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
Google says it has a diameter 12 756.2 kilometers but this is not what I have in mind.
Size is always relative. You can either comprehend it – and then it matters to you – or not. And this is why you ignore it.
When we were monkeys – at least my forefathers were – ‘size’ didn’t have much meaning for us. We ate when hungry, soiled the earth when we felt like it – specially when we lived up in the trees – and when a specific place became too dirty, devoid of food or both we moved forward.
Then something happened. As we morphed from monkeys into apes our bodies grew so we could afford a bigger brain which enabled us to process an increased quantity of information – a big competitive advantage, until now at least. But it also meant we could not venture anymore on the topmost branches of the trees because they couldn’t support our increased weight. Suddenly our survival became linked with our ability to gauge the thickness of branches. Evaluating distances – between trees before a jump for instance – was important since the day we first climbed into a tree but at those times we did it ‘instinctively’; now, being helped by our now bigger brain, we started to become aware of the whole process.
Something else happened at about the same time. Because our body frame had become bigger we started to spend more and more time on the flat surface of the Earth – it was more efficient energy-wise and we could afford it because our increased mass meant better defenses. This way we started to perceive the world in a completely different way than we did when hanging from a limb.
Let me suggest you a small experiment. Climb into a swing and look around. As long as you remain still there is no difference but as soon as you start moving , in a way that comprises vertical and horizontal displacement, things look completely different. Before, when you stood still or moved horizontally, it was like the world stood still and it was you that moved inside it. You sense the motion with your internal ear but you evaluate the movements mostly by visually checking on ‘landmarks’, the things that surround you. When being caught up in more complex movements, like in a swing, the inner ear takes precedence over your eyes and you feel the movement more with ‘the seats of your pants’ than with your brain. (Btw, this is why sea sickness appears, your eyes tell you that you are standing still – if you are reading or something like that – while your inner ear tells you you are moving. Get on the deck and look at the horizon or at the waves, this way your eyes will confirm to your brain that ‘yes, we are moving’.)
And all this has immense consequences. When we were moving from a branch to another we sort of lived in a bubble we carried around with us while when moving on a surface we feel ‘naked’ and, as a consequence, we pay a lot more attention to what is happening around us. That includes becoming aware of the dimensions of the things that surround us. This way we found out that falling from the top of a tree is completely different than jumping from the lowest branch and that if we cross that creek in search of ripe figs our chances to encounter that rival troop of baboons increase dramatically. So we became aware not only of dimensions but also of boundaries and consequences.
We were one step away from becoming conscious. That happened when we felt, instinctively at first, that being sheltered from the elements is better than weathering them. So we came back to the shelter, night after night. Until the place became unusable because we had soiled it ourselves with our excrements. And this is how we had the first inkling about being responsible for the consequences of our own actions.
Unfortunately our understanding of this is still incomplete. First of all because our cognitive capacity is inherently limited, secondly because most of the time we rationalize instead of behaving rationally and thirdly because, until now at least, we could get away with it. The world was big enough.
At first we moved from place to place, as hunter-gatherers and later as nomadic pastoralists.
When we invented agriculture there were enough forests to burn down if we needed more land.
When things became ‘hot’ in Europe we started to conquer the other continents. Even now the misfits, the adventurous and the malcontents move around the face of the Earth even if confronted with great personal risks.
But how long will we be able to continue like this? Pollution, scattering of natural resources, soil erosion due to agribusiness, deforestation, overfishing… will be considered jokes by the next generations if we continue on the current track.
In fact our main problem is the way we treat our ‘neighbor’. Not only that we haven’t fully understood yet that by throwing ‘garbage’ indiscriminately around us we are polluting our very front yard and the stench is already creeping into our bedrooms but we also hadn’t understood yet that by constantly alienating the ‘guy next door’ we’ll end up living in a world too close to a SF/dystopian prison-planet for our comfort.
I’m speaking here about corruption in it’s many forms: political, economical, moral…
An excellent definition of populism:
So what do we have here?
135 000, and growing, people gathered to convince a government to take action against an individual who isn’t breaking any law!
Does this seem right to you?
To me it doesn’t!
Let me explain myself. First of all I don’t think that hunting for sport makes any sense. One could stalk wild animals armed with a camera instead of a gun. But this is my opinion and just as I don’t like others to impose their opinions on me I don’t try to impose my opinions on others. So as long as the hunted animals do not belong to any of the endangered species and the hunt is organised legally…
And if my argument seems lame to you what if I start a petition against eating flesh? Or against vegan-ism? Why? Just because I have this notion that eating flesh (or not eating any) is bad for you….and that I have a responsibility to bring you back on the right track!
Ultimele cateva zile au fost destul de nasoale.
Eu criza de lumbago, fi-miu a facut o entorsa la incheietura mainii stangi…
Planuiam un post despre “Tatuca la Romani” dar nu am apucat sa-l scriu.
Acum cinci minute am deschis mailul. Iata ce am gasit:
Ţara de pripas
de Alexandru VLAHUȚĂ
(1858-1919)
Un vechi tolbaş de vorbe late,
Om norocos din cale-afară,
S-a pomenit pe neaşteptate
Stăpân peste întreaga ţară.
Din ea-şi făcu o prăvălie,
Şi ca un negustor de treabă,
Pentru ca-n lume să se ştie,
Prinse-a striga de la tarabă
Poftiţi aici! Oricine are
Obrazul fără de ruşine
Ş-o conştiinţă de vânzare…
Poftiţi să faceţi târg cu mine!
Prostie, lene, linguşire,
Eu cumpăr tot. Veniţi aici!
Şi cei mai nărăviţi din fire
Mi-or fi tovarăşi şi amici.
Eu dau tot felul de noroace,
Căci sunt atoateţiitorul,
Măriri, averi… Să vie-ncoace
Toţi trântorii ce le duc dorul!…
Aşa, sunt zece ani de când
Pe norocosul negustor
Îl auzim mereu strigând,
Şi muşteriii vin de zor.
În zece ani ce de-a lingăi
Nu se văzură-n slujbe mari,
Câţi oameni fără căpătâi
N-ajunseră milionari!
Veniţi şi voi, străini calici,
Şi strângeţi tot ce-a mai rămas!…
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ce să mai faci? Ce să mai zici?
Sărmană ţară de pripas!
Vlahuta…..cel mai tare vizionar….nu?”
Am raspuns instantaneu:
“Nu este vorba de vizionarism aici ci de defetism.
Alde ‘Vlahuta’ s-au resemnat inainte de a incepe lupta…
Asta este si motivul pentru care Eminescu a innebunit, Caragiale a plecat la Berlin si ne-a lasat in mizeria noastra, Arghezi a capitulat pana la urma, Constantin Tanase, Pastorel Teodoreanu si Lucretiu Patrascanu au fost omorati fara ca aceste lucruri sa starneasca vreo reactie din partea oamenilor…
Iar defetismul asta este si motivul pentru care alde Carol II, Ceausescu, Iliescu si Basescu si-au putut face mendrele…”
Dupa care m-am gandit sa verific daca nu cumva poezia o fi apocrifa. Cica nu, chiar Vlahuta a scris-o.
Acum am alta problema.
E clar ca interesul starnit de aceasta poezie regasita (dati o data un click pe link-ul asta) inseamna ceva. Macar pentru cei de-acum.
L-am acuzat degeaba pe Vlahuta? El vroia sa isi traga contemporanii de maneca iar ei au ales sa doarma in continuare?
PS. “Straini calici” poate parea, cel putin la o analiza superficiala, un indemn la xenofobie.
Nu cred ca la asta se referea Vlahuta dupa cum nici aparentul dispret la adresa ‘bulgaroilor cu ceafa groasa’ nu este o dovada convingatoare ca Eminescu ar fi fost sovin.
In situatia asta ‘Strain’ inseamna mai degraba persoana aflata in afara circuitului economic firesc, individ care incearca sa profite de o anumita situatie fara ca el sa contribuie cu ceva. Adica vrea sa ia parte la ‘imparteala’ fara ca inainte sa fi pus osul la treaba!
“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?

