Ko je dobar?

Da li smo dovoljno dobri? Dobri prema Drugom (Drugima).Gledam samo svoju decu.Čini mi se često da nisu dovoljno dobra (A znam,na primer, da su sigurno mnogo bolja od mene ili,šta već znam koga Drugog). Kako da čovek proceni ko je dovoljno dobar i da li je sam dovoljno dobar?

Često se prave periodizacije u skladu sa biblijskim konceptom - starozavetno,novozavetno doba,budući vek itd. Čini mi se da je malo kasno da budemo dobri.Novozavetni čovek je trebalo da bude dobar.Današnji izgleda da treba da bude odgovoran.Dobrota kao da se podrazumeva,kao da je već davno (ili je trebalo da bude) apsolvirana.Možda bi to mogao da bude nekakav odgovor na večno pitanje ETIKE koje sam stavio kao naslov.(takodje, treba pogledati Biblija,NZ,Mt.19:17)

Une conversation familiere

Hier soir j'ai discute du football avac mon fils,Ivan."Partizan"/Belgrade/, sa equipe, s'est montre capable de la Ligue de champions et mon fils etait tres heareuax pour cela.Je me suis mis a reflechir un peu apres cette converssation.On oublie de tous.J'ai appercu qu'il ne se souvenait pas da sa grande tristesse apres le 'match' de notre equipe nationalle contre la meme d'Aistralie @Mondo 2010.Et quelles sont les consequences.Une nouvelle grande expectation et une nouvelle plus grande desillusion.Trop d'esperance et,en effet,un peu plaisir /selon moi,bien sur/.N'est-ce pas qu'il faudrai faire usage de ses emotion,energie et,a la fin, le temps aux choses les plus certaines.
Apres tous, j'ai panse au livre de Descartes: "Les passions de l'ame".

Pitanje ličnog identiteta.

"Pitanja su svakako veoma stara ("Šta je Ja?" i "Ko sam Ja?"), a danas se smatra da za njihovim poreklom treba tragati u "istočnoj i zapadnoj cicilizaciji" koje su davale odgovore na njih prvo magijskim pa onda religijskim i filosofskim sredstvima, a tek u naše dane psiholozi počinju da se bave njima.Filosofi starog sveta su postavili pitanja: "Gde sam ja?", "Šta je čovek?".To znači da su veoma stara, ali tek u nedavnoj prošlosti je rečeno da su odgovori promašivali cilj,tako da Kasirer uočava "krizu čovekova znanja o sebi".M.Hajdeger govori i "zaboravljenom biću", a Jung nalazi da je savremeni zapadni čovek postao stranac samom sebi.Na istoj strani je i Viktor Frankl koji veli da je uzor prema kome su se ljudi isprva uobličavali bio njihov tvorac, tako da je poistovećivanje s jednim uzorom omogućavalo učvršćivanje zamisli o jedinstvu,međutim novo doba stvorilo je uverenje kod ljudi da su oni tvorci koji su uobličeni prema liku svoje tvorevine - u novije vreme to je mašina".( B.Popović,esej u Zborniku Instituta za pedagoška istaživanja,god.1983.)

U nastavku taksta nailazimo i na sledeći pasus: "Zapadni čovek je svojim opisanim ponašanjem sveo vrednost Jastva na nulu,kaže Jung, iz čega sledi da je omalovažio dušu i sveukupnost.Prema istočnim zamislima iza suprotnosti i u suprotnostima leži prava stvarnost koja obuhvata celinu - Indusi je zovu Atman, a mi možemo reći, piše Jung, da je to kao kada bismo kazali: 'Ja sam taj kroz koga govore dobro i zlo', jedno koje sam Ja govori kroz mene'.To je Atman ili 'nešto što diše kroz mene,dah koji provejava'.Samo, nije reč samo o dahu koji teče kroz mene,nego kroz sve, što znači da nemamo posla sa individualnim Atmanom, nago sa Atmanom Puruša - univerzalnim Atmanom,Pneumom, koja nadahnjuje svakoga. Zbog toga Jung ponavlja: 'Mi na Zapadu koristimo se izrazom Jastvo i stavljamo ga spram "malog Ja", jer Jastvo ne obuhvata samo svesno Ja, nego i ostale delove i uz to Jastvo nije jedino "u meni već u svim bićima" u vidu Atmana ili Tao-a.Jastvo je,dakle, psihička sveukupnost".

Traži se!

Ovo je (slika desno) jedan cenovnik kafea Saint-Clair u kome sam se hranio negde u leto 1985.g.i bio je na adresi 1,Avenue du General Leclerc u XIV arondismanu,PARIZ.Tog kafea na istom mestu više nema već se tu nalazi neki drugi lokal, pa neki restoran "Indijana"itd.Ako neko zna nešto više o sudbini kafea Le Saint-Clair neka to napiše u komentaru posta.Unapred hvala.

Radio Beograd, III Program

Na tribini III Programa Radio Beograda (decembar 1984.g.) govorili su Radoman Kordić, Vladeta Jerotić, Gvozden Flego ,Žarko Trebješanin i Slavoj Žižek.Tema je bila "Nagon smrti i druga topika",dakle Sigmund Frojd.Posle Radomana Kordića u razgovor se uključio doktor Slavoj Žižek.

"Ja bih samo dodao dve napomene.Prvo,kad govorimo o nagonu smrti, naravno, prva asocijacija je nagon,instinkt,nešto biološko.Zato bi ovde trebalo raščistiti stvari.Mislim da je bitno da čitamo ove Frojdove tekstove,takozvane tekstove druge topike,tekstove preloma dvadesetih godina,iz perspektive tekstova desetih godina,pre svega "Uvodjenje narcizma",onda "Nagoni i sudbina nagona".Jedino ako tako čitamo tekstove dvadesetih godina,možemo da izbegnemo biologističku zamku.Jer,šta nam kaže tekst kakav je "Nagoni i sudbina nagona?".Tamo je eksplicitno kazano da to što Frojd naziva Trieb nije ništa biološko - to je nešto čemu je objekat sasvim indiferentan, nešto što je odredjeno celim sklopom gramatikalnih,označilačkih naddeterminacija,nešto što nema nikakvog biološkog ritma,itd. Znači, nešto što je sasvim neuporedivo sa nečim što bi bilo smisleno nazvati biološki nagon,instinkt.I na osnovu toga treba onda čitati tekstove dvadesetih godina o nagonu smrti i nagonu života.

Druga napomena - veza izmedju nagona smrti i simbolizacije.Kod Lakana stvari su zanimljivo dvoznačne.Iako sad ne govorimo o Lakanu, već o Frojdu, ipak to napominjem da bi se videla ova dvoznačnost koja postoji zapravo već kod Frojda i prenosi se na Lakana.Naime, klasična Lakanova teza je da imamo Lustprinzip, imaginarno područje doživljenog, subjektivne homeostaze, a simbolizacija znači intervenciju nečeg što narušava ovu homeostazu principa zadovoljstva, nekog slepog automatizma s one strane principa zadovoljstva."

VideoJug

VideoJug

How Can I Make A Good First Impression? (Creative & Culture: Communication Skills)

How Can I Make A Good First Impression? (Creative & Culture: Communication Skills)

"Handpresso" Mobile Espresso Machine : DigInfo

Egocentrizam moderne

"Dekartova metafizika subjektivnosti je,za mene, pre svega reakcija na sholastičke poglede na isti problem (problem položaja subjekta) i logičan zavešetak ideje sistematski zastupane i razvijane u doba humanizma (Pico dela Mirandola,Vives,G.Bruno i drugi).Zatim su došli "prosvetitelji"(Volter i ostali),pa Kant i Fihte itd.Subjekt u filosofiji postaje sve moćniji i, rekao bih, pretenciozniji.Celu stvar su pomalo (ali bitno)korigovali Levinas,Fuko i Ž.Derida.Od subjekta se traži da poštuje Drugo(Drugog),marginu diskursa,razliku i - ne treba da bude LOGOCENTRIČAN (egocentričan)
U oblasti psihologije (i na njenim marginama,mislim na filosofiju)skrenuo bih pažnju u vezi ove teme na radove Margarete Donaldson i T.Nejdžela.Evo jednog citata koji govori,čini mi se,o istom (i to daleko bolje od mene):
"Levinas's dispute with modernity is unmistakable,if not always worked out in great detail.Confronted by Kant's moral philosophy, for instance, he objects to the way in which religious transcendence - or what he prefers to call "infinity" - appears only as an "ideal of reason", thus defined in function of human finitude as "a projection of its exigencies in a beyond, the completion of what is given incomplete..."Against this Levinas insists on the revers order of analysis,such that it must be the idea of infinity which defines human finitude,and not the contrary.If is in this line,then,that he defines his ethical subject not by the ideal of autonomy but by the sheer fact of an original and irrecusable heteronomy.The argument in support of this claim is dialectical,appearing first to cede to the position of his opponent,only to reverse it by uncovering a still deeper,opposed phenomenological datum.This movement is plainly evident in 'Totality and Infinity': Levinas approaches human life beginning from a tension observed between the individual relation with the other person which that very self-concern seems to resist or even to exclude.But even as he thus seems to concede that we do indeed relate first to ourselves, he remains a virulent opponent of any claim for the primacy of the individual person,subject,or self.The central claim is well known: before,during,and after anything which I do for myself,there is this other person, whose presence alone therefore gives such acts a meaning which is ethical.Accordingly,it will have been the moral failure of Western thought to have overlooked or even to have closed itself to that deeper relation,with the result that we its progeny comfortably assume ourselves to be the origin of our acts and the center of our worl."Jeffrey Bloechl in C.E.Katz "E.Levinas: Beyond Levinas"p.32.

Melodia Relax

U potrazi za izgubljenim vremenom

Karl May's villa Shatterhand



Erich Fromm

"Freudova metoda, psihoanaliza, omogućila je najtočnije i najdublje proučavanje duše. »Laborato rij« analitičara nije imao nikakvih naprava. On ne može mjeriti ili brojiti svoje nalaze, ali kroz snove, maštanja i asocijacije dobiva uvid u skrivene želje i tjeskobe svojih pacijenata. Oslanjajući se samo na promatranje, um i svoje vlastito iskustvo kao ljudskog bića, on u svom »laboratoriju« otkriva da se duševna bolest ne može razumjeti ako je odvojimo od moralnih problema; da je njegov pacijent bolestan zato jer je zanemario potrebe svoje duše. Analitičar nije ni teolog ni filozof i ne polaže pravo na nadležnost na tim poljima, ali se kao liječnik duše bavi potpuno istim problemima kao i filozofija i teologija: dušom čovjeka i njezinim liječenjem".E.Fromm

Psihoanaliza najčešće ide unazad tragajući za nekim "zarobljenim" vremenom koje treba "osloboditi" i to je put ozdravljenja.Sinoć me je jedna emisija na pariskoj TV Arte vratila malo unazad.Malo?Negde oko četrdesetak godina, ako to može biti malo.Bilo je to vreme kada sam kupovao KOLOYS žvake pakovane sa sličicama za album WINNETOU,/vidi gore klip sa JuTjuba/, western priči Karla May-a.I to bi bilo to.

Kako neurotičar doživljava vreme

"U svim trima slučajevima (tri oblika neuroze - opsesivna,depresivna,melanholija),rekao bih,cilj psihoterapeuta bio bi da neurotičara kojega leči prevede iz kružnog doživljavanja vremena u linearno,jer u kružnom doživljavanju vremena ranijih,prehrišćanskih kultura, vremena ili nije bilo uopšte, ili se doživljavalo kao vraćanje istog, ili je vreme bilo večita sadašnjost, dakle upravo kao što neki naši neurotičari to doživljavaju.Istorijski narodi postali su istorijski onda kada je vreme počelo da se doživljava linearno-evolutivno, sa zamišljenim početkom u vremenu i sigurnim krajem u smrti, opet u vremenu, upravo onako kako evropski istorijski čovek doživljava svoj život. Biti neurotičan,dakle,pokazuje se kao, biti nesavremen, još više, znači biti arhaičan i živeti u nevremenu mita,živeti aistorijski.Neurotičar, jednom rečju, beži od odgovornosti vremena koje traje,koje ispunjava zrelu individuu doživljajem prošlosti,sadašnjosti i budućnosti; on hoće da "odstrani" vreme, čak da uništi vreme,vraćajući ga na mitski prototip neopozive sudbine u kojoj sloboda i lična odgovornost nemaju šta da traže.Ako je ovako mitsko doživljavanje vremena kod starih,tzv.primitivnih naroda nosilo još punoću bića i to u doživljaju zajednice i svega što se u njoj zbivalo, punoću koja je sadržavala kosmički doživljaj svepovezanosti i duboku veru u vodjstvo ljudi od strane viših sila,od pre dve hiljade godina, sa postepenim razvojem ličnosti i slobodom za i od, čovek je dospevao u analitičku fazu rascepljenosti koja je pružila dovoljno prilika za razvoj neuroze.Biti neurotičan ne može danas biti isto kao pre dve hiljade godina; takvog pojma, uostalom, tada nije ni bilo.Biti neurotičan,danas,anahronizam je koji se plaća ne više blaženošću pripadanja Celini,nego patnjom saznanja o svojoj usamljenosti."-(Dr.Jerotić Vladeta: "Psihološko i religiozno biće čoveka","Doživljaj vremena u psihoanalizi i u analitički orijentisanoj psihoterapiji", str.36-37)
I ovom prilikom želim da uvažim "duhovni napor" doktora Jerotića da neke,možda, teže razumljive stvari (kao što je na primer neuroza - naurotičnost) približi i objasni kao i da skrene pažnju na vrlo složena filosofska pitanja o prirodi vremena i, na primer, suštine svesti i njene egzistencije u vremenu i sl.Mislim da je jasno da je kod neurotočara najveći deo problema u zakočenosti emocija,blokiranosti doživljaja(ako mogu tako da se izrazim), pa zato takav čovek jednostavno nema pravi,zdrav osećaj za vreme (a takodje ni za prostor).Njegova duša (posle stresnog dogadjaja - doživljaja) nije više zdrava,celovita,ili da kažem u onom "full" stanju u kojem emocije mogu ispravno da vrše svoje funkcije i umu šalju prave informacije (npr.o vremenu i prostoru).Jerotić takodje pominje jedan lep psihološki momenat (nazovimo ga laički tako) - kosmički doživljaj svepovezanosti.Moja prva asocijacija je (šta mislite?) - Internet.

Donald.W.Winnicott /1896 - 1971/

"Ako do ovog gubitka dodje (gubitka nežnosti i ljubavi) pre nego što dete postane ličnost,dolazi do infantilne shizofrenije, neorganskih mentalnih poremećaja,nastaju preduslovi za kasnije kliničke poremećaje.Ako gubitak ljubavi izazove traumu kod bića koje je već dovoljno razvijeno da može biti traumatizovano,stvaraju se preduslovi za patološke poremećaje i antisocijalno ponašanje.Ako se to desi u periodu kada date izgradjuje svoju nezavisnost,dolazi do patološke zavisnosti,patološkog oponiranja i napada besa" (R.Zazo,"Poreklo čovekove osećajnosti",esej D.Anzijea,"Koža: od zadovoljstva do misli")
prelazni objekti (isto D.Winnicott)
"Prostor odustva može ispuniti jedino misao.Stvaranju misli kod malog deteta neophodna je podrška nekog odredjenog predmeta,koji time postaje zamena prisustva.Važnost koju odojče i dete često pridaju izvesnim predmetima posredan je,ali rečit dokaz koliko su za njih prekid prisustva i udaljavanja značajni.Želja,patnja,suprotstavljanje deteta ne mogu da se spreče udaljavanjem voljenih bića.Ali neki predmet iz njihovog prisustva može da se zadrži nezavisno od njihovog kretanja;ta stvar je prvo materijalna zamena,nosilac značenja i slika, a kasnije je samo slika i mentalno podsećanje.Taj predmet ima moć da uspostavi prisustvo u odsustvu.Tako se otvaraju vrata imaginarnog: namesto sigurnosti ,može da iskrsne opasnost;sadašnjost je kratkotrajna, a budućnost neizvesna.
Od doživljavanja do predvidjanja,razdvajanja,pasivna patnja deteta se pretvara u bojazan i nespokojstvo,vezane za razne oblike udaljavanja onih koje voli,čije prisustvo, a zatim samo postojanje, predstavljaju uslov sigurnosti.Predstave razdvajanja mogu da se odnose na prostor; u tom slučaju je ono simbolizovano pokretima i pomeranjem; strah od pada, strah da će se izgubiti, strah od otimanja.Ove slike se mogu odnositi i na vreme: to je anksiozno očekivanje povratka dragih osoba ili strah od njihove smrti.Razdvajanje može takodje da se pripisuje postupcima ili namerama tih lica: to je strah od napuštanja izazvan predstavom loših roditelja." (M.Zlotovec: "Strahovi kod dece",str.36)
"When symbolism is employed the infant is already clearly distinguishing between fantasy and fact,between inner objects and external objects,between primary creativity and perception.But the term transitional object, according to my suggestion,gives room for the process of becoming able to accept defference and similarity.I think there is use for a term for the root of symbolism in time, a term that describes the infant's journey from the purely subjective to objectivity; and it seems to me that the transitional object /piece of blanket,etc./ is what we see of this journey of progress towards experiencing."/D.Winnicot,"Playing and reality", - google.books/

Afektivno vezivanje

"Problem veze sa drugim čovekom je bez sumnje jedan od najvažnijih u razmišljanju o čoveku.Tokom vremena, proučavanje ove veze razvilo se u dva glavna smera.Najpre se postavlja problem porekla ove veze: da li je ona inherentna čovekovoj prirodi, da li čovek teži ovaj vezi s drugim usled jedne prvobitne,osnovne potrebe ili je, pak, ova potreba vezivanja za drugog stečena u toku ontogeneze, pa se jedinka vezuje za drugog zbog koristi koju dobija iz te veze? Još su Platon i Aristotel zauzimali oprečne stavove o ovom pitanju: prvi je na ljubav gledao kao na imanentnu težnju svakog bića koja ga nagoni da se obnavlja stvarajući porod i na kojoj počiva čovekovo stalno strahovanje (aporia) preko koga se on usmerava ka Istini, dok je za drugog ljubav prema samom sebi osnova svih vidova simpatije:potreba koju jedna individua ima da se vezuje za drugu je samo izraz inherentne težnje svakog bića da aktualizuje svoje mogućnosti.
Ovoj prastaroj raspravi, koju ponovo susrećemo u XVII i XVIII veku kod Hobsa i Šeftsberija,kod enciklopedista i Rusoa, sa pojavom teorije o evolucije dodaje se jedna nova. I dok jedni prihvataju i razvijaju teoriju o srodnosti socijalnog ponašanja ljudi i životinja (kao Montenj),drugi teoretičari sa strahom gledaju na ovo izjednačavanje i ističu samosvojnost čovekove socijalnosti"- Filip Malrije
Ovo je početak jednog teksta navedenog autora u kjnizi R.Zazo-a "Pereklo čovekove osećajnosti",str.89.Knjiga mi je negde krajem devedesetih skrenula pažnju na istraživanja u oblasti afektivnog vezivanja koja mislim da su daleko odmakla i čine bitnu dopunu svim dostignućima u oblasti psiholoških nauka.
U produžetku teksta nailazi se na sledeći pasus:
"Sličnih lutanja ima i kod teoretičara koji polaze od toga da kod čoveka postoji specifičan oblik potrebe vezivanja za drugog koji se ne sreće kod drugih vrsta.Tako se Šeler čvrsto pridržavao učenja o urodjenosti simpatije - "Primitivne funkcije duha"- koju ne treba mešati sa fenomenom spajanja i zaraze, jer njen smisao je "apstrahovati se od sebe samog i čvrsto se staviti u blizini drugog i njegove psihe".Dakle, neprestano se istražuju nove formacije hipoteza o poreklu ove funkcije, bilo da se utvrde njena srodnost sa seksualnom ljubavlju i osećanjem za prirodu, bilo de ona izvodi iz zajedničke svesti o sebi samom.S druge strane,sledbenici teorije socijalnog učenja (social learning),priznajući važnu ulogu imitacije u izgradnji socijalnih odnosa,tvrde da postoji bar jedan oblik ponašanja koji se ne može izvesti iz potrebe organizma koje su nastale putem potkrepljenja, a taj oblik ponašanja je upravo sama imitacija"(str,90,91).

Religion...Art...

"But one may discuss religion irrespective of whether it is unconscious or conscius,for the question confronting us more basic and radical. First,we must ask ourselves whether this is a legitimate for psychiatric exploration.Lately,I have come to draw the line of demarcation between religion and psychiatry ever more sharply.I have learned,and taught,that the difference between them is no more nor less than a difference between various dimension.From the very analogy with dimensions,however,it should become clear that these realms are by no means mutually exclusive.A higher dimension,by definition,is a more inclusive one.The lower dimension is included in the higher one;it is subsumed in it and encompassed by it.Thus biology is overarched by psychology,..
The noological dimension may rightly be defined as the dimension of uniquely human phenomena.Among them,there is one that I regard as the most representative of the human reality.I have circumscribed this phenomenon in terms of "man's search for meaning".Now,if this is correct,one may also be justified in defining religion as man's search for ultimate meaning.It wasA. Einstein who once contended that to be religions is to have an answer to the question,"What is the me- aning of life?".If we subscribe to this statement we may then define belief and faith as trust in ultimate meaning.Once we have conceived of religion in this way - that is,in the widest possible sense - there is no doubt that psychiatrist are entitled also to investigate this phenomenon,although only its human aspect is accessible to a psychological exploration"/V.Frankl,"Men's Searching for Ultimate Meaning",p.16 -17/.
Postavio sam ovaj tekst u čast poznatog lekara,književnog kritičara - ili možda najbolje religioznog mislioca - Dr.Vladete Jerotića pošto sam imao priliku da veoma često slušam njegove pohvale upućene psihijatrijskom pravcu i knjigama Dr.Viktora Frankla.Evo jednog odlomka iz eseja Dr.Jerotića:
"Privlačenje koje osećamo od umetnika i umetničkog dela večno je i neodoljivo.Ponešto od njegovih kriza uspevamo da sagledamo, pa i da objasnimo,još uvek najviše uz pomoć psihoanalitičkih pretpostavki.Neurotične i naročito psihološke smetnje umetnika češće su prepreka nego podsticaj na stvaranje.Izgleda nam izvesno da što je veći umetnik,veća je i njegova patnja, a umetničko delo onda doživljavamo kao žrtvu prinetu na oltar opšte ljudske patnje, kao i ublažavanje i osmišljavanje ove patnje.Mi poštujemo i,još više,volimo umetnika, jer on svojim delom postiže nešto čudesno sa nama: da se i mi osetimo umetniku sličnim i,nešto uzvišenije, da osetimo da smo deo univerzuma i njegovog Tvorca."( V.Jerotić: "Kulturološki vid psihoterapije" u "Psihološko i religiozno biće čoveka",str.109,"Beseda",Novi Sad,1994.g.)

BUDUĆNOST I NADA

Francuski filosof Žak Derida je voleo da govori o budućnosti koja stiže a koju ne možemo predvideti (videti prilog od 21.04.).To je za njega bila i jedina prava budućnost - "ono nadolazeće" ( "a venir").Šta je onda nada? Možda ono što želimo da se dogodi, da se "ostvari",ono u čega verujemo.
Nemački religiozni mislilac, J.Moltman, ovako rezonuje:"Život vere ovisi o snazi nade.Ljudski razum nadom stječe budućnost svih čula.Ako je to istina,tad je bijeda nevjere u gubitku nade, a ljudski razum postaje nerazumnim kad se više nema čemu nadati"
P.S.Izvinjavam se čitaocima bloga (ako ima i takvih) za odsustvo od oko 2 meseca(krečio sam sobu,ulazio u neka privatna razmišljanja i sl.).Idemo dalje)!
"On analysing the question closely,we find that nature of hope is very hard to define.I will take two examples: to hope for the recovery from illness or for the conversion of a person dear to us,and to hope for the liberation of one's oppressed country.The hope here is for something which,according to the order of nature,does not depend upon us /it is absolutely outside the zone where stoicism can be practised/.At the root of the hope is the consciousness of a state of things which invites us to despair /illness,damnation,etc./.To hope is to put one's trust in reality,to assert that it contains the means of triumphing over this danger; and here it can be seen that the correlative of hope is not fear,far from it,but the act of making the worst of things, a sort of pessimistic fatalism whish assumes the impotence of reality or which will not grant that it can take account of something even if it not just our good,but rather,as we think, a good in the absolute sense of the word."/ G.Marcel,"Being And Having"/

Martin Edn

"What,in a way,most profoundly impressed Martin,was the correlation of knowledge - of all knowledge.He had been curious to know things, and whatever he acquired he had filed away in separate memory compartments in his brain.Thus, on the subject of sailing he had an immense store.On the subject of woman he had a fairly large store.But these two subjects had been unrelated.Between the two memory compartments there had been no connection. That, in the fabric of knowledge,there should be any connection whatever between a woman with hysterics and schooner carrying a weather-helm or heaving to in a gale,would have struck him as ridiculous and impossible.But HERBERT SPENCER had shown him not only that it was not ridiculous,but that it was impossible for there to be no connection.All things were related to all other things from the farthermost star in the wastes of space to the myriads of atoms in the grain of sand under one's foot."/Jack London,"Martin Edn"/

Herbert Spencer was famous British philosopher of the nineteen century's second part.As the positivist and the evolutioniste, he was the friend of Thomas Huxley and the follower of agnosticism.He argued that the existence of God is absolutely unknown.The theists made an ironical "credo" for his followers/paraphrasing the well-known Islam's Decleration of Faith/: There is no god but Uknown and Spencer is his Messenger.Jack London was very probably,in his beginning of philosophical self-education,fan of Spencer's doctrine.His view at metaphysics is nice showed,in my opinion,in an other passage/from his novel "Iron Heel"/:
"I'm like the man from Texas,"he/Ernest E./said.And,on being solicited,he explained."You see,the man from Missouri always says,'You've got to show me.'But the man from Texas says,'You've got to put it in my hand'.From which it is apparent that he is no metaphysician."

Once /Upon a Time/

Around one corner were placed bills for the next movie.And when I had spent my summer holiday with my grandmather I went very often around this corner for see what would be featured next day.I remember some of them as: "Chato's Land"/with Charles Bronson/,"Gunfight at O.K.Corral"/with Burt Lancaster/and,for example,"Carnal Knowledge"/with Jack Nickolson and the others/.The fields around the village are also familiar with Hollywood's production.A local tale says when the notable movie "Hercules" had been made just there the farryman called Bonus/PeterBonus/gained the victory against actor Steve Reevs in free-style wrestle.Do you believe it?I don't but the "full power" of myth is just in this "freedom" which allow us to considered it as truth or lie.

The Future /"a venir"/

C.Van Doren/ 1885 - 1950 / mentioned,while he had described the T.Dreiser's literature,the reality which would turn "around the corner",there where we would be surprised...Marjory Morgenstern planed to become actress for created the future herself and avoided the destiny of an average Jewish girl.The "same tale" goes on with Valdez who acted in the beginning as he knew in antissipatione what he would do lately/when he survived Calvary and dressed the cavalry uniform/.Of course,from the aspect of reality,H.Wouk and Elmore Leonard had the plan where they would lead their 'heroes' and where they wanted to bring them.
French philosopher Jacques Derrida considered the future as totally indecision."...But there is a future /l'avenir- to come/which refers to someone who comes,whose arrival is totally unexpected.For me,that is the real future.That which is totally unpredictable.The Other who comes without my being able to anticipate their arrival", speaks to us J.Derrida in the "Zeitgeist",the film dedicated to Derrida's philosophy of deconstruction.

Herman Wouk's "Morning Star"

"At this moment - it was quite an important moment in her life - she grew hot,and prickled all over.An intuition about her future came flooding into her mind,like sunlight at the drawing of a curtain.She was going to to be an actress!This pretty girl in the mirror was destined to be an actress, nothing else.
Since entering Hunter College in February of the previous year,Marjorie had been taking a course of study leading to a license as a biology teacher;but she had long suspected that was going through empty motions,that chalk and blackboard weren't for her.Nor had she been able to picture herself settling into dull marriage at twenty-one.From her thirteenth year onward a peculiar destiny had been in her blood,waiting for the proper time to crop out,and disturbing her with premonitory sensations.But what she experienced on this May morning was no mere premonition;it was the truth bursting through.She was going to be an actress.The daydreams of her childhood had not been mere dreams,after all". H.Wouk,"Marjory Morningstar"
"Wouk was so taken aback that in 1959,when he published This is my God, he wrote that in Marjorie Morningstar "I did my best to portray a bar-mitzvah with accuracy and with affection. I thought I succeeded pretty well,but for my pains I encountered the most bitter and violent objections from some fellow Jews.I had,they asserted,made a sacred occasion seem comical.There were comic touches in the picture,of course,'but I believe these lay in the folkway as it exists,not in the imagination of the writer."
A.Beichman," Herman Wouk:The Novelist As..."
"When did Marjory decide to become an actress?When did she get an idea for new surname?Does Morningstar really sound more beautiful and sublime then Morgenstern? Does smart Jew Wouk want to glorify "American dream" /or ethos/ yet by understanding the Jewish community? I don't know.In my opinion we have to experience the shine/or light,if you want/ before then we get the ambition and see clearly our goals.Or we need only Faith, Love and Hope?I don't know.If anybody think that know let write the comment.Thanks.

Are We Really Such Conzervative?

"Prudence no less than philosophy demands,then,that we hold ourselves constantly in a readiness to discard our ancient creeds and habits and step valiantly around the corner beyond which reality will have drifted even while we were building our houses on what seemed the primeval and eternal rock" C.V.Doren,"Contemporary American Novelist",II Argument,5.Theodore Dreiser,1922

What is "around the corner?"Freedom/perhaps/?One needs to see/perhaps/.But for step there we must  leave the street/'the well known status'/where we are and  where we feel so safely.Is the "will to knowledge"sin?No.Rather the unique way for reviving the human's spirit/and no only human's/, to reach the always-in-motion freedom.The reality,the life or if you want God,are in the state of eternal change,the eternal search in freedom.One example: Internet. It is the 'new space',the cyberspace,virtual space...
What do you think about?If somebody have some idea to finish, let's does that!

"Instincts are most conservative determinants of any kind of life.The mind is not born a tabula rasa.Like the body,it has..."
C.Gustav Jung,"The Symbolic life:.."

REMARQUE - idealism or pessimism?

"I took a sheet of paper from the drawer and began to reckon.Childhood,school,- an unresolvable complex of things and happenings - so remote,another world, not real any more.Real life began only in 1916.I had just joined the Army - eighteen years of age,thin and lanky.And a snotty sergeant-major who used to make me practise,on-the-hands-down,over and over again in the mud of the ploughed fields at the back of the barracks...One evening my mother came to the barracks to visit me;but she had to wait for me over an hour,bacause I had failed to pack my kit the regulation way,and as punishement had been ordered to scrub out the latrines.She offered to help me,but that was not allowed.She cried, and I was so tired that I feel asleep as I sat there beside her.
1917.Flanders.Mittendorf and I bought a bootle of red wine at the canteen...We intended to celebrate.But we never got so far,for early that morning the English bombardment began.Koster was wounded about midday;..."
What do you mean?Is the idealism some kind of supstitution for "full feeling"of life?Can war do that man become the idealist or this is predetermined by human's character?/Heraclitus: character is the fate of man/.

Everybody's /no/ fine

"Frank is first-generation ­working class, a retired guy with cardiac and ­respiratory problems through ­having put in long, hard hours in a factory creating the PVC casing for telephone wires. His dedicated work and ­education ethic have put his children through c­ollege and into what Frank understands to be rewarding careers. But David (Austin Lysy), Rosie (Drew ­Barrymore), Amy (Kate Beckinsale) and Robert (Sam Rockwell) disappoint him dreadfully, one by one, by claiming to be too busy to come home for the family barbecue that Frank had been preparing. Only now does Frank understand that it was his late wife who had the relationship with the children."/P.Bradshaw,guardian.co.uk,25 02 10/
And what about my opinion?My view is that's a story on humans alienation in our "high-thech" civilization.Nevertheless, the main point of this film isn't in the story/plot/ but in the way of directing and photographing.The artificial approach of mister Jones and mister Braham leads us towards the strong impression of human's lonely.The luxury is maybe good for our nerves but our souls very often become empty.
Is it only my impression?Do I make the mistake?Your opinion sounds identical?

P A R A D I G M A

One author who had a strong influence in me between 1975 and 1980.What do you think about his books?Thanks.

E.M.Remarque /1898 - 1970/