Adonis Diaries

Archive for September 2010

Lacking a National identity? Is it a big deal?

We don’t need to unite under an identity:  All national identities everywhere were invariably built and sustained on myths, historical falsehood, and faked stories.

What we need is to be unified under the banners of civil rights, human rights, sustainable environment, equitable and fair election laws and regulations, civil marriage, linked to fast communication technologies, access to social platforms, freedom of expression, laws not discriminating among genders, versatile opportunities to jobs and to applying our expertise, affordable education system, national health system…

What we need is to unify against any State invading our borders, bombing our infrastructure, humiliating us, destabilizing our society and economy.

What we need is to unify against any political current that has proven to work against democratic representations, racial demagoguery, sectarian political ideology.

What identity are we claiming?  

Are we to emulate other Nations that based their “identity” on myths and falsehood?

What nation has gained an identity without a strong army and suffered millions of soldiers fallen in battlefields for fictitious claims?

Youth sacrificed to institute a Nation and never taken seriously because they are viewed as just meat for the canon and a burden to a stable political system…

There are sections in Lebanon (mostly Christian Maronites) advancing the French mandatory alternative of a “Phoenician” ancestors.  Currently, there are Lebanese testing their blood for DNA evidences of any physical “Phoenician inheritance“.

A few are wary that they won’t be found to have any Phoenician stain, strain and be caste off as “strangers”.  What a load of crap.

The Phoenicians ruled the Mediterranean Sea in 1,200 BC and the string of their City-States extended from southern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, up to Haifa in Palestine.  The Phoenicians were famous for maritime trade and commerce and established many trading centers around the Sea.  The written language has been around for 3,000 years, but the Phoenicians in the City-State of Byblos are credited for inventing the alphabet (currently in use with slight modifications.)

Before the Phoenicians and afterward, the Near East region of the Mediterranean (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine) has been invaded by a dozen warrior empires, many invaded us repeatedly.

For example, the empires in Iraq (Akkad, Babylon, Assyria), Egypt, Persia under various dynasties (at least four of them), Greece, Roman, Byzantium, Arabic, Ottoman, and finally the colonial powers of France and Britain.

All these warrior empires didn’t build anything worth showing as representative of civilization until they invaded our region and rounded off and hoarded the educated and master craftsmen to their capitals.

We are a region of multiple identities if we have to rely on occupation empires.

How about we identify with education and craftsmanship?  I love this identity.  Let us focus on affordable efficient schooling system; let us encourage technical and craftsmanship schooling system; let us focus on building commercial ships; let us invest in railways and fast communication facilities; let us open up to knowledge facilities all over the world.

I love this identity; let us get to work and planning.

Another sections of Lebanese, mostly Moslem-Sunnis, would like to have an Arabic identity and pushing it too far to claiming that we are from the Arabic Peninsula. Are we Arabs?  What that means?

The Islamic Arabic army that came from the Arabic Peninsula to fight the Byzantium Empire and later the Persian Empire barely numbered 7,000 men of war.  The other three-forth of the army that backed and supplemented the “Arabic army” was constituted from people and tribes living in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan wanting to defeat the Byzantium unforgiving Orthodox Church and domination.  How can we be descendant of the sparsely populated Arabic Peninsula?

The “Arabic identity” group would claim that our culture and civilization is Islamic Arabic. How that?

The cultural development during the Arabic Empire was shouldered by the scholars in Syria, Iraq, and Iran and they were mostly Christians. They would like to rely on the Arabic language as basis for our identity.  Excellent idea.

Let us prove that the Arabic language is a viable foundation; let us infuse a new spirit in that dying language; let us translate the worthy manuscripts; let us invent new terms that have no religious connotation and spread the Arabic language as a universal language, valid to sustaining modern civilization with fresh brains and advanced sciences and technologies.  I will be for it and will support it vehemently.

There are other factions wanting to claim that we are Moslems.  How about the dozen minority religious sects?  Are we to agree on a theocratic identity?

Turkish Ataturk cancelled the caliphate in 1925 and there is no caliphate anymore, anywhere.  Tiny Lebanon has 19 recognized self-autonomous religious communities running our civil life.  Let us get real.

A theocratic State will never pass and will never find unity for identity.

Should we hide behind a reality of disparate communities to establish the concept of plurality community government?  Should 19 wrong identities constitute a valid identity?

What we need is to be unified under the banners of civil rights, human rights, sustainable environment, equitable and fair election laws and regulations, civil marriage, linked to fast communication technologies, access to social platforms, freedom of expression, laws not discriminating among genders, versatile opportunities to jobs and expertise, affordable education system, national health system…

What we need is to unify against any State invading our borders, bombing our infrastructure, humiliating us, destabilizing our society and economy.  

What we need is to unify against any political current that has proven to working against democratic representations, racial demagoguery, sectarian political ideology.

Hannibal is the greatest and youngest military leader who commanded an invincible small army to defeating the most powerful military empire, Rome. It is recorded that Alissa of Tyr (an ancient City-State in Lebanon) established Carthage in current Tunisia.  The emerging Roman Empire clashed with Carthage in the first Punic war (Punic for Phenician since this first war was mainly maritime).  The war ended with a peace treaty against the will of Carthage commander-in-chief Hamilcar Barca (father of Hannibal).   Hamilcar was practically exiled after the truce.

In the meantime, Carthage had over 20,000 mercenaries on hand and didn’t feel paying them their full dues.  The mercenaries were in the city of Carthage and could have occupied it if they had a leader.  Carthage paid a portion of the salaries with promises to pay the remaining sum if they vacate the city, which the mercenaries did. Carthage then ordered Hamilcar back to subjugate the mercenary army. Hamilcar waged war against the mercenaries for 40 months before finishing the job.  By then, Carthage was exhausted with empty treasury.

Hannibal was 9 years old when his father died and he spent the next 16 years in the military.  By the age of 25, Hannibal was commanding the troops in Spain and had occupied most of Spain.  Rome started touting Carthage for another round of military engagements.  Carthage was still very weak and exhausted and its oligarchy avoided another confrontation.

 Rome then declared war on the ground that Hannibal broke the treaty. This is the second Punic war.  Carthage still hoped for a negotiated settlement on Spain and declined any military movements.  Hannibal disobeyed and got his small army marching on Rome.

Hannibal marched quickly with 50,000 in infantry, 9,000 in cavalry, and a few elephants and crossed the Rhone River in France before the Roman army could intercept him.  Hannibal climbed the Alps mountain peaks as snow was falling.  This is considered the boldest and craziest endeavor in history.  By the time Hannibal reached the Po River in Northern Italy his army was reduced by half.

Even with this tired and much reduced army, Hannibal crushed two Roman armies in two encounters (each Roman army at least double Hannibal’s.  The route to Rome was wide open but Hannibal refused to march on Rome.  One of Hannibal cavalry commanders asked Hannibal permission to advancing to Rome saying: “Rome is five days away.  By the time your infantry arrives I will offer you Rome.”  This cavalry commander was beside himself as Hannibal declined the offer and he replied: “Hannibal, you are an excellent tactician but a very lousy strategist.” 

The first question is: “Why Hannibal had to cross the Alps when Carthage had a capable navy?  There are many reasons, most of them interconnected.  First, Carthage was inclined not to accept the war: it already had a bad experience with hiring mercenaries.  Second, the aristocracy in Carthage feared that this young and hot-blooded commander might use the navy to enter Carthage and then resume the war according to his plans.  Third, Hannibal wanted to occupy all the lands leading to Italy to safeguard his rears and rob Rome of any future wealth and supplies in men and horses.  If Carthage was agreeable to waging war then Hannibal could have occupied the lands and then board the navy to Italy.

The second question is: “Why Hannibal failed to march on Rome?”  The one who dared to cross the Alps with elephants could logically dare to attempt to march on Rome and negotiate an advantageous deal even without putting a serious siege on Rome; assuming that Hannibal had no siege equipments.  The most plausible answer is that Hannibal was not in Italy to destroying Rome but to even-out the odds for the supremacy of an empire.  Hannibal was not in Italy to strengthen Carthage oligarchic structure which he loathed.  He preferred a Republic system.

Some say that Hannibal wanted to enter Rome with the least casualties by occupying the country side and depriving Rome from any supplies.  This reasoning might be valid but I have another alternative opinion.  Hannibal wanted to emulate Alexander by winning the heart and mind of the Romans. Hannibal was a military man and admired the Roman military spirit and would have rather be a commander in Rome than a commander in this rotten mercantile State of Carthage that feared him and refused him aids, even when he was about to defeat Rome completely.

Hannibal marched on to the Adriatic Sea and then south and captured many Roman territories. In 216 BC, Rome had assembled a fresh army of 80,000 infantry and 8,500 cavalry and advanced to Canna.  Hannibal had barely 23,000 infantry and 10,000 o veteran cavalry.  Hannibal cavalry destroyed the young Roman cavalry within an hour and then encircled the Roman infantry on all sides.  Only 4,000 Roman soldiers escaped this massacre; most Romans died trampled.  Rome learned to care better for its cavalry; that is what it did in the battle of Zama 13 years later.  Again, Rome was wide open for the take; Hannibal declined this petty temptation to marching on Rome, grab power, and ending up administering an empire that would certainly be fighting Carthage again.  Hannibal wandered for another 12 years in Italy.

Apparently, Hannibal loved Italy and this new civilization; he enjoying roaming in Italy; he enjoyed being his own boss; a wandering king with no fixed palaces; no stuffy ceremonials; no mean political maneuvering.  Hannibal was young (only 28); he is young and having a blast and had all the time ahead of him before taking on boring responsibilities.  Hannibal was the ultimate Corporal: first in battle and last to quit the battle field.  Hannibal had all his time:  Either Rome comes around and negotiate a settlement or he will check any Roman resurgence of military might.

By then, the Roman General, Scipio the Younger, had advanced in Spain and defeated the army of Carthage sent to relieve Hannibal in Spain.  Why Hannibal didn’t return to his home base in Spain and cut-off any Roman military adventure through Spain?  The second Punic war would have been settled quickly.  Probably, Hannibal feared that he would be acclaimed King in Spain and be pressured to start an empire; this idea was not within the calling of this all-time gentleman soldier.

Scipio marched on to Carthage.  Hannibal was summoned to Carthage; how could Hannibal and his army reach Carthage unless by sea?  Hannibal could not decline facing the more powerful empire, even if he loathed oligarchic systems:  He was to be coming to the rescue of the weaker party and prevent the establishment of a single superpower.

Hannibal was defeated at the battle of Zama and was exiled.  Superpower Rome ended up an oligarchy.  Give time, every superpower invariably consolidates in an oligarchic system.  Wise Hannibal lived to be 2,300 year-old; and counting.

Hannibal stayed at the Greek/Syrian Seleucid King and they fought the Roman again and were not lucky.  Hannibal fled up north and then committed suicide by poison in order not to be made prisoner by the Romans.  The all time gentleman soldier.

It was never reported that Hannibal’s army burned villages or massacred civilians. If he did then, even once, the population would have rallied behind him in fear and apprehension; he would have won the war instead of playing the gentleman soldier.  The greatest feat of Hannibal is that during these 15 years of wandering with a mercenary infantry, far away from home base, his army never experienced any mutinies.

Only another military warrior emulated Hannibal geo-political strategy:  Tamerlane or  Timorlenk in the 14th century.  Tamerlane defeated every major empire at the time (even the most powerful Ottoman army) but never lingered in one place to establishing an empire.  The difference is that Hannibal never terrorized civilian populations, never harassed, killed, or maimed innocent civilians; he never piled up high skulls in pyramid shape; he never made civilian prisoners to shipping to Carthage or Spain.  Hannibal the enemy of superpowers and the all-time gentleman soldier. Hannibal, the unchallenged all time gentleman soldier, reporting to “duty”, defending the weakest party against bullies.

Note:  There are detailed accounts of Hamilcar Barca war against the mercenaries in Carthage (the famous French author Flaubert described it in “Salambo”).  Why there are no accounts of Hannibal peregrinations in Italy? Surely the Roman kept tabs on Hannibal’s whereabout with minute details; then, did the Romans decided that these pieces of intelligence are State secrets until Carthage is physically annihilated in the third Punic war?  Carthage and Hannibal should be erased from the Roman memory?  Physically yes, but never in history.  For 2,300 years Hannibal’s war tactics have been emulated as the most effective war engagements. 

There is a difference between an envious and a jealous person. You envy what you don’t possess and want it.  You are jealous of what you have or mostly think you are entitled to own and have possession of, for the rest of your live.

Jealousy is one of the most potent basic instinct.  Try snatching a piece of meat from a cat or a dog.  Try to separate newborns from mothers.  Try cancelling a privilege from a nobleman or a clergyman.

There is a difference between love of kindness and concupiscence love.  concupiscence love connote what we consider as our possession, whether an object, a property, our spouse, or our girlfriend.  The ego of people would like you to link jealousy with love saying: “He is jealous; thus, he loves me…”  Yes, he does love this piece of meat, this servant, this valuable addition to his possession, this chattel.

Jealousy is most preponderant among colleagues of same profession:  Colleagues are ever ready to empathise with your failure; never with your successes. They think that learning to share success is beneath their potentials and will harm their zeal to further successes.

Jealousy is a basic instinct among corporate competitors in the same line of business:  Money is not the prime factor in the behavior of jealous competitors.

It becomes pretty nasty when a religion claims that its God is a “Jealous God”.  God is not jealous, kind, magnanimous, or loving.  It is the clergy that is threatening its co-religionists of the terrible harm that will befall upon them if they switch to another competitive God.

Jealousy is a terrible and lethal instinct.  You don’t want jealousy to be part of your culture; basic instincts have no need to be encouraged.  We don’t need a jealous God on our back. Is mankind meant to suffer frequent religious wars in the name of jealous Gods?  Do we own God or vice versa?  Do we have monotheist religions or following mono-idolatery religions?  Are we sharing the same God with the same basic instinct of utmost jealousy?

Humiliation behind “greatness”? Empress Catherine of Russia. Part 2

The first article described the period of Catherine/Sofia/Fredericka Holstein-Gottrop-Romanov ventured out of Prussia in 1744 (she was 15 years old) to be betrothed to the immature and senile child Peter of Russia; how she suffered humiliation and then managed to bid her time to acceding to power in 1762 as the most powerful monarch of all the Russian Empire.

Most of this period was dominated by King Frederick II, known by history as “Frederick the Great”; Frederick was ruling Prussia and raised and training a strong army for expansion. Empress Elizabeth was the sole powerful monarch in Russia until her death in 1761. Elizabeth had acceded to power by overthrowing young Ivan VI.

Louis 15th was the monarch of France.

Catherine of Russia kept a detailed diary since childhood until she died.

She mastered 3 languages:  French (the most dominant language in all of Europe during the 18 and 19th centuries), German, and then she learned Russian.

She communicated with most of the famous authors and thinkers of her time and supported them financially and politically when in dire need.  She changed from Lutheran to Russian Orthodox Church for political reasons and to be able to accede to the throne; her father sent her a cold letter blaming her for that conversion.

The chamberlain to Empress Elizabeth welcomed the party at the Russian border and wrote:

The daughter is plain but healthy; she is taller than most women 5′ 5″; she resembles her father in facial characteristics:  She has a large nose and heavy chin, but she is taller than normal women.  I noticed from her gait that she suffered frost bites in several toes of her left foot. The mother is a complete snob and cares only of how she look. 

The mother reprimanded her daughter for missing her dad saying: “Your father is an insignificant person, focus to learn the Russian language and don’t think to returning to Prussia for visits.  The guest felt very comfortable in our heated sleighs; they were using carriages in wheels that left many bruises on their bodies.

The mother felt humiliated from the first meeting with Elizabeth who didn’t even look her way or addressed her; she had to wait over 2 years in Russia, relegated close to the servants’ apartment, until her daughter got married in late 1945.

Catherine gave birth to Paul in 1954; she had named him Pavel but Elizabeth changed his name to Paul and didn’t permit Catherine to see and care for her child until her death in 1761; thus, this overwhelming anger of Catherine toward Elizabeth and of her idiot of nephew Peter “who stood there grinning as Elizabeth snatched the baby from my arms”

Catherine wrote in her diary:

“Elizabeth is the bossiest lady I have ever met.  She catered for the minute details and never allowed me to dress as I wished”.

Elizabeth was a tall, svelte, beautiful woman with blue eyes before she died of overweight and aged prematurely.  Elizabeth confronted Frederick II militarily for over 7 years in order to halt Prussia expansion at the detriment of Austria”.  The Russian treasury was depleted when Elizabeth died in 1761.

Peter III was the new Emperor and he used to strut in Prussian army uniforms and declare that Prussia is the better than Russia in every thing and that Frederick II is the greatest monarch.  Catherine never dared to challenge Elizabeth but bid her time until the strong-willed Empress died.

Catherine dreaded that Elizabeth might demand from Peter to divorce her and be sent back to her family that no longer cared for her presence.

In the mean while, Catherine worked on her connections with the highest personality  in the noble class, the military, the clergymen, and foreign diplomats.  She had countless love affairs, especially with military officers such as Gregory Orlov and much later with Gregory Pushkin. A military coup organized by Catherine removed Peter from power, less than a year later, before his official coronation.  Peter was strangled in prison.

The day of the revolt, Catherine went straight to the main cathedral in St. Petersburg and got acclaimed by the archbishop as the new monarch.

The treasury was depleted and the treasurer’s report extended two quick alternative solutions to replenishing the coffer.  The first option was to wage war against China and capture vast lands and serfs.  The second option that Catherine preferred was to seizing vast fertile lands owned by the Orthodox church.

For the next 8 years, Catherine pursued this policy of regaining church lands to the crown.

In 1768, Turkey had enjoyed 5 years of good economic expansion and was buying weapons from France.  Catherine decide to expand in the south before Turkey becomes too powerful militarily.  The Russian army had a string of successful military victories that kept Europe on its toes.

The end result was devastating:  First, treasury was empty again; the treasurer wrote “All the money collected east of the Volga River is not covering the cost of breaking horses sent to the Turkish front.”  The Russian army was tied up in front of Turkey and whatever land acquired could not be used to generating any profit.

In 1970, the plague reached Moscow:  It had already killed over 20,000 in Austria the previous year.  For two years, the plague in Moscow left over 100,000 dead.  It was the custom to quarantine entire districts:  No entrance or exit to these closed areas.  People died of famine more than the plague, especially infants, for lack of food supply.

The well-off in Moscow had long vacated the Capital and a rudiment of police force still existed there.  In 1771, the downtrodden in Moscow overflow the center city and even managed to enter the Kremlin fortress.  Looting and killing of officials was rampant.  Catherine sent regiments headed by Gregory Orlov in September to recapture order.

Orlov realized that the best strategy was to bring food supplies to Moscow.  Teams were organized to gathering corpses and burning them then, collecting the garbage that city governments never “had money” to spend on cleaning the city.  Winter was the other factor that slowed down the dissemination of the plague that died down by the coming spring season.

To make matter worse, a rebellion broke out in the southern region in 1772.  Pugachev, a discharged army officer, was the leader of the revolt; he claimed to carrying the “imperial scars” and to being the incarnation of former emperor Peter (the slain late husband of Catherine).

The rebellion gathered thousands of members and it captured canons and plenty of guns and expanded eastward and entered many cities, including Kazar, the Capital of the Tatar province on the Volga River and 800 kilometer east of Moscow.

The Russian army was tied up on the Turkish front and negotiations for a peace treaty was experiencing a dead lock on Catherine insistence for war reparations.  There were no regiments fit with horses and canons to be dispatched to quell the expanding rebellion.  Catherine dropped the war reparation clause and went after the leader of the revolt.

Paul, the son of Catherine, wrote: “It was the first time I saw a glimpse of a smile on Catherine’s face”:  Catherine entered the court room to listen to the verdict for the hanging sentence of the leader of the revolt.

Once again the crown treasury was empty and Catherine agreed with Frederick II to dividing the Polish Kingdom that had backed Russia in its war against Prussia.  Catherine gained the easter portion of Poland around 1773.  The European nations of France, England, and Austria didn’t like this aggression.

After the treasury was again depleted, Catherine decided to expand into the Crimea Peninsula on the Black Sea.  She first bribed the Turkish king of the province with plenty of gold bars and secured a treaty of favored nation to doing commerce and having a military advisory role.  Russia quickly plotted and started a civil war and then entered heavily the Crimea before Turkey was ready to intervene militarily.

Catherine wrote: “The Crimea is the pearl in my crown”  In fact, Russia secured another water outlet to its navy.

Catherine visited part of her vast empire.  She ventured as far as Kazan by the Volga River (800 km east of Moscow.  The officials of the city boasted that half of Russia commerce is moved on the Volga River. The Empress wrote in her diary: “From my observations of the activities on the river  I know that the city government has far exaggerated the claim.” Currently, it is estimated that two-third of internal trade in Russia is moved on the Volga River.

There were no love affair or any kind of caring between Catherine and her son Paul:  In critical situations, Catherine would summon Paul to attend meetings or parties just to strengthen her legitimacy; in a sense, appeasing the Russian people of a secure succession to the throne. As the second stroke killed Catherine in 1796 at the age of 69 (she had reigned for 34 years) Paul became Emperor.

Paul was harassed by the British because he refused to join the coalition against the French First Consul Bonaparte.  Paul wrote to Napoleon: “You are not an Emperor or a King, but you have proven to be someone who can deliver.  That’s what count to me.

The British Ambassador plotted and assassinated Emperor Paul in 1801.  Three years later, Napoleon annihilated the armies of three emperors (Prussia, Austria, and Russia) who were present at the battle of Austerlitz.

Catherine committed the worst long-term error by focusing on short-term needs to sustaining her hold on power:  She overextended the privileges and rights of the nobility at the expense of the rights of the serfs working the lands.  The nobleman was secured in his title and the ownership of his land (except in cases of treason) and the nobleman could only be judged by his peers.  In the 19th century, Russia was racked by frequent revolts and assassinations of officials. Ironically, Emperor Alexander II was assassinated the day he was to sign the document on the Constitutional Monarchy. The communist Bolchviks took power in 1917 and liquidated the Romanov dynasty.

Catherine was warned plenty of times of the shortsightedness of strengthening the noble classes.  Diderot, the French who published the first encyclopedia, spent three years in St. Petersburg and Catherine met with him for hours almost everyday.  The Empress asked that her discussion sessions be recorded.  Here is a sample of the dialogue:

Diderot: “You have passed laws that made it impossible for serfs to leave their employment, to seeking new masters, and to move without their lords’ permission.”

Catherine: “Only troublemaker of serfs do what you suggested.  For all your new ideas, governing a country is very different from your bookish theories.”

Diderot: “If the world is to change we must begin somewhere.  That place is with new ideas on paper and in books.”

Catherine: “The empty page is always flexible.  I must work with physical human lives.  There are people to be fed and new generations to nurture.  I don’t have the luxury to pause while experimenting.”

In any case, Catherine witnessed the consequences of the French Revolution in 1789 and had plenty of warnings to reform her political system.

I don’t see much “greatness” in just expanding frontiers of an empire simply to replenishing depleted the treasury.

Nirvana or Samsara: Wrong interpretations to living?

In the Sanskrit language nirvana means a state of bliss or grace; samsara is a life of toiling and worries.

In the Arabic language, samsara conveys the meaning of bargaining; you may think of a middleman going back and forth with new proposals for the two parties to reaching an agreement.

Maybe the Arabic language borrowed the term samsara from Sanskrit and gave it a practical meaning for their trading activities.  Is it not samsara our real life? As we struggle to balance better internal spiritual state and better external conditions for our comfort and pleasure?

There is this Buddhist saying: “If you make a difference between nirvana and samsara then, you will remain in the samsara state“.

This saying means that there is no difference between nirvana and samsara; but the second part of the sentence gives the connotation that samsara is actually a lower quality state of living.

It is common in languages to create opposite meaning to every word for rhetorical reason.  People tend to learn and assimilate the negative terminologies far better than the positive counterpart.

So what is good in a nirvana state or the highest quality of living?

Is living liberated of wants, anguish, suffering, fear of death, and of illusions better than striving, struggling for what you desire, and confronting difficulties?   Is keeping a state of bliss (salvation) worth total dissociation from the turmoil of living and avoiding potentially difficult situations (in order to retaining the state of bliss)?

What is wrong with bargaining endeavors for a better life?  Is living a state of grace and bliss a better state than struggling and challenging our potentials?  I can back the idea of training for more frequent and more durable moments of complete relaxation of the mind and body; but to staying in a nirvana state feels counterproductive to a rich and challenging life. Maybe nirvana is not after all a long stay in a state of bliss or life after death could be the equivalent  meaning.  Anyway, people are curious of the mysterious and exotic experiences and will try hard for a nirvana stage of relaxation.

Am I living to satisfying the never-ending moral constraints of “don’t do that?”

Am I a machine to figuring out what I can do?

If there is a kind of nobility abiding by social moral set of values then, am I not to be a happy nobleman too?

Actually, abiding by morale is a necessity when abiding by the ethics (that the ultimate virtue is learning to share the happiness of others) comes to be difficult to realizing.  If we were able during our tumultuous life to sharing and enjoying the pleasure and happiness of others then, there will be no need for any moral set of restrictions.

We are not told of that wisdom, or not that frequently, or it was never transpired to us by members of our family and community.  The community found it easier to nurture us by “don’t do that” instead of performing what is the secret of joy and happiness:  Mainly, learning to share and enjoy the pleasure and happiness of others:  That is the real meaning of solidarity.

Have you made it a habit distinguishing between hell and paradise; between eternity and duration; between the absolute and the relative; between salvation and damnation; between bliss and living in miseries?  What!  Are you trying to sound a sane person who can discriminate among good and bad tastes; true and false behaviors and sacrificing your life to pleasing others?

For how long are you intending to work on comprehending these differences?  All you need is awareness that infinity and eternity go hand in hand:  Everything is or converges to the present moment.

As long as you are making a difference between blissful moments and your current difficult moments then, you will never discover bliss. Your life is the bliss, the grace, and paradise. Cut down on your pains and suffering.  The time you saved in cutting down on unwanted conditions you need to invest it to appreciating and enjoying the power of the present moment.

The present moment is the real, the truth, and the eternal. 

All the opposite extremes are one in the present moment.

Note:  You are encouraged to read the follow-up article https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/second-truth-the-moment-is-eternal/

Most probably you are not aware or you are not taking seriously the fact that everything you write, say, or move on social platforms (Tweeter, Facebook…) or on your portable phone is recorded and coded, second by second, somewhere in Big Brothers intelligence agencies on the superpower supercomputer intelligence gathering centers.  If you are connected and manages to secure clearances then, you may have access to your big file and write your diary and autobiography.  Big Brother can know you far better than you know yourself and his analysis is far more accurate and precise than your well-intentioned introspection work.  Big Brother is able to analyse your desires, your preferences, your best friends, and your potential enemies better than you can:  You are leaving behind you a numeric trace anytime you write, talk, or move.

Social scientists no longer have to run complex experiments on live subjects or handing out questionnaires and then collecting data.  Social scientists and research psychologists with access to valuable pieces of intelligence (research usually instigated by government and private enterprises linked to government) have located an inestimable trove of zillion of data.  Social scientists can now predict individual behavior and social behavior mathematically.  They can predict accurately the product and services that will enjoy great success within a week of its launching on the market.  They can predict election outcomes with great accuracy.  Social scientists discovered that with all our unpredictability we end up behaving in mathematical trends.  There is a breaking point in any trends when qualitative shift sets in instantaneously.  Movements start with individual liking and preferences and then peer pressures and mass communication decide on the outcome of a product, a service, or a candidate.  Social scientists track number of “buzz” generated by social platform users to comprehend social trends.

Before this outbreak of fast communication, social scientists felt the heat of being labelled as quasi-scientists; which means dealing in soft sciences that offer suggestions and options rather than accurate answers.  Since mankind has hundreds of variables to be controlled in order for any experiment to be valid and not ending up to have confounding results (results that hide the effects of pertinent variables that were not controlled) then, social scientists and psychologists had to run difficult and time-consuming experiments on hundreds of willing subjects and still feeling not satisfied with the results.

Now, social scientists can selected and stratify millions of data and still deal with enough cases that reduce hazard errors to the bare minimum.  Data is no longer the beast; the problem is how to access data without antagonizing Big Brother.

The only dilemma is: “How can we prevent the restauration of a police State?”  The police State has been around since antiquity and didn’t need so much data to institute efficient ideological political systems.  This new trend in instant communication is playing to the advantage of the common people in making a difference and preventing further exacerbation of policing mentality and trends.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

September 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Blog Stats

  • 1,359,518 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 693 other followers

%d bloggers like this: