Everything flows and nothing abides.
“Only a dead fish flows with the river”
A dead fish is ‘flowed’ by the river.
Flowing with the river is a choice!
‘Give me the power to change what needs to be changed, the power to accept what needs to be accepted and the wisdom to choose between them‘.
Taking and managing risk is also an acquired skill.
Like riding a bike or swimming in the sea.
Only nowadays the key word is safety. Safety, not safety net.
We are taught to avoid risk, at all costs, instead of how to lend a helping hand towards the fallen ones.
This is why we pay lip service to entrepreneurship but despise failure… as if it were possible to have one without the other.
‘Now, that you’ve reached your personal pinnacle, which do you think is more important?
Setting the right goal for yourself or reaching it by keeping on the ‘straight and narrow’?’
Well, staying on the straight and narrow is a goal in itself…
The way you put it, you’re asking me to determine which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Neither.
Evolution came first. At some point reached the ‘chicken and egg’ stage then went forward to giving birth to living offspring.
Same thing here.
Life is opportunistic. Setting goals and following rules is OK, as long as you keep an open mind about things. Keep your eyes wide open yet fully aware that nothing is exactly as it looks like.
The only legitimate long term goal is ‘sustainable survival’. The rest are nothing but ‘staging posts’.
In order to be able to do something – anything – you need to be alive. And kicking!
In order to stay alive, you need to make as little damage as you go along. To yourself – as a living organism – and to the environment in which you live. To the natural environment each living organism depends on and to the social environment which allows us, human beings, to maintain and develop our human-ness. Our capacity to generate meaning by making successive decisions.
How to achieve this meta-goal?
By following the common sense rules which become apparent as we go forward in time. Which become evident as long as we keep our eyes open….
“Behold, the man has become as one of Us,
to know good and evil.
And now,
lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life,
and eat and live for ever:
Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken.“
Tradition is a collection of knowledge. Which has been agglutinating in time and is used as a ‘benchmark’ by the currently living keepers of the relevant tradition.
‘Relevant’ in the sense that not everything which is still remembered continues to be useful.
Functionally speaking, tradition is both a filter we use to interpret the reality and a guide we use when shaping future action. And we use it simply because the alternative would be to start from scratch whenever we see anything or have to do something. Like a child learning to walk and speak.
Like a child who keeps saying ‘what is this and why do I have to…’
We get many of those answers from the traditions passed over by our ancestors. Without these traditions we would be like a lonely child. A collective child who keeps asking for direction but who gets no answer. Because there’s no one around to answer…
Ideology is also a collection of knowledge. Which has been put together, edited or both at the same time by an ideologue. Or group of ideologues.
Psychologically speaking, ideology and tradition work in the same way. Both as a filter used when interpreting reality and as a guide for future action.
But there are some differences.
Tradition has been vetted by evolution.
Individual traditions have evolved themselves. No modern Jew would ever consider stoning to death “a woman who had been caught in adultery”. Even if this used to be the biblical standard punishment for such a transgression…
Some traditions have disappeared altogether. Because, at some point, they had ceased to be relevant. Their teachings were no longer helpful… At some point, those who were living in those traditions had understood, one way or another, that their particular tradition was suggesting an interpretation of reality which was … wrong! So wrong/useless that the entire tradition had to be abandoned. Like the Egyptian pyramids.
Other traditions are still alive today. Because at least parts of them continue to be relevant for those who keep them. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth”.
In fact, what we call ‘modern civilization’ is based entirely upon this particular piece of tradition.
We’ve built it together, as children of the same father. We’ve been building it under the authority of the said father, who had given us dominion over everything which was moving under the sun. And the fact that we considered ourselves to be the children of the same father – siblings, hence equals – has given birth to the very notion of human rights.
Ideology, on the other hand, is still fresh. Some of it might make it, some of it might break us.
The bible itself has been nothing more but a piece of ideology. When it was written…
The fact that those who had been inspired by the bible have survived, as a flock, for so long is a strong suggestion that the biblical tradition has been useful. That, overall, the suggestions derived by the ‘keepers’ from this particular tradition have helped them in their quest.
Other ideologies have been less successful…
Communism, for instance.
On the face of it, the communist ideology is a continuation of the christian tradition. People are to be considered equals, resources are to be shared among the members of the community… what more can you wish?
Well, it didn’t work out that way. It actually failed. Abysmally. I know, I’ve been there myself.
I’m not going to delve into why some ideologies work – and live to become traditions – while others fail.
I’m not God, I don’t know everything.
What is plainly visible, for those who want to see, is that authoritarianism – under any ideological pretext – is doomed to fail. This being the reason for which God – or the wise guy who wrote that passage – had banned Man from the garden of Eden. An immortal man would stick to his convictions until it would be too late. Until the heaven would had fallen upon his shoulders….
I cannot end this before sharing with you what prompted me to write it.
The goal of Hamas – ideologically shaped and ideologically imposed upon its followers, regardless of any of the circumstances – is to destroy the state of Israel and to replace it with an islamic state. Is there a ‘promise’ about how people will live once that islamic state would be imposed? Except that they will have to obey?
The goal stated by the communist ideology was equality! Not people’s happiness or anything like that. The way to obtain that goal was a continuous revolution. A sort of jihad, if you will…
Now look at what Hamas has accomplished. At what Marx’s communists had accomplished…
Choose wisely.
‘Cause each of us is born into a tradition. Into a particular tradition…
But ideology is something that each of us chooses. And can give up!
Pe bune?!?
Sună bine, nu? Cel puțin la prima strigare…
Daca stăm să ne gândim un pic… Drepți, ca să nu ne doară spatele!
Rabdarea soției e de-a dreptul inutilă, DACĂ se întâmpla ca soțul să fie prea înțelept. Sunt cazuri, chiar dacă foarte rare… Și pentru ca ‘use it or lose it’ – adică orice însușire/abilitate dispare dacă nu este folosită la justa valoare, răbdarea aia va dispărea în timp. Cu atât mai repede cu cât soțul este mai înțelept!
Pe de altă parte, o soție cu adevărat răbdătoare va reuși să scoată tot ce e mai rău din cel mai înțelept bărbat din lume.
‘Cel mai înțelept bărbat din lume’ este un superlativ relativ. Este vorba doar despre cel mai înțelept bărbat disponibil pe Pământ la un anumit moment! În nici un caz despre bărbatul perfect…
Dacă cel mai înțelept bărbat din lume are o probabilitate de 1 la 4 miliarde, bărbatul înțelept, la modul absolut, este un personaj imaginar!
Use it or lose it e valabilă, evident, și pentru înțelepciunea relativă… Mai ales că ‘înțelepciunea’ are prostul obicei de a i se urca înțeleptului la cap! Tocmai pentru că este ‘relativă’. Răbdarea… mai greu! Nu te laudă nimeni…pentru cât de mult ești în stare să rabzi…
Așa că… Bărbatul să fie cât de înțelept poate el iar femeia să facă bine să nu-i rabde prea multe!
Doar că femeia ar fi bine să fie ea suficient de înțeleaptă încât să-l ia cu frumosu’ pe ‘deșteptul ei’ în desele cazuri când n-o să-l ducă mintea…
Why does Marxism still exist when it clearly doesn’t work?
Marxism still works…
Marxism is a dogma. Despite everything pretended by marxists, marxism – as an ideology – is an article of faith. And as long as there are believers who continue to promote a faith, any faith, that faith continues to survive. To work…
On the other hand, there is a non-ideological side of marxism. A pre-ideological component, if you will.
The analysis made by Marx before reaching his conclusion. Before reaching the conclusion that communism is ‘the answer’…
The analysis was correct. Furthermore, even some of his predictions had been right. Our current obsession, induced by Milton Friedman, with profit as the ultimate goal of human activity has led us into an impasse.
But Marx’s solution – to a very accurately defined problem – was an abject failure. Communism was a failure. Each and every time!
But marxism still works… We, some of us, continue to believe according to this ideology…
Life and death are two strange words. Very different yet they describe the very same thing.
If you think of it, death and life are like the faces of a coin.
After all, the exclusive qualification for being able to die is to have been born… And it’s only us, languaging rational beings, who make the difference between living and dying. At the conceptual level, of course.
OK, many others are capable of making the functional distinction between a corpse and a living body. We are impressed by the mourning behavior displayed by the elephants, for example. And even more so by the chimpanzee mothers who continue to carry the bodies of their deceased babies…
But since we are the only species – known to us, humans – who uses language to relate to each-other, to think about the world and to plan ahead, I’m going to discuss here only the languaging/reasoning aspects of us making the difference between life and death.
By making this difference we actually separate the inseparable. With momentous consequences. For us – individual human beings, for the species as a whole, for the rest of the species and for the rest of the world. The world as we know it…
The origin of this difference is our conscience. Which is sophisticated enough to be able to make it and to talk/think about it. The elephants are also conscient enough to act upon the difference between a living body and a corpse. To recognize the skeleton of a deceased relative. To remember it. But, at least apparently, they are not able to speak about the whole thing. Nor to transmit over generations that those particular bones belonged to a particular individual who had been related to … As soon as all individuals who had directly known the deceased individual, all information about the identity of the corpse/skeleton are lost. For a while, the survivors remember only the fact that their ‘mothers’ used to ‘mourn’ over this particular set of bones but nothing more. Again, this is what we know, now, about the manner in which the elephants treat their dead.
Which is very different from how we treat ours. And from how we relate to matters pertaining to life and death.
We cherish life and we dread death.
We cherish our lives and we dread our death. Ours and that of our (cherished) relatives and friends.
And we are somewhat indifferent to the lives of others… To the tune of being able to dispatch animals, and plants, for food. And to kill other human beings. In war but not exclusively.
Țiganii printre care am crescut în Giulești aveau o vorbă.
„Nu te hândi în bătătură că-ți intră muștele-n casă!”
Adică ‘Ai grijă la ce faci că și tu vei suferi consecințele!’
(Pentru cei nefamiliarizați cu lexicul din mahalalele bucureștene, hândelul – produsul hândirii – este unul dintre cele două personaje din celebra interogație filozofică „De ce trage musca la ‘hândel’?”)
Conștientizarea consecințelor produse de propriile acțiuni asupra propriei sorți este una dintre caracteristicile aristocrației. Aristocrației ca stare de spirit…
După cum am aflat la lecțiile de istorie, aristocrația – ca clasă politică – a dat-o în bară!
Și atunci? De unde admirația produsă de orice urmă de ‘comportament aristocratic’?
Tocmai din cauza faptului că aristocrații veritabili înțeleseră subtilitățile conceptului de karma.
Înțeleseseră că tot ce aveau – de la mâncarea de pe masă până la mătăsurile de pe spinare – trecuse prin mâinile țăranilor care le munceau pământurile.
Iar aristocrația – ca organizare socială – a dispărut abia odată cu dispariția legăturii directe dintre aristocrați și pământurile/țăranii lor. Odată cu apariția arendașilor. Din cauza cărora Maria Antoaneta i-a îndemnat pe țăranii morți de foame să mănânce „brioșă”. Din cauza căror arendași – interesați doar de profitul pe termen scurt, Maria Antoaneta – quintesența aristocrației momentului, ajunsese, efectiv, să nu știe pe ce lume trăia!
Revenim la zilele și la oile noastre.
Suntem deja în fața consecințelor.
Consecințele modului în care funcționăm ca societate.
Consecințele modului în care este colectat și distribuit bugetul consolidat al Romaniei.
Care buget este atât de dezechilibrat încât matușa Europa a zis că ne taie banii de buzunar dacă nu facem un pic de ordine. În ograda proprie, așa cum considerăm noi. Bugetul să fie, cât de cât, echilibrat!
Drept pentru care guvernul a luat măsuri.
Care măsuri favorizează partea de colectare și pretind că fac economii pe partea de cheltuieli. Doar că pensiile speciale rămân exagerat de mari – și pot fi cumulate în continuare, între ele și cu un eventual salariu. Nu doar că rămân mari ci rămân pur și simplu. Cum ar fi, de exemplu, ca pensiile speciale agonisite de Buzatu – proaspat arestat cu mita în portbagaj, să fie suspendate odată cu arestarea? Și anulate odată cu eventuala condamnare? Dacă e nevinovat, să-i dea banii înapoi…
Cum ar fi ca măsurile de economisire a banilor de la buget să includă și o readucere la normal a numărului de funcții bine plătite din aparatul de stat? Reforma administrativă, simplificarea și comasarea agențiilor care se calca pe picioare, etc., etc…
Si atunci? Ce înțeleg eu din toată tevatura asta?
Cei aflați la putere au înțeles – măcar la nivel declarativ, că ‘așa nu se mai poate’. Adică au devenit aristocrați. Au început să înțeleagă că își furau creanga de sub picioare. Și au început să-și dezavueze colegii corupți.
Dar încă nu sunt dispuși să meargă mai departe. Să rezolve cu adevărat problema.
Să echilibreze bugetul prin eliminarea căpușelor instituționale.
Adică au devenit aristocrați doar pe jumătate. Conștienți de faptul că acțiunile lor vor avea consecințe, încearcă să prevină aceste consecințe folosind, în paralel, o serie de măsuri populiste. Reduceri de posturi vacante, creșteri de taxe pentru corporatii și pentru cei avuți dar fără să renunțe la prilegiile proprii. Mai ales la privilegiul de a ocupa, ei împreună cu rudele și prietenii lor, tot felul de slujbe plătite gras, și pensionate la fel de gras, din bugetul echilibrat prin creșterea taxelor. Creștere insuficientă de altfel…
Cu alte cuvinte, proaspeții aristocrați se comportă de parcă ar fi luat statul în arendă.
Nu-l mai fură pe față.
Doar îl căpușează cu acte-n regulă!
Dintre toate ambalajele menționate mai sus, pungile de plastic sunt cele mai greu de reciclat.
Cele mai ușor luate de vânt.
Și cele mai ușor de înlocuit.
Dacă ne-ar păsa cu adevărat – de locul în care vor trăi nepoții noștri – n-ar trebui să ne pună nimeni.
N-ar trebui să ne pună nimeni să redescoperim sticla. Sticla de lapte – pe care să o umplem la dozatorul de lapte, sticla de ulei – pe care să o umplem la dozatorul de ulei… Sticle pe care să le spălăm și pe care să le refolosim.
Sticlele de lapte și bere, borcanele de iaurt, hârtia cerată pentru mezeluri, brânză și carne, punga de hârtie pentru fructe și legume… și sacoșa pentru dus toate astea acasă!
Da’ noi suntem ocupați cu alte alea!
În loc să gândim cu capetele noastre, citim tot felul de trăznăi pe internet!
După care le dăm mai departe…
nicichiarasa 