things straight, I don’t need a god to be at ease with how we came into existence.
On the other hand, I don’t know everything so I cannot rule out the possibility that somewhere, somehow, somebody started the whole process that had set the things in motion nor can I be absolutely certain that there is no ‘higher force/authority’ that operates the ‘control room’. I do not see a plausible role for such a ‘higher instance’ but I cannot rule out its very existence.
(The main reason for why I don’t think it exists is that the moment I accept its existence a question pops up: “how did this ‘higher instance’ came into existence, what made it possible?” and this would bring me back to square one. But I repeat myself, I cannot rule out such a possibility, especially so if I consider the ‘chicken and egg’ conundrum: ‘What if the creator god and its very creation evolved simultaneously and symbiotically?’)
Enough with this metaphysical speculation and back to our more mundane question: ‘is God, as we know it, real or not?’
We kid ourselves for being rational beings. What would a rational person do when confronted with a problem? Try to ‘measure’ itself out of the whole situation, right? What else being rational means if not trying to discover the relations between things?
This way it would be relatively simple to determine if a particular thing exists or not: ‘Does it have any consequences?’.
If the answer is ‘yes’, then it is certain that that particular thing exists. If ‘not’ then we cannot give a definitive answer. (Please don’t fall for ‘if it doesn’t have any consequence it doesn’t exist’. This is a trap. Us not being aware of something doesn’t mean that that something doesn’t exist. ‘The absence of proof is not proof of absence!’)
So does God have any consequences?
‘This guy is nuts! First he tells us that he doesn’t believe God created us all and now he asks if God has any consequences. His discourse doesn’t have the least shred of consistency!’
Well… not so fast!
Why did the Ancient Egyptians build the pyramids?
Because the were convinced that that was the only way of preserving their pharaohs for the afterlife?
Why did the Ancient Greeks build and used their magnificent temples? Because they believed that was the proper thing to do?
Now can you tell me if AmonRa and Zeus existed or not? Only in the Ancient Egyptians’ and Ancient Greeks’ imaginations, respectively? Are you sure? The Pyramids and the Parthenon seem pretty real to me, even if I haven’t seen any of them ‘face to face’! So AmonRa and Zeus were, and in fact still are, real. At least in the sense that they both had, and still have, palpable consequences.
Same thing with ‘God’! Any of them. Monotheistic, polytheistic … it doesn’t matter. If somebody believes in any of them strongly enough to act upon that belief then each of those Gods suddenly springs into life. And sometimes there is belief even in absence of a God. What God do Buddhists believe in? Yet they are at least as steadfast in their beliefs as the rest of the religious people.
It seems that ‘belief’ is the actual connection between ‘God’ and reality. Human belief that is.
So please take care what you believe in and how you transpose your beliefs into the real world. The one in which we are going to spend the rest of our natural lives and the only one our children are going to inherit.
Reverse engineering e o chestie care poate fi facuta si in industria comunicarii, nu doar in manufacturing.
Acu’ vreo cateva zile nevasta-mea m-a intrebat:
‘Mai tii minte reclama aia de la FNI, ‘Dormi linistit’?’
‘Cea care m-a facut sa cred ca aia ne luau de prosti si care m-a convins sa scot banii de acolo? Da, o tin minte. Da’ ce ti-a venit?’
‘Pai tu n-ai vazut ce reclame se fac acum la Credit de nevoi personale? Sau alea in care e vorba despre Amanarea inevitabilului ? BNR-ul a redus dobanda la 4% pe an si astia vor sa vanda credite cu DAE de 14.9%? Adica cu un ‘spread’/’adaos comercial’ de 10.9 %? Ce parere au astia despre clientii lor? Sau se adreseaza doar ‘zapacitilor’?
‘Depinde cum vrei s-o iei…Creditul ala despre care vorbeai tu, cel cu DAE de 14.9% vad ca se adreseaza direct unora care au nevoie de refinantare. Daca au folosit prea des cardul de credit … 14.9% e mult mai bine decat 22.8%, dobanda de pe un card de credit de la aceiasi banca…’
‘Bine, intr-un fel ai dreptate…Numai ca exista tot felul de carduri de cumparaturi cu 6 sau 12 rate fara dobanda… si atunci de ce sa te bagi la un credit, indiferent de dobanda?…0% e mult mai bine decat 14.9% care e intr-adevar mai bun decat 22.8% dar de ce sa platesti dobanda daca se poate si fara… Am revenit de unde am plecat, astia incearca sa momeasca fraierii…’
‘Poti sa o iei si asa… Pe de alta parte nu era regula aia ca inainte de a da un credit bancherul trebuie sa se asigure ca creditatul este in stare sa inapoieze banii? Pai daca te apuci sa cauti fraieri ca sa le dai cu tot-din-adinsul bani cu imprumut …si la o dobanda atat de mare incat pare de pe alta lume… pana la urma asta inseamna ca strategia ta de business este cel putin dubioasa…’
Din momentul acela al discutiei am inceput sa ma gandesc la reverse engineering.
Daca analizezi un mesaj poti afla multe lucruri.
Ce vrea celalalt sa comunice, la primul nivel.
Care este publicul tinta si cam care este parerea comunicatorului despre publicul sau tinta – din modul in care este formulat mesajul si din strategia de difuzare a acestuia. Asta ar fi al doilea nivel.
Care este parerea acelui public tinta despre el insusi! Sa nu uitam ca inainte de difuzare mesajele se verifica, in focus grupuri de pilda. Iar daca ajung sa fie difuzate inseamna ca respectivele mesaje au trecut de faza focus grupurilor. Mai mult, pe masura ce sunt difuzate li se masoara impactul si eficienta. Iar faptul ca unele sunt difuzate mai multa vreme inseamna ca acele mesajel e sunt receptate bine, cel putin de publicurile lor tinta. “Mici de la McDonald’s” e atat de popular incat face cariera pe internet. Nu ma credeti? Faceti o cautare pe Google si vedeti cata reclama este ‘vanduta’ cu ajutorul acestui clip publicitar postat pe o gramada de site-uri. Iar asta nu inseamna nimic altceva decat ca printre noi sunt suficient de multi oameni care se recunosc cu mandrie …”Ia da ma sa vedem exact…Zici ca sunt la varu-miu in curte…Bine patrunsi, mustar cat trebuie… Fii atent, gustul il face pe mic ma!… Ce e bah, ne grabim?” Asta ar fi al treilea nivel.
Cat de disperat/nepasator este cel care comunica! La un moment dat ar trebui ca cel care initiaza o campanie de comunicare sa se intrebe cam ce efect are campania lui la un nivel mai general, nu doar la nivelul publicului tinta al acelei campanii. De exemplu McDonald, care la nivel mondial a inceput sa isi modifice usor usor imaginea, ar trebui sa se intrebe cam ce parere are intreg poporul roman despre faptul ca este personificat printr-un sofer obraznic care ii fura sandvisul ajutorului sau dar care nu e in stare sa-si friga proprii sai mici, ii evoca cu mare placere pe cei ai ‘varului’… UniCredit Tiriac ar trebui sa-si faca un serios examen de constiinta referitor la cum adica sa-i dai cuiva bani cu credit daca acea persoana se gandea serios sa amane nasterea sau bacalaureatul copilului sau… Oare cata vreme vor mai accepta clientii Bancii Transilvania sa fie leganati de ‘zanul din poveste’?… Sau poate ca aici vorbim deja despre deontologia caselor de publicitate care ar trebui sa atraga atentia clientilor lor asupra acestor ‘amanunte’? Or fi si ‘publicitarii’ atat de disperati dupa comenzi incat nu le mai pasa nici lor de nimic?
Sa fie oare o explicatie mult, mult mai simpla? ‘Ei’ ne iau pe noi de prosti iar noua nu ne pasa pentru ca si noi ii luam pe ‘ei’ tot de prosti? Iar acesti ‘ei’ suntem de fapt tot ‘noi’? In functie de partea oglinzii pe care ne aflam la un moment dat?
Sir Anthony Giddens, a left leaning sociologist turned philosopher and the man behind Tony Blair’s ‘Third Way’, is ‘responsible’, among other things, for re-stoking the ‘who came first, structure or agency’ debate.
And he issued a very powerful warning (my words): ‘No agent, no matter how wise or well intended, is able to foresee and control all the consequences of his actions and decisions’. He refers to this phenomenon as the ‘unintended consequences of modernity’.
About the same time as Giddens issued his warning in Britain across the ocean, in Chicago, Milton Friedman refocused the economic thinking: “companies should “make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.” “
It seems that nowadays nobody heeds any attention to any of them.
On the left the progressives try to bring about ‘their’ progress through ever more byzantine rules and regulations imposed by the governments they control while on the right some people act as if money is the sole legitimate goal which may be pursued at all costs. Long forgotten are both Giddens’s warning against the arrogance of the decision makers and Friedman’s counsel: “while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom”!
Is there anything to be done about this?
Forty years ago some Romanians were sent by a state owned company to Germany to do some lengthy repairs. Their car needed an oil change so they did exactly what they were accustomed to: puled over to a quiet spot near the apartment building were they lived and performed the operation on the curb, collecting diligently all the used oil. In five minutes the police was there. The Romanians were flabbergasted: “OK, we understand that this is against the law in Germany. We didn’t know this but we are not going to contest it. But how did you find out? No living soul came near us since we started.” “Look over there!” the policeman pointed to a window. “Somebody called us!”
Maybe this is the explanation for Germany’s success. Everybody is free to do whatever he wants but simultaneously everybody else is watching AND not accepting any bullshit from anybody.
Mai tineti minte ceva de dinainte de Decembrie ’89? Si nu ma refer aici la chestiile evidente, la frig, la foame, … ci la ‘subtilitatile’ care ne ajutau sa supravietuim si care, pentru un observator atent, pot constitui semnale interesante.
Eu, unul, tin minte bancurile.
Cand un lucru devine banc inseamna ca aproape toata lumea a aflat de el si oamenii si-au format o opinie despre chestia aia. Iar cand bancul incepe sa circule, adica sa fie spus din gura in gura, inceamna ca oamenii deja sunt dispusi sa faca ceva pe tema aia. Nu neaparat sa inceapa ei ceva dar exista asa, o asteptare… La primul prilej, la prima scanteie…
Cand eram mic parintii mei aveau incredere in mine si discutau relativ liber. Prietenii lor la fel. In felul asta am aflat, prin ’69-’70, un banc cu Ceasca.
Cica era pe un iaht impreuna cu Nixon si cu Brejnev. In jurul lor apa plina de rechini. La un moment dat au inceput sa se laude cu ce garzi de corp curajoase au fiecare dintre ei. Nereusind sa-i convinga din vorbe Nixon scoate ceasul de la mana, un Rolex, si il arunca in apa. Garda lui de corp plonjeaza si vine inapoi cu ceasul in mana stanga, dreapta fiindu-i mancata de rechini. Brejnev, ca sa nu ramana mai prejos, isi arunca si el Pobeda. Ivan, garda de corp, sare in apa si vine cu ceasul in dinti – maini nu mai avea. Toata lumea era extaziata cu privire la curajul celor doi si se uitau acum la Ceasca sa vada ce urmeaza. Scoate asta ceasul, il arunca in apa si se intoarce cu fata la Vasile, garda lui de corp. La care Vasile, calm: “Tovarase secretar general, eu sant aici sa va apar pe dumneavoastra de dusmanii de clasa, nu sa particip la competitii stupide de inot subacvatic.” La care toata lumea a cazut de acord ca Vasile a fost cel mai curajos, auzi sa le spuna el unor sefi de stat ca n-are chef sa se lase antrenat in ‘competitii stupide’ din cauza orgoliilor lor.
Prin ’79, am auzit alta varianta. Acelasi iaht, aceleasi ape infestate de rechini, Ceasca, Carter si Brejnev. Aceiasi discutie despre curaj, Carter arunca un ceas in apa. John, garda de corp, ii spune: ‘Du-te ba de-aici, ma asteapta familia acasa.’ Brejnev se uita cu mila la Carter si isi arunca si el ceasul in apa. Ivan se uita lung in valuri si zise: ‘Mi-a spus tovarasa Brejneva sa nu va scap nici un moment din ochi, nu pot sa plec de pe vas!’. Brejnev ridica din umeri: ‘Vedeti, si la noi familia e pe primul plan!’ Toti ochii se intorc Ceausescu. Arunca asta ceasul in apa, Vasile sare dupa el si vine cu ceasul in dinti inotand de zor cu piciorul stang, singurul care ii mai ramasese. Lumea extaziata, ‘Cit curaj, cata dedicatie pentru tara si pentru conducatorul ei!’ La mal, in timp ce era bagat in ambulanta , cineva il intreaba pe Vasile: ‘Esti nebun, ce dracu te-a apucat. N-ai si tu familie acasa?’ ‘Pai tocmai aia e problema, ca am!’ (Ascultatorii din vremea aia stiau ca orice act de disidenta era platit scump de intreaga familie a celui care ‘indraznise’!)
Cu alte cuvinte intre ’69 si ’79 perceptia populara cu privire la Ceausescu se schimbase cu 180 de grade. De unde la inceput eram mandri de indrazneala cu care refuzase sa se alature fortelor de ocupatie ruse care inabusisera ‘Primavara de la Praga’ pina in ’79 ne lamuriseram ce ii putea pielea. Iar bancurile pe care le spuneam despre el au reflectat foarte repede aceasta situatie.
Cu cativa ani inainte de ’89 incepuse sa umble un alt banc. Cica OD si SSS (Odiosul Dictator si Sinistra Sa Sotie, in termeni ‘post-revolutionari’ se duc intr-o croaziera prin Pacific (deja nu-i mai primea nimeni in vizite oficiale in afara de dictatori africani si asimilati). Vine o furtuna, voporul se scufunda (se apropia sfarsitul orinduirii) si cei doi, singurii supravietuitori, ajung pe o insula. Acolo era mare vanzoleala, mai erau cativa naufragiati si localnicii nu se purtau deloc frumos cu ei: cum ieseau din apa cum ii legau fedeles. Acelasi lucru li se intampla si lor, cu toate ca cereau de zor sa ‘fie tratati conform cu demnitatea lor de conducatori ai natiunii…’. Nu i-a bagat nimeni in seama. poate si pentru ca nu stiau sa vorbeasca nici o limba straina… Ii bagara intr-o groapa si ii lasara acolo cateva zile timp in care le-au dat din belsug de mancare si de baut. La un moment dat ii scot din groapa si ii duc in fata sefului de trib. ‘Buna ziua tov’ secretar!’ Lui Ceasca sa-i cada fata. ‘Bai eu am vost la vacultate, la Bucale, d-aia stiu limba voastra. Hai sa va explic. Noi suntem canibali. Singura voastra sansa este sa ne cereti ceva ce nu avem. Daca nu gasim ce ne cereti, scapati, daca nu… ceaunul va asteapta. Si nici nu prea aveti mari sanse. Uite scheletul ala de acolo e al unui rus care a cerut o racheta iar cel de dincolo al unui american care a vrut un satelit de spionaj.’ SSS incepe sa planga. El, ‘Stai draga linistita!’ si se intoarce catre seful de trib ‘Organizatie de baza aveti?’ (‘baza’ partidului, in fiecare intreprindere era cate cel putin o ‘celula’ din asta ‘de partid’). Seful de trib se innegreste la fata. ‘D-asta n-avem!’ ‘Nici de UTC?’ ‘Nu!’ ‘De sindicat, de pionieri, de FDUS (frontul democratiei si unitatii socialiste, ultima lui gaselnita politica)?’ ‘ (NU, n-auzi ca n-avem din astea?”Pai bine ma, partid nu, UTC nu, sindicat nu, atunci cine mama dracului v-a invatat sa va mancati intre voi?’
Cand a inceput chestia asta cu internetul si emailurile, acu vreo 10-12 ani, primeam tot felul de bancuri si pps-uri cu femei goale, masini de curse si excursii de vis. De cand a venit criza bancurile aproape au disparut iar pps-urile contineau invataturi filozofice sau sfaturi medicale. Abia de curand au inceput sa revina glumele bune si pps-rile ceva mai interesante.
Azi dimineata l-am primit pe asta:
“Vine revolutia in Romania si, de bucurie, incepe vulturul sa
zboare, sa faca picaje, lupinguri… Il vede vulpea:
– Auzi vulture ai innebunit ? ce te rupi asa in figuri?
Vulturul raspunde:
– Sora mea, acum e democratie.
Cum aude vulpea prinde ideea si incepe si ea sa alerge prin padure in zigzag,
sa se dea peste cap…
O vede ursul:
– Ce-ai fa te-ai imbolnavit ?
Vulpea:
– Ursuleee, nu simti, e democratie !!!
Aude ursul si spune:
– Asa? atunci ia vino tu incoa’!…
O prinde si o f*** bine. Pleaca vulpea
amarata cu coada-ntre picioare, se intalneste cu
vulturul si-i spune ce-a patit din cauza democratiei.
La care vulturul:
– Sora mea, democratia e aici sus. Jos e futere !!!!!!”
Eu cred ca e de bine, nu? Ca au reaparut bancurile, nu ca democratia este interpretata gresit!
nicichiarasa 