In Praise of Idleness

In Praise of Idleness

By Bertrand Russell

[1932]

Like most of my generation, I was brought up on the saying: 'Satan finds some mischief for idle hands to do.' Being a highly virtuous child, I believed all that I was told, and acquired a conscience which has kept me working hard down to the present moment. But although my conscience has controlled my actions, my opinions have undergone a revolution. I think that there is far too much work done in the world, that immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous, and that what needs to be preached in modern industrial countries is quite different from what always has been preached. Everyone knows the story of the traveler in Naples who saw twelve beggars lying in the sun (it was before the days of Mussolini), and offered a lira to the laziest of them. Eleven of them jumped up to claim it, so he gave it to the twelfth. this traveler was on the right lines. But in countries which do not enjoy Mediterranean sunshine idleness is more difficult, and a great public propaganda will be required to inaugurate it. I hope that, after reading the following pages, the leaders of the YMCA will start a campaign to induce good young men to do nothing. If so, I shall not have lived in vain.

Before advancing my own arguments for laziness, I must dispose of one which I cannot accept. Whenever a person who already has enough to live on proposes to engage in some everyday kind of job, such as school-teaching or typing, he or she is told that such conduct takes the bread out of other people's mouths, and is therefore wicked. If this argument were valid, it would only be necessary for us all to be idle in order that we should all have our mouths full of bread. What people who say such things forget is that what a man earns he usually spends, and in spending he gives employment. As long as a man spends his income, he puts just as much bread into people's mouths in spending as he takes out of other people's mouths in earning. The real villain, from this point of view, is the man who saves. If he merely puts his savings in a stocking, like the proverbial French peasant, it is obvious that they do not give employment. If he invests his savings, the matter is less obvious, and different cases arise.

One of the commonest things to do with savings is to lend them to some Government. In view of the fact that the bulk of the public expenditure of most civilized Governments consists in payment for past wars or preparation for future wars, the man who lends his money to a Government is in the same position as the bad men in Shakespeare who hire murderers. The net result of the man's economical habits is to increase the armed forces of the State to which he lends his savings. Obviously it would be better if he spent the money, even if he spent it in drink or gambling.

But, I shall be told, the case is quite different when savings are invested in industrial enterprises. When such enterprises succeed, and produce something useful, this may be conceded. In these days, however, no one will deny that most enterprises fail. That means that a large amount of human labor, which might have been devoted to producing something that could be enjoyed, was expended on producing machines which, when produced, lay idle and did no good to anyone. The man who invests his savings in a concern that goes bankrupt is therefore injuring others as well as himself. If he spent his money, say, in giving parties for his friends, they (we may hope) would get pleasure, and so would all those upon whom he spent money, such as the butcher, the baker, and the bootlegger. But if he spends it (let us say) upon laying down rails for surface card in some place where surface cars turn out not to be wanted, he has diverted a mass of labor into channels where it gives pleasure to no one. Nevertheless, when he becomes poor through failure of his investment he will be regarded as a victim of undeserved misfortune, whereas the gay spendthrift, who has spent his money philanthropically, will be despised as a fool and a frivolous person.

All this is only preliminary. I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.

First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two organized bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.

Throughout Europe, though not in America, there is a third class of men, more respected than either of the classes of workers. There are men who, through ownership of land, are able to make others pay for the privilege of being allowed to exist and to work. These landowners are idle, and I might therefore be expected to praise them. Unfortunately, their idleness is only rendered possible by the industry of others; indeed their desire for comfortable idleness is historically the source of the whole gospel of work. The last thing they have ever wished is that others should follow their example.

From the beginning of civilization until the Industrial Revolution, a man could, as a rule, produce by hard work little more than was required for the subsistence of himself and his family, although his wife worked at least as hard as he did, and his children added their labor as soon as they were old enough to do so. The small surplus above bare necessaries was not left to those who produced it, but was appropriated by warriors and priests. In times of famine there was no surplus; the warriors and priests, however, still secured as much as at other times, with the result that many of the workers died of hunger. This system persisted in Russia until 1917 [1], and still persists in the East; in England, in spite of the Industrial Revolution, it remained in full force throughout the Napoleonic wars, and until a hundred years ago, when the new class of manufacturers acquired power. In America, the system came to an end with the Revolution, except in the South, where it persisted until the Civil War. A system which lasted so long and ended so recently has naturally left a profound impress upon men's thoughts and opinions. Much that we take for granted about the desirability of work is derived from this system, and, being pre-industrial, is not adapted to the modern world. Modern technique has made it possible for leisure, within limits, to be not the prerogative of small privileged classes, but a right evenly distributed throughout the community. The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery.

It is obvious that, in primitive communities, peasants, left to themselves, would not have parted with the slender surplus upon which the warriors and priests subsisted, but would have either produced less or consumed more. At first, sheer force compelled them to produce and part with the surplus. Gradually, however, it was found possible to induce many of them to accept an ethic according to which it was their duty to work hard, although part of their work went to support others in idleness. By this means the amount of compulsion required was lessened, and the expenses of government were diminished. To this day, 99 per cent of British wage-earners would be genuinely shocked if it were proposed that the King should not have a larger income than a working man. The conception of duty, speaking historically, has been a means used by the holders of power to induce others to live for the interests of their masters rather than for their own. Of course the holders of power conceal this fact from themselves by managing to believe that their interests are identical with the larger interests of humanity. Sometimes this is true; Athenian slave-owners, for instance, employed part of their leisure in making a permanent contribution to civilization which would have been impossible under a just economic system. Leisure is essential to civilization, and in former times leisure for the few was only rendered possible by the labors of the many. But their labors were valuable, not because work is good, but because leisure is good. And with modern technique it would be possible to distribute leisure justly without injury to civilization.

Modern technique has made it possible to diminish enormously the amount of labor required to secure the necessaries of life for everyone. This was made obvious during the war. At that time all the men in the armed forces, and all the men and women engaged in the production of munitions, all the men and women engaged in spying, war propaganda, or Government offices connected with the war, were withdrawn from productive occupations. In spite of this, the general level of well-being among unskilled wage-earners on the side of the Allies was higher than before or since. The significance of this fact was concealed by finance: borrowing made it appear as if the future was nourishing the present. But that, of course, would have been impossible; a man cannot eat a loaf of bread that does not yet exist. The war showed conclusively that, by the scientific organization of production, it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world. If, at the end of the war, the scientific organization, which had been created in order to liberate men for fighting and munition work, had been preserved, and the hours of the week had been cut down to four, all would have been well. Instead of that the old chaos was restored, those whose work was demanded were made to work long hours, and the rest were left to starve as unemployed. Why? Because work is a duty, and a man should not receive wages in proportion to what he has produced, but in proportion to his virtue as exemplified by his industry.

This is the morality of the Slave State, applied in circumstances totally unlike those in which it arose. No wonder the result has been disastrous. Let us take an illustration. Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?

The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich. In England, in the early nineteenth century, fifteen hours was the ordinary day's work for a man; children sometimes did as much, and very commonly did twelve hours a day. When meddlesome busybodies suggested that perhaps these hours were rather long, they were told that work kept adults from drink and children from mischief. When I was a child, shortly after urban working men had acquired the vote, certain public holidays were established by law, to the great indignation of the upper classes. I remember hearing an old Duchess say: 'What do the poor want with holidays? They ought to work.' People nowadays are less frank, but the sentiment persists, and is the source of much of our economic confusion.

Let us, for a moment, consider the ethics of work frankly, without superstition. Every human being, of necessity, consumes, in the course of his life, a certain amount of the produce of human labor. Assuming, as we may, that labor is on the whole disagreeable, it is unjust that a man should consume more than he produces. Of course he may provide services rather than commodities, like a medical man, for example; but he should provide something in return for his board and lodging. to this extent, the duty of work must be admitted, but to this extent only.

I shall not dwell upon the fact that, in all modern societies outside the USSR, many people escape even this minimum amount of work, namely all those who inherit money and all those who marry money. I do not think the fact that these people are allowed to be idle is nearly so harmful as the fact that wage-earners are expected to overwork or starve.

If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be enough for everybody and no unemployment -- assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization. This idea shocks the well-to-do, because they are convinced that the poor would not know how to use so much leisure. In America men often work long hours even when they are well off; such men, naturally, are indignant at the idea of leisure for wage-earners, except as the grim punishment of unemployment; in fact, they dislike leisure even for their sons. Oddly enough, while they wish their sons to work so hard as to have no time to be civilized, they do not mind their wives and daughters having no work at all. the snobbish admiration of uselessness, which, in an aristocratic society, extends to both sexes, is, under a plutocracy, confined to women; this, however, does not make it any more in agreement with common sense.

The wise use of leisure, it must be conceded, is a product of civilization and education. A man who has worked long hours all his life will become bored if he becomes suddenly idle. But without a considerable amount of leisure a man is cut off from many of the best things. There is no longer any reason why the bulk of the population should suffer this deprivation; only a foolish asceticism, usually vicarious, makes us continue to insist on work in excessive quantities now that the need no longer exists.

In the new creed which controls the government of Russia, while there is much that is very different from the traditional teaching of the West, there are some things that are quite unchanged. The attitude of the governing classes, and especially of those who conduct educational propaganda, on the subject of the dignity of labor, is almost exactly that which the governing classes of the world have always preached to what were called the 'honest poor'. Industry, sobriety, willingness to work long hours for distant advantages, even submissiveness to authority, all these reappear; moreover authority still represents the will of the Ruler of the Universe, Who, however, is now called by a new name, Dialectical Materialism.

The victory of the proletariat in Russia has some points in common with the victory of the feminists in some other countries. For ages, men had conceded the superior saintliness of women, and had consoled women for their inferiority by maintaining that saintliness is more desirable than power. At last the feminists decided that they would have both, since the pioneers among them believed all that the men had told them about the desirability of virtue, but not what they had told them about the worthlessness of political power. A similar thing has happened in Russia as regards manual work. For ages, the rich and their sycophants have written in praise of 'honest toil', have praised the simple life, have professed a religion which teaches that the poor are much more likely to go to heaven than the rich, and in general have tried to make manual workers believe that there is some special nobility about altering the position of matter in space, just as men tried to make women believe that they derived some special nobility from their sexual enslavement. In Russia, all this teaching about the excellence of manual work has been taken seriously, with the result that the manual worker is more honored than anyone else. What are, in essence, revivalist appeals are made, but not for the old purposes: they are made to secure shock workers for special tasks. Manual work is the ideal which is held before the young, and is the basis of all ethical teaching.

For the present, possibly, this is all to the good. A large country, full of natural resources, awaits development, and has has to be developed with very little use of credit. In these circumstances, hard work is necessary, and is likely to bring a great reward. But what will happen when the point has been reached where everybody could be comfortable without working long hours?

In the West, we have various ways of dealing with this problem. We have no attempt at economic justice, so that a large proportion of the total produce goes to a small minority of the population, many of whom do no work at all. Owing to the absence of any central control over production, we produce hosts of things that are not wanted. We keep a large percentage of the working population idle, because we can dispense with their labor by making the others overwork. When all these methods prove inadequate, we have a war: we cause a number of people to manufacture high explosives, and a number of others to explode them, as if we were children who had just discovered fireworks. By a combination of all these devices we manage, though with difficulty, to keep alive the notion that a great deal of severe manual work must be the lot of the average man.

In Russia, owing to more economic justice and central control over production, the problem will have to be differently solved. the rational solution would be, as soon as the necessaries and elementary comforts can be provided for all, to reduce the hours of labor gradually, allowing a popular vote to decide, at each stage, whether more leisure or more goods were to be preferred. But, having taught the supreme virtue of hard work, it is difficult to see how the authorities can aim at a paradise in which there will be much leisure and little work. It seems more likely that they will find continually fresh schemes, by which present leisure is to be sacrificed to future productivity. I read recently of an ingenious plan put forward by Russian engineers, for making the White Sea and the northern coasts of Siberia warm, by putting a dam across the Kara Sea. An admirable project, but liable to postpone proletarian comfort for a generation, while the nobility of toil is being displayed amid the ice-fields and snowstorms of the Arctic Ocean. This sort of thing, if it happens, will be the result of regarding the virtue of hard work as an end in itself, rather than as a means to a state of affairs in which it is no longer needed.

The fact is that moving matter about, while a certain amount of it is necessary to our existence, is emphatically not one of the ends of human life. If it were, we should have to consider every navvy superior to Shakespeare. We have been misled in this matter by two causes. One is the necessity of keeping the poor contented, which has led the rich, for thousands of years, to preach the dignity of labor, while taking care themselves to remain undignified in this respect. The other is the new pleasure in mechanism, which makes us delight in the astonishingly clever changes that we can produce on the earth's surface. Neither of these motives makes any great appeal to the actual worker. If you ask him what he thinks the best part of his life, he is not likely to say: 'I enjoy manual work because it makes me feel that I am fulfilling man's noblest task, and because I like to think how much man can transform his planet. It is true that my body demands periods of rest, which I have to fill in as best I may, but I am never so happy as when the morning comes and I can return to the toil from which my contentment springs.' I have never heard working men say this sort of thing. They consider work, as it should be considered, a necessary means to a livelihood, and it is from their leisure that they derive whatever happiness they may enjoy.

It will be said that, while a little leisure is pleasant, men would not know how to fill their days if they had only four hours of work out of the twenty-four. In so far as this is true in the modern world, it is a condemnation of our civilization; it would not have been true at any earlier period. There was formerly a capacity for light-heartedness and play which has been to some extent inhibited by the cult of efficiency. The modern man thinks that everything ought to be done for the sake of something else, and never for its own sake. Serious-minded persons, for example, are continually condemning the habit of going to the cinema, and telling us that it leads the young into crime. But all the work that goes to producing a cinema is respectable, because it is work, and because it brings a money profit. The notion that the desirable activities are those that bring a profit has made everything topsy-turvy. The butcher who provides you with meat and the baker who provides you with bread are praiseworthy, because they are making money; but when you enjoy the food they have provided, you are merely frivolous, unless you eat only to get strength for your work. Broadly speaking, it is held that getting money is good and spending money is bad. Seeing that they are two sides of one transaction, this is absurd; one might as well maintain that keys are good, but keyholes are bad. Whatever merit there may be in the production of goods must be entirely derivative from the advantage to be obtained by consuming them. The individual, in our society, works for profit; but the social purpose of his work lies in the consumption of what he produces. It is this divorce between the individual and the social purpose of production that makes it so difficult for men to think clearly in a world in which profit-making is the incentive to industry. We think too much of production, and too little of consumption. One result is that we attach too little importance to enjoyment and simple happiness, and that we do not judge production by the pleasure that it gives to the consumer.

When I suggest that working hours should be reduced to four, I am not meaning to imply that all the remaining time should necessarily be spent in pure frivolity. I mean that four hours' work a day should entitle a man to the necessities and elementary comforts of life, and that the rest of his time should be his to use as he might see fit. It is an essential part of any such social system that education should be carried further than it usually is at present, and should aim, in part, at providing tastes which would enable a man to use leisure intelligently. I am not thinking mainly of the sort of things that would be considered 'highbrow'. Peasant dances have died out except in remote rural areas, but the impulses which caused them to be cultivated must still exist in human nature. The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in which they took an active part.

In the past, there was a small leisure class and a larger working class. The leisure class enjoyed advantages for which there was no basis in social justice; this necessarily made it oppressive, limited its sympathies, and caused it to invent theories by which to justify its privileges. These facts greatly diminished its excellence, but in spite of this drawback it contributed nearly the whole of what we call civilization. It cultivated the arts and discovered the sciences; it wrote the books, invented the philosophies, and refined social relations. Even the liberation of the oppressed has usually been inaugurated from above. Without the leisure class, mankind would never have emerged from barbarism.

The method of a leisure class without duties was, however, extraordinarily wasteful. None of the members of the class had to be taught to be industrious, and the class as a whole was not exceptionally intelligent. The class might produce one Darwin, but against him had to be set tens of thousands of country gentlemen who never thought of anything more intelligent than fox-hunting and punishing poachers. At present, the universities are supposed to provide, in a more systematic way, what the leisure class provided accidentally and as a by-product. This is a great improvement, but it has certain drawbacks. University life is so different from life in the world at large that men who live in academic milieu tend to be unaware of the preoccupations and problems of ordinary men and women; moreover their ways of expressing themselves are usually such as to rob their opinions of the influence that they ought to have upon the general public. Another disadvantage is that in universities studies are organized, and the man who thinks of some original line of research is likely to be discouraged. Academic institutions, therefore, useful as they are, are not adequate guardians of the interests of civilization in a world where everyone outside their walls is too busy for unutilitarian pursuits.

In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving, however excellent his pictures may be. Young writers will not be obliged to draw attention to themselves by sensational pot-boilers, with a view to acquiring the economic independence needed for monumental works, for which, when the time at last comes, they will have lost the taste and capacity. Men who, in their professional work, have become interested in some phase of economics or government, will be able to develop their ideas without the academic detachment that makes the work of university economists often seem lacking in reality. Medical men will have the time to learn about the progress of medicine, teachers will not be exasperatedly struggling to teach by routine methods things which they learnt in their youth, which may, in the interval, have been proved to be untrue.

Above all, there will be happiness and joy of life, instead of frayed nerves, weariness, and dyspepsia. The work exacted will be enough to make leisure delightful, but not enough to produce exhaustion. Since men will not be tired in their spare time, they will not demand only such amusements as are passive and vapid. At least one per cent will probably devote the time not spent in professional work to pursuits of some public importance, and, since they will not depend upon these pursuits for their livelihood, their originality will be unhampered, and there will be no need to conform to the standards set by elderly pundits. But it is not only in these exceptional cases that the advantages of leisure will appear. Ordinary men and women, having the opportunity of a happy life, will become more kindly and less persecuting and less inclined to view others with suspicion. The taste for war will die out, partly for this reason, and partly because it will involve long and severe work for all. Good nature is, of all moral qualities, the one that the world needs most, and good nature is the result of ease and security, not of a life of arduous struggle. Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some and starvation for others. Hitherto we have continued to be as energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been foolish, but there is no reason to go on being foolish forever.

[1] Since then, members of the Communist Party have succeeded to this privilege of the warriors and priests.

This text was first provided by the Massachusetts Green Party.

Régis Debray : مـــــن الـعــــالــــم الـجـــــديــــد

رسالة رائعة وشجاعة من المفكر والكاتب الفرنسي الكبير(جزء من كتابه، نشرت في صحيفة السفير، موجهة لدبلوماسي إسرائيلي)



ريجيس دوبريه

(...) أن نلمح غيوماً سوداء في الأفق أمرٌ طبيعي. القنبلة النووية الإيرانيّة المحتملة لا ترضي أحداً، حتى ولو كانت بالنسبة لهم هناك قضيّة وطنيّة لا إسلاميّة، وقد بدأت بمبادرةٍ من الشاه. فلنتذكّر أنّه في تاريخ التوسّع النووي، لطالما كان الآخر هو «المجنون» (الاتحاد السوفياتي السابق، الهند، الصين...). وإنّ نظريّة الردع عبر توازن الرعب أو التدمير المتبادل المؤكّد، لم تجد بعد ما ينفيها، ولنأخذ مثالاً على ذلك الهند وباكستان. وبما أنّ لا أحد يرغب بالتأكّد من صحّة فوائد الطاقة النووية المتبادلة، فقد يدعو الأمر الى الحذر، لا الى إطلاق صفّارة إنذارٍ عالميّة. هل علينا أن نذكر المقاطعة الاقتصاديّة التي تقودها جامعة الدول العربيّة التي ولّى زمانها (قطر، المغرب، عمان)؟ أو نداءات المقاطعة الثقافيّة والاقتصاديّة التي يطلقها عالمٌ مصغّرٌ من الجمعيّات، التي لا تجد من يأخذ بها فتبقى من دون أيّ تأثيرٍ يذكر (باستثناء جنوب أفريقيا حيث يرفض عمّال المرافئ إدخال بضائعكم)؟ أو مزايدات قائدٍ إيراني معزول ومهاجم من أقرب الناس إليه؟ أو البلاغات الرسميّة لحركة دول عدم الانحياز، غير المرئية، التي تذهب مع الريح؟ أو 250 قراراً للجمعيّة العامة للأمم المتّحدة التي بقيت كلّها حبراً على ورق: جرس الإنذار ذاك الذي لم يعد يقوى على الرنين؟ لا أظنّ أن تلك المحاولات التي لا تتمّة لها ولا تأثير، تستطيع منطقياً أن تسرق من عيونكم النوم.
ما يمكنكم أن تخشوه بشكلٍ أدقّ هو تفكّك أو تبدّل دعم الولايات المتّحدة غير المشروط لكم، الذي تمليه مصالحها الاقتصاديّة، وكذلك انتقال مركز جاذبيّتها الديموغرافي والثقافي الى الشرق والجنوب (حيث انّ المهاجرين اللاتينيّين والآسيويّين، بالتوازي مع الأميركيّين السود يملكون توجّهاتٍ مختلفة عن توجّهات البروتستانتيّين الأنغلو ساكسونيّين البيض الذين يتمركزون في الساحل الشرقي). من البديهي أن لا تملك الولايات المتّحدة ـ إلا في حالاتٍ نادرة جداً واستثنائيّة ـ سياسةً خارجيّة لا تتوافق مع ضروراتها الداخليّة، وهي إجراءاتٌ تعتمدونها أيضاً. إنّها إحدى سلبيّات الديموقراطيّات الانتخابيّة الموقّتة، وإيجابيّات الدول المتحجّرة ذهنياً، حيث لا يستحقّ ظاهرها الخارجي البدائي بدرجاتٍ متفاوتة، أن يؤخذ بعين الاعتبار. وذلك مضاعفٌ عندكم بسبب سطوة العسكريّين، وهم رجالٌ لا ينظرون إلا الى المدى القصير بتعاطيهم مع سياساتٍ يفترض بها أن تنظر الى البعيد.
لكن في ما يتعلٌّق بالولايات المتّحدة، فإن تبعيتها للمعطيات الداخليّة يجب أن تطمئنكم. فإعادة التمركز الاستراتيجي لدولةٍ، يؤمن تسعة من كلّ عشرة أشخاص فيها بالله، تماماً مثلكم، تفترض أن تقوم برمي كلّ كتبها المقدّسة الى النار وأن تنكر مصيرها الجلي وأن تجرّم منذ الأزل مثلها الأعلى في الريادة وتمزّق كلّ كتبها المدرسيّة. وهذا أمرٌ مستبعد (فكيف تخافون؟).
تنظر كلّ المجتمعات اليهوديّة في العالم، ومن بينها الفرنسيّة أيضاً، بسلبيّةٍ قصوى الى باراك حسين أوباما، ذلك الخائن الذي يملك القوّة. لم أكن أتوقّع أن ينقاد مؤرّخ محنكٌ مثلك خلف ذلك السحر النجموي الخاص، بعالمٍ لم يعد يقرأ الكتب، بل يرى ويستمع بشكلٍ مستمر الى النجوم والمشاهير.
هل تظنّ فعلاً أنّ رجلاً ما، قد يغيّر حال العالم، ونظام القوى، وتاريخاً ثقيلاً جداً، ببعض الكلمات الواعدة؟
هل يتحمّل مسؤوليّة هذه الخرافات التي تبنيها بعض الشخصيّات، والتي يقتات منها عالم الصحافة، أو الشاشة الصغيرة التي يسودها مناخٌ بونابارتي، حيث إنّ الخلفيّة المباشرة تعطي سلطةً مطلقة لصاحب قراراتٍ نسبيّة، فاصلةً إيّاه عن كلّ إطاره وكلّ ما يكبّله ولا يظهر؟ أو انّ مسؤوليّتها تعود لإقامةٍ مطوّلة في بروكسل إلى جانب أوروبيّين مجانين فقدوا فكرهم المستقل.
أوروبا تكبر في إطارٍ سخيف، خاسرةً قواها، وهي تصبح مع الأيّام شديدة الحساسيّة والسذاجة. لها عينا «شيمين» لـ«رودريغها» القابع خلف الأطلسي، في حين لا يملك هو وقتاً يضيّعه وينظر إلى مكانٍ آخر. الى آسيا، الى المحيط الهادئ، الى الشرق الأقصى. هناك حيث تحدث الأمور الكبيرة. سليمانك المتردّد هذا سيخيّب ظنونك. ليس خطأه. هو قادرٌ ومتعاطف. أهدافٌ نبيلة، خطابٌ بارع، تحليلاتٌ جيّدة، انفتاحٌ على المحيط، قدرةٌ على التعاطف مع الآخرين.
قدرةٌ على الاستماع؟ نعم.
قدرةٌ على الفعل، لا.
في أيّ مشروعٍ سياسي، كما في أيّ لوحة، هناك ما يريده الفنّان، وما يستطيعه العصر. وذلك ليس فقط لأنّه يحتاج الى الكونغرس حتّى يمرّر إصلاحاته، ولا لأنه يملك سلاحاً مصلّتاً فوق رأسه اسمه «معاداة الساميّة»، يداه مكبّلتان من الآباء المؤسّسين للولايات المتّحدة. إنّه مصيرٌ مكتوب منذ اتّفاقية «المايفلاور».
لكن الذي أوصلك الى هذا الأمل المجنون لا يخلو من المنطقيّة. إسرائيل، كما تقول، لا يمكنها أن تنقذ نفسها بنفسها. كانت الصهيونيّة الحلّ الوطني للقضيّة اليهوديّة، ولكن ها انّ هذا الحلّ قد خلق أزمةً دوليّة راح نطاقها يتخطّاكم. الوضع المعقّد الذي أنتم فيه يفرض تدخّل «وسيطٍ نزيه» يثق به الطرفان، وقادر عند الضرورة أن يلوي ذراعيهما. لا يوجد إلا طرفٌ واحد على هذه المعمورة: «الدولة التي لا غنى عنها». «وحده، تدخّل الولايات المتحدة الحازم، قد يفرض على الطرفين المتحاربين تسويةً ضروريّة لبقائهما»: إعادة الأراضي المحتلة لأحدهما، والاعتراف بحقيقة وجود إسرائيل للآخر. وتضيف، أنّ ذلك يأتي في مصلحة الولايات المتّحدة.
أن يملك الغرب، بقدراته العسكريّة والماليّة والقانونيّة مفاتيح الحل أمرٌ بديهي. لكن من هو الغرب الفاعل؟ أميركا الشماليّة وأوروبا هما كيانان يهوديّان مسيحيّان، يقع عليهما واجب التدخّل، مجتمعين أو كلّ منهما على حدة. لكن أميركا المؤمنة، القادرة على إيجاد حل، لا ترغب به أساساً بسبب لاوعيها التاريخي الذي يحمل اسماً هو العهد القديم. وأوروبا التي لا تؤمن بالله، والتي قد ترغب بإيجاد الحل، لا تستطيع أن تخطو خطوة البحـث عنه، بسبب تأنيب الضمير التاريخي الذي تعيش فيه، والذي يحمل اسماً آخر: «نجمة داوود الصفراء».
لسوء الحظ، الأكثر استعداداً لهذه المهمّة الجوهريّة غير جديرين بالاحترام.
ربّما أنت تبالغ في تقدير قدرات من تعتبره منقذاً، حتى تقلّل الى هذا الحد من تقدير طبيعة «العلاقة المميزّة» التي تربطكم بالولايات المتحدة. هذا الرابط بينكما لا يحتاج الى اتفاقيات تحالفٍ شبيهة بحلف الناتو أو غيرها. هو ليس فقط رابطاً سياسياً أو آنياً ولد في العام 1967 من تخلّي فرنسا عن موقعها كحليف رئيسي ومموّنٍ للأسلحة. هو غير متعلّقٍ أيضاً بأداء لوبي فريد مثل الأيباك (لجنة الشؤون العامة الأميركيّة الإسرائيليّة) التي تسمح لنصف الكونغرس الأميركي، أي 300 نائب بالالتقاء في اجتماعها السنوي في واشنطن ليستمعوا خلال بثٍ مباشر الى رئيس وزرائكم. تلك «الأيباك» التي توقّع الشيكات هي التي تنقل المعلومات الى مستفيديها، وتذهب إلى حدّ كتابة القوانين التي سيصوّتون لها. إنّ سلطة الكونغرس لا يستهان بها لكنّها ليست قاطعة. تحالفكما معاً مصيري لكما وتلقائي، يسري في دمكما ويعود الى زمن وصول المنشقّين عن الكنيسة الى «الكيب كود» في العام 1637. نيويورك، مدينة الولايات المتّحدة الأولى، وأكبر مدينةٍ يهوديّة في العالم هي لكم. نحن هنا في إطارٍ يتخطّى لعبة التأثير المتبادل أو تطابق المصالح، حتى ولو كان بإمكانها أن تتباين أحياناً، حيث انّ خبيرين أميركييّن في العلاقات الدوليّة قد ألّفا كتاباً موثّقاً، عن الحماقة التي ترتكبها الولايات المتحدة بمجازفتها بمصالحها العامة وعلاقتها بمليار مسلم لأجل 14 مليون شخص في العالم.
نعم، لكن الشاعريّة (أو علاقتنا الخياليّة بهذا العالم) لديها منطقها الذي لا ينطبق على السياسة. الأصوليون الانكليز، عبروا الأطلسي، كما عبرتم البحر الأحمر حتى يؤسّسوا القدس الجديدة. آلاف المدن الأميركية تحمل أسماء من الإنجيل. الأرماجدون، أو المعركة الأخيرة بين الخير والشر التي تستحوذ على من يؤمنون بعودة المسيح مصدرها إحدى قراكم، «ميجيدو». ليس هذا من التاريخ القديم. كلّ جيلٍ جديد يعيد ترداد النغمة ذاتها، وكلّ الطوائف البروتيستانتية الجديدة، تعيش دور القبيلة التائهة التي تعيد اكتشاف شرقها. القدس القديمة. تلك الحقيقيّة، تملك حقّ البكوريّة على خليفتها الثانية.
أنتم النموذج الأصلي وهم نسخةٌ عنكم. ربّما في يومٍ ما ستكونون، ما أستبعده، مجرّد محميّة سياسيّة عسكريّة على قدر ما سيكونون تابعين لكم روحياً. بماذا يتفوّق المحمي على الحامي؟ هو لا يملك سوى القوّة، بينما تملكون أنتم السلطة. كيف ننصّب حكماً، أخاً صغيراً يعطي لكلمات القبيلة المعاني نفسها التي تعطونها؟ ألستم، أنتم وهم، أولاد مستعمرين أوروبيّين؟ الحدود؟ هي بنظركم تحدٍّ يجب تخطّيه. (...) أميركا ليست سوى إسرائيلٍ كبيرة نجحت. إسرائيل، أميركا صغيرة تعاني، وللاثنتين نقطة تجمعهما: لا أحد يستطيع محاسبتهما، سوى الله.
إنّ «عمليّة السلام» قد انهارت. خمس عشرة سنة بعد اتّفاقيّة أوسلو، رضي فيها الطرف الفلسطيني بانتهاك شرعة الأمم المتّحدة التي تمنع تملّك أراضٍ سلبت بالقوّة، وذلك بهدف الحصول على دولةٍ بعد خمس سنوات. (على العكس من ذلك) شهدت احتلالاً أكثر، وحواجز أكثر، وسجناء أكثر، واستيطاناً أكثر ممّا كان قبل توقيع الاتفاقيّة. إنّ أحد أسباب هذا الإخفاق الكلّي والتام، من بين أسباب أخرى، هو غياب آليّةٍ فعليّة لمراقبة تنفيذ القرارات، قادرة على أن تعاقب الانتهاكات شيئاً فشيئاً وتجازي المنتهكين. أنت تقولها بحكمة: يحتاج المجتمع الدولي، ليقوم بذلك، لوسيطٍ حيادي بين الطرفين. وذلك الذي يلعب هذا الدور منحاز. الولايات المتّحدة تنظر الى العالم من خلال عيونكم. ليس تباعد المسافة ما عليكم أن تخشوه، بل الإفراط في المجاورة بينكم. الغرب لا يستطيع أن يعود عليكم بالفائدة لأنّه يفكر ويشعر في العمق مثلكم، مهما قال غير ذلك للملأ. في اليوم الذي سيصبح فيه هذا العالم (الذي يعود عليكم بالفائدة حتى الآن) غريـــباً عنكم وسيكفّ عن التواطؤ معكم، حينــها فقط سيتمكّن من خدمتكم.
توشك الولايات المتّحدة على القيام بخطوةٍ جماهيريّة وإحداث ضجّةٍ لن يكون لها تتمّة في الحقيقة. قد يملكون جرأة عابرة ويهدّدون بإغلاق حسابٍ مصرفي، لا أكثر. أن يُطلب منهم نشر قوّة دوليّة عسكريّة ومدنيّة تحت قيادة حلف الناتو على حدودكم، سيفترض عليهم استخدام أسلحتهم ضدّ إسرائيليّين، يعني تعريض كلّ أصحاب القرارات لموقفٍ حرجٍ جداً. قد تتشكّل هذه الوحدة العسكريّة من فيدجيّين، أو فنلنديّين أو غينيّين، لكنّ القرار سيعود الى المكتب البيضاوي، وأيّ رئيسٍ أميركي سيأخذ على عاتقه القيام بأيّ فعلٍ غير أخوي (ازاءكم) قد يعتبر جريمةً عائليّة.
على الخط الأزرق الذي يفصل مسافة 129 كلم لبنان عن إسرائيل، أنهك تخطّي بقرةٍ إسرائيليّة للحدود عدّة كتائب من قوّات حفظ السلام على مدى أسبوع. من كان ليتجرّأ على التصويب نحوها؟ على «اليونيفيل» أن تشاهد انتهاكات طيرانكم اليوميّة للمجال الجوّي اللّبناني ولقرارات مجلس الأمن، بالدم البارد نفسه الذي تتحلّى به لانتشال الألغام التي زرعتموها أيّام الاحتلال، والقنابل العنقوديّة التي استخدمتموها حديثاً. أيّ قائد عسكري فرنسي سيتجرّأ على إعطاء امرٍ بالهجوم على مركبة أو طائرة مقاتلة، أو بالأحرى على أيّ جندي مشاةٍ إسرائيلي؟ سوف يتمّ استدعاؤه في الدقيقة، وسيمتنع عن قراءة الصحف لما لا يقلّ عن ستّة أشهر.
لا بدّ من أنّك تتحلّى بشجاعةٍ كبيرة حتى تعبّر، على نقيض تصريحات سلطتكم القضائيّة، عن ترحيبك بالتدخّل الدولي. لا يدخل ذلك في إطار الخصائص الوراثيّة لهذه السلطويّة التي توقّعها لويس ماسينيون عام 1948 «أظنّ أنّ هذا البلد سيقاوم كلّ التدخّلات الدولية. منذ اللّحظة التي ظنّ فيها أنّه يمتلك الحق، لن نستطيع أن نقنعه بأيّ شيءٍ آخر». طبقتك السياسية لطالما اعتزّت بأن لا تنقاد للضغوطات، تريد أن تكون يداها ممتلئتين وحرّتين في آن. لا يحقّ للصديق الغربي إلا توفير الأسلحة والأموال والفيتو والمهاجرين.
(إسرائيل هي الملك بهيئة الطفل المدلل) ففي كلّ المنظّمات الدوليّة، يصبح الفيتو الأبوي تلقائياً. كلّ لجان التحقيق المتتالية لم تأتِ بنتيجة (وحدهم الأشخاص أو المؤسّسات المستقلّة يستطيعون التشكيك بأقوالكم). التقرير الأخير المؤلف من 550 صفحة حول «الاستخدام غير المتوازن للعنف في قطاع غزّة» والذي لا يستثني أحداً لن يكون له أيّ متابعة، خاصة ان اللجنة منبثقة عن لجنة حقوق الإنسان في الأمم المتّحدة في جنيف، التي يسهل التشكيك فيها. كانت لجنة غولدستون برئاسة يهوديٍ من جنوب أفريقيا، متعاطف ومرتبط عائلياً بإسرائيل منذ البدء. طلبت هذه اللّجنة من الحكومة العبرية التعاون. فجاءها الرفض.
ما هو محايد يعتبر متحيّزاً، ما هو معادٍ يعتبر إجراميا، هذه هي عقيدة حكومتكم. لا شيء يكلّفها. شيكاتكم على بياض.
بما أنّكم تحصلون على ما تريدونه، لا تمنعون أنفسكم عن أيّ شيء: استخدام الأسلحة الجديدة والممنوعة، القذائف السهميّة، القذائف الحارقة، القنابل العنقوديّة، وكذلك انتهاك معظم بنود اتّفاقيات جنيف بكل اطمئنان، (بما في ذلك التنقيب عن الآثار ونفي مدنيّين من أرضٍ محتلّة). وهي اتّفاقيات ترفضون التصديق على بروتوكولاتها الإضافيّة التي تتيح مراقبة تطبيقها. إضافةً الى ضربكم بعرض الحائط محكمة العدل الدولية والمحكمة الجنائية الدولية. وكذلك كل الرؤوس النووية التي تملكونها من دون الخضوع لتفتيش أو مراقبة الوكالة الدولية للطاقة الذرية. أمّا في ما يخص اتفاقيات فيينّا التي تشترط حصانة الحقائب الدبلوماسية وموظفيها، فهي تنطبق على كلّ الدول باستثنائكم. تستطيع دبلوماسية فرنسية أن تبقى محتجزة من دون طعام ولا شراب لمدة سبع عشرة ساعة عند معبر إيريز، وكذلك يمكن لقنصل فرنسي أن يحتجز في غرفة صغيرة لثلاث ساعات متتالية قرب بيت لحم. باريس التي كانت لتستدعي سفيرها من أيّ دولةٍ أخرى لمثل هذه الإجراءات، ستتغاضى عن الإهانة. تجاوزاتكم مستمرّة، وتغاضينا عنها متكرّر. يجب أن نكون أتراكا حتى نطالب باعتذارٍ ونحصل عليه. الفرنسيّون يديرون خدّهم الأيسر. إنّ أيّ سلطةٍ لا تعود ملزمة بتحمّل مسؤوليّة أفعالها تصبح غير مسؤولة، لا بل مصابة بجنون العظمة، فلنقل: متطرّفة. بعد تقريرٍ أعدّته لجنة تحقيقٍ كان يترأسها السيناتور الأميركي جورج ميتشل، صرّح أرييل شارون في العام 2001 «لا أحد يملك الحق ـ لا أحد! ـ في جرّ إسرائيل للمحاكمة أمام محكمة العالم». فليكن. لكن حينها، فلنتوقّف عن التحدّث عن دولٍ فاسدة. بين من يستشيط غضباً على الهامش ومن يعلو فوق كلّ القوانين، أيّ إله قد يحدث فرقاً؟
إذا ما كان التحامكم بالغرب يضمن لكم حصانةً ما، فإنّ الفجوة بينكم وبين الشرق تضمن لكم عدم الأمان. علاقتكم بالغرب، إذا ما أخذنا بعين الاعتبار انحسار دعم الولايات المتّحدة، ليست من المسلّمات. أشكّ في أن الصين والبرازيل وروسيا والهند، التي سينافس انتاجها الداخلي إنتاج الولايات المتحدة وأوروبا في العام 2030، ستبقى تدعمكم بالاهتمام ذاته. أما علاقتكم بالشرق، فلن تكون موضع بحث.
إنما من دون شك، سندكم سيبقى قويّاً. اليهود خارج إسرائيل والولايات المتّحدة لا يزالون وسيبقون صامدين. إلاّ أنّ سندكم الحقيقي أمامكم، هو جيرانكم. كلّما توجّهت إسرائيل الى الغرب، كلّما أدار لها العالم الإسلامي ظهره. حلفاؤكم في المنطقة، أولئك الذين أبرمتم معهم اتفاقيات سلامٍ متحفّظة، مثل الأردن ومصر، يصعب عليهم أكثر وأكثر إخفاء مجتمعٍ يزداد عدائيّة تجاهكم. فلنصلِ لتبقى الديموقراطيّة في تلك الدول معطّلة، لأنّها إن وجدت، ستصعّب عليكم حياتكم. تركيا، حليفتكم الوحيدة عسكرياً وسياسياً في المنطقة، تبتعد عنكم بخطى سريعة، لأنّ مجتمعها له تأثيره، والانتخابات فيها غير «مدبّرة» مسبقاً. (...)

من حديث ل جبران خليل جبران عن النهضة العربية - Jobran: On Arab Renaissance

الإسفنجة التي تمتص الماء من خارجها وتنتفخ قليلا لا تتحول إلى ينبوع ماء حي.

إذا كان النهوض بالتلمذة وما يظهره التلميذ بعض الأحايين من المقدرة على الإقتباس السطحي، فالأقطار العربية إذا ناهضة.

إذا كان النهوض بترقيع البالي، فالأقطارالعربية أحرى الأقطار بالإعجاب.

إذا كان النهوض بأن يرتدي شعب ثوبا فصل لشعب آخر فالأقطار العربية بلغت المحجة.

إذا كان النهوض بتبييض القاتم وتكليس المتداعي، وترميم المهدوم، فالأقطار العربية قد وصلت إلى أوج المجد والسؤدد.

إذا كان النهوض بأن ننظر بمكبرات الجهالة، فنرى النملة فيلا والبعوضة جملا فالأقطار العربية قد نهضت حتى ناطحت المجرة.

إذا كان النهوض بالإنصراف عن النبيل لصعوبته، والإستسلام إلى التافه لسهولته فالأقطار العربية قد أصبحت في مأمن

من تقلبات الزمن.

ولكن إذا كان هذا النهوض بالإختراع والإكتشاف، فالأقطار العربية ما برحت هاجعة، هذا إذا نظرنا إلى الإختراع والإكتشاف بعيني المشغوف بالمدنية الغربية و ما فيها من المستحدثات الآلية.

وإذا كان النهوض باليقظة المعنوية، وما يلازمها من معرفة باطنية وشعور صامت، فالشرق لم ينهض بعد لأنه لم يهبط قط. فالكنوز التي اكتشفها لم يفقدها، ولكنه تعامى عنها. وشجرة الدر التي غرسها في التربة القدسيةوسقاها دمه ودموعه لم تزل غضة الأفنان شهية الأثمار، غير أنه تحول عنها وراح يستظل بشجرة أخرى.

The Sponge that absorbs water and grows in size doesn't become a flowing spring..

If renaissance was merely about apprenticeship, and the student's sporadic ability to shallowly quote, then the arab 'regions' are developing..

If renaissance was about re-sewing the torn, then the arab regions are worth of admiration..

If renaissance was about a nation wearing a dress made for antoher, then the arab regions have reached the goal of pilgrimmage..

If renaissance was about whitening the dark, holding the falling, and re-arranging the demolished, then the arab regions have reached the peak of glory and good deeds..

If rising was about looking with the lenses of ignorance, to see the ant an elephant, or the bug a camel, then the arab regions have risen as tall as the galaxy..

If renaissance was about leaving the noble because of its difficulty, and surrendering to the difficult for its ease, then the arab regions are safe from changes of times...

But If, Renaissance was about invention and discovery, then the arab regions are still asleep - that is, if we look at invention and discovery with the eyes of modern western civilization and what it contains of mechanical innovations..

And If renaissance was about immaterial awareness, and what accompanies it of internal knowledge and silent feeling, then the east hasn't risen yet... that is, because it never fell.. The treasures that it has discovered, are not lost, but merely deliberately unseen.. The tree of jewls that the east planted in the sacred earth, and cared for with blood and tears, is still young and carries delicious fruits, but the east has turned its attention away from it.. and went on to sit in the shadow of another tree.

Invictus - The movie

Watching this movie definitely leads to some contemplations of topics mentioned..

The existence of such a pathetic regime of racial discrimination is truly a disgrace onto the world, but at least... the world did something to bring down such a pathetic thing .... Another similar regime still exists, with the world doing nothing...

Other than the portrayal of the legendary personality of Nelson Mandela (This is nice: http://www.nelsonmandela.org/index.php/memory/views/biography/), and the leadership genius in utilizing the ultimate team experience to contribute to the collective spirit of the new nation, there were some nice statements:

• "Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world. Let freedom reign.”

I really liked the words 'Skunk of the world' .. very catchy, so racist regimes are 'skunk of the world' ..... OK .. Instead of the word 'Israel' we can refer to it as the 'the zionist occupying world skunk regime' .... maybe too long ... keep Israel as a code word for a while, and I will try to come up with another name ...

While watching the movie and listening to some of the words of Mandela, specifically about peaceful struggle, I was reminded of similar statements by Ghandi, and I couldnt help thinking whether peaceful can be a luxury.. A luxury that can be used in situations where the whole world is willing to stand by you and fight your battle of liberation and against racism and injustice (South Africa's case) or in situations where the occupying / colonialist regime is willing to at least adhere to the minimum of humane principles and values (India) ??

The poem (which reminded me of "The song of the giant" published previously on this blog):

Invictus


Out of the night that covers me,

Black as the Pit from pole to pole,

I thank whatever gods may be

For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance

I have not winced nor cried aloud.

Under the bludgeonings of chance

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the Horror of the shade,

And yet the menace of the years

Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll.

I am the master of my fate:I

am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley

The White Tiger - By: Aravind Adiga

Balram Halawi... The white Tiger - an animal that comes only once in a generation.. A servant/slave... A "businessman"... A philosopher .. A murderer and thief !! Tells his story which is a story of modern india (actually two indias)... Did you read Thomas Friedman's 'The world is flat', and think about India as the economic miracle... you will probably enjoy this story..

Balram tells his story, his rise from the darkness and slavery to becoming a successful businessman in the world's call center bangalore. Balram commits crimes to get to the top, but he smartly says: didn't anyone who ever went to the top do it on the corpses of others??! Why should 'some' people be allowed to, while others have to be trapped in the coop!?

The irony is that the crimes tend to be committed against the 'better' people... Is that a universal truth ? Is better/worse something irrelevant here?? Balram didn't hate (and to some extent, love).. he just did what he 'had' to do.. a typical business man indeed !!!!

In this very brave and deep story, Aravind through the eyes and thoughts of Balram, discusses democracy, the system of corruption, the power struggles, the 'Weak'-'Chicken house' mentality, the power of tradition and instincts, ignorance, the closed society, and more concepts that assemble in balram's trip..

"My story is that of a half-baked man.. but careful Mr. President.. Completely baked people, after twelve year of schooling, and three years of college studies, wear nice suits, work in companies and spend the rest of their lives taking orders!"

"My father told me once: 'this is how it is.. I have seen twelve elections.. and somebody else voted for me in each and every one..I heard that people in other cities vote for themselves.. Isn't that an exaggeration?"

"Why do I speak about mother Ganga, the daughter of Vidas, River of light, our protector, the breaker of the chain of birth and rebirth? Everywhere this river flows, becomes darkness!"

"He (Hanuman) is the loyal servant of Rama, and we consider him to be a shining example of serving your lord with infinite loyalty, love and sacrifice... you can understand now how difficult it is to win your freedom here "

"He could have been a cart-puller - a human carriage animal - but my father had a plan .. I was his plan" .. " He told me, 'i spent my whole life living like a donkey, and all i want is that one of my children - at least one - can live like a human being " !

"They remained slaves because they couldn't realize the beauty in this world"
"I admit sir that i am not an original thinker, but an original listener"

"Sir, I wont be saying a new thing if i say that the history of the world is ten thousand years of war between the rich and the poor.. every party wants to trick the other.. this is how it has always been.. the poor won few battles (stealing looks to plants in pots, kicking spoiled dogs, etc..) and surely, the rich won the war ten thousand years ago... this is why in one day, the wise, in compassion with the poor, left some symbols in poems that take the shapes of flowers and beautiful girls and the like, but when they are clearly understood, its secrets are revealed and it allows the poorest people on earth to end the thought war !"

"How blind are you people.. you live in glass buildings.. talk on the phone everynight to americans thousands of miles away, and have no idea of the man driving your car!"

"Maybe I'll open a school... and english school for poor kids in bangalore.. a school where you're not allowed to ruin their brains with stories about ghandi.. just facts of life.. a school of white tigers!"

"breaking the coop needs somebody like me, and it needs masters like mr. ashok, who doesnt deserve - inspite of all his virtues - to be a master.. but to be removed, and replaced by exceptional servants: like me"

" I will not say i made a mistake killing my master that night.. I will say that to realize for a day, hour, even minute, how it feels not to be a servant is worth it ! "

The Decay of the Angel - By: Yukio Mishima

The fourth and last book in the sea of fertility.

In this novel, Mishima takes the story of incarnation to its last step. Honda adopts the boy he believes to be the third re-incarnation of his old friend kiyoaki, toru, who is a dark character who gets pleasure out of the suffering of others. Toru is in many ways the non-emotional anti-kiyoaki... then Honda discovers that he was wrong, and that Toru is NOT the incarnation of Kiyoaki...

Fearing the collapse of his system of expectations, Honda goes to meet kiyoaki's love, Satoko who crushes his beliefs further by not remembering him or Kiyoaki... she even wonders if Kiyoaki ever existed ...

Mishima further explores the themes of incarnation, physical beauty, emotions and buddhist beliefs: thoughts about death's beauty and accepting it (?), emptiness, spirituality and materialism...

2010 Wish - Hope - الأمل

بطاقـة معايـدة
فواز طرابلسي

أمنية واحدة للعام الجديد: الأمل.

الأمل، نعم.

لأن الأرواح زهقت وأنهكت الأجساد ونفد الصبر من طيور البوم تنعب مفردات بلاغتها المقيتة عن «الانحدار إلى قعر لا قرار له».

الأمل، لأنه بات يصعب الاقتناع بأن الفحش في وصف بؤس «أحوال الأمة» يسهم في «الاستنهاض» أو يزيدنا معرفة بأوضاع أو يرسم خريطة طريق أو يزخّم قدرات على التغيير. الأمل بالضد مما هو سائد ومن استبداد أسياد السلطة والمال.

الأمل، طالما لا يزال يوجد صبي في فلسطين يفاخر: «أنا حطّيت خشمي في خشم الجندي الإسرائيلي!».

الأمل، لأنه وسط بُرك الدم وأكوم الأشلاء في بلاد الرافدين ثمة من لا يزال يجيد التصويب على الاحتلال الأميركي لا على أخيه العراقي.

الأمل، لأن في الجزائر مناضلة اسمها جميلة بوحيرد تطالب بحقها وحق مواطنيها في الرعاية الصحية بالحزم ذاته الذي كانت تصرخ فيه بوجه جلاديها الفرنسيس مطالبة بحق بلادها في الاستقلال.

والأمل لأنه يوجد زمن كانت مصر فيه تمد الجزائر بالسلاح وتدريب المقاتلين وإيواء الجرحى والمساعدات وأساتذة اللغة العربية، بدلاً من أن ترجمها بشتائم عنصريي كرة القدم، أكانوا ساسة توريثيين أو مرتزقة المثقفين أو رعاع العاميين.

الأمل بعالم عربي يتسع بلا تمييز لجميع أبنائه وبالوحدة طوعاً في الديموقراطية والمواطنة وحقوق الأقليات.

الأمل، للذين لا زالوا يعتقدون بأن نفط العرب وثرواتهم الطبيعية وأرصدتهم وصناديقهم السيادية يجب أن توظف لتوفير العمل والخبز والدواء والدراسة للجميع بدلاً من أن تهدر في استنقاذ النظام الرأسمالي من أزماته وتغذية آلاته الحربية.

الأمل، للذين لم تقنعهم الرأسمالية بأنها نهاية التاريخ بل تؤكد لهم أزماتها المتكررة بأنها أعتى قوة لاستغلال الإنسان لأخيه الإنسان وأكبر ورشة تدمير للطبيعة. الأمل في عالم جديد يحتضن كل العوالم التي يتكوّن منها ويحقق معجزة اقتران الحرية بالمساواة والديموقراطية بالعدالة الاجتماعية. الأمل لكي يبقى في نهاية النفق بصيص نور. والنور أمل. الأمل بالشباب والنساء خصوصاً.

والأمل دوماً وأبداً، وصولاً إلى «الأمل الذي لا شفاء منه».

الأمل للذين يكدحون من مناجم المغرب إلى «المحلة الكبرى» ومن مدارج شجر البن في اليمن إلى مراعي السودان ومن أهوار العراق وسواحل الخليج إلى سهول سوريا وجبال لبنان.

الأمل للذين يكدحون بالذهن بمثل التزام وعناد وصفاء الراحل أنيس صايغ، الواثقين بأن «مجتمع المعرفة» ينبني على «مجتمع الإنتاج» لا على تنابلة الريوع، المؤمنين بالثقافة الناقدة الفاضحة، لا ثقافة تحنيط البشر في الماضي وتكبيلهم بالجذور وتحليل ذبحهم باسم هوياتها القاتلة.

والأمل بالأدب والفن والموسيقى والرقص تزيد الحياة متعة وفرحاً وتثريها بالجمال والمعنى.

الأمل، كما في «تحية العمل والأمل»، علامة التعارف الزاخرة بالمعاني: الأمل للذين يعملون، لأنهم وحدهم من يحق لهم جني خيرات عملهم. والأمل بما هو صناعة مثل سائر الصناعات، على ما قال الشاعر المغربي عبد اللطيف اللعبي (جائزة «غونكور» للآداب الفرنسية للعام 2009).

وأخيراً، الأمل، كما في وصية محمود درويش، عندما أجاب عن سؤال: ما العمل؟ ـ نربّي الأمل. للذين يحتفلون، كل على طريقته، بانقضاء العام 2009: تصبحون على أمل.

الان في المنفى - Now .. In the exile -- By: Mahmoud Darwish (محمود درويش)

الآن.... في المنفى

الآن، في المنفى... نعم في البيت،

في السّتين من عمر سريع

يوقدون الشّمع لك فافرح ، بأقصى ما استطعت من الهدوء،

لأنّ موتاً طائشاً ضلّ الطريق إليكمن فرط الزحام ... وأجّلك

قمرٌ فضوليٌ على الأطلال ،يضحك كالغبي

فلا تصدّق أنه يدنو لكي يستقبلك

هو في وظيفته القديمة،مثل آذارالجديد...

اعاد للأشجار أسماء الحنين ‏و أهملك

فلتحتفل مع أصدقائك بانكسار الكأس.

‏في الستين لن تجد الغد الباقي لتحمله

على كتف النشيد... ويحملكْ

قلْ للحياة، كما يليق بشاعرٍ متمرّسٍ:‏

سيري ببطء كالأناث الواثقات بسحرهنَّ ‏وكيدهنَّ.

لكلِّ واحدةٍ نداءٌ ما خفيٌّ:‏هيْت لكْ/ ما أجملك!

‏

سيري ببطءٍ ، يا حياة، لكي أراك‏بكامل النقصان حولي.

كم نسيتك في خضمّك باحثاً عنّي وعنك.

وكلّما أدركت سرّاً منك قلت بقسوةٍ: ما أجهلكْ!‏

قلْ للغياب: نقصتني وأنا حضرت ... لأكملكْ!‏

*

*

Now .. In the exile
Now .. In the exile, Yes at home
at sixty of a fast age,
They light candles for you
So rejoice.. with your utmost silence
Because a reckless death lost the way to you ..
because of overcrowding.. and postponed you

a curious moon on the ruins..
laughing like a fool.
Don't believe that he is coming close to welcome you
He is in his old job like the new march...
returned to trees the names of longing, and neglected you..
So celebrate with your friends the shattering of the glass.

At sixty.. You will not find the remaining tomorrow
so that you may carry it on the shoulder of a hymn.. and that it may carry you

Tell life - as is worthy of an experienced poet:
Walk slowly.. like women so confident of their charm..
and their schemes.. each with an invisible call:
come closer.. Your are so beautiful
Walk slowly oh life,
so that I may see you with all the incompleteness around me..
How much have I forgotten you, In your midst
searching for me and for you..
And whenever I realized one of your secrets, you answered harshly,
"So ignorant you are!"
Tell absence:
You have reduced me and I came..
To complete you!

Game Theory - Interesting notes

Finishing a very interesting Audio course on 'Game Theory', which was a field that really interested because of its relationship with strategy, probably, mathematics and management science, I couldn't but notice some points that truly describe the elegance of sciences and knowledge through their beautiful interconnectivity.

Here are some of my observations and highlights:

• Game Theory can be defined as the 'Science of strategic decision making in an interactive environment'. A strategy in the game theory context is the best move or choice that a player makes in every situation to maximize his payoff.

• Beautifully enough, rationality is defined in game theory as 'seeking the solution that maximizes the payoff according to a certain player's standards'.. Makes you think about how much some people's lives would improve if they just were rational enough to define their standards and work according to them. Having the 'right' standards is a whole new issue by the way.

• The nice concept of a 'Nash' equilibrium, which is defined as a scenario in which any player would be 'satisfied' by his strategy so that if he could, he wouldn't change

• This is a nice a thought exercise called 'the prisoner's dilemma'..
  
  Two prisoners are with the police and being investigated as police doesnt have enough evidence. They are both guilty. They are separated and each told that if he 'tells' he will be rewarded by being set free, the other will receive the full penalty. If none 'tells' they both receive minimal prison time; yet if they both tell, they will share the full penalty. This is a non-zero sum game, and even though any rational player will chose to 'tell' on the other player, the outcome of this is much worse than cooperation... No Nash equilibrium exists here... if a player 'tells'; and if the other doesn't then its fine, but then that other would wish if he had made the other choice.. If the other had told, then both would wish that they hadn't told... Etc..

• A study of game theory, combined with statistics of penalty kicks shot sides (in soccer) and goal keeper jumps would lead to the conclusion (according to the studied sample) that best strategy for a goal keeper is to go left with a 42% probably thus reducing the shooter's success chance to its lowest @ 83%.... Surprisingly enough the shooter's best strategy would be to shoot left with a 39% probability, thus reaching the success chance of 82%.. this is a minimax game strategy.

• This is another interesting thought exercise.. Its called the Monty Hall problem (after the show) - It was actually in the movie '21' but - naturally - they failed to explain it clearly, and it happened that a friend asked me about it, Here is a summary and explanation:
  
  There is a car behind 1 of 3 doors, a player selects one door at random, so the host then opens one of the other two doors, the one which he knows surely doesn't have the car behind it. The player then has two options: Either keep that same choice, or chose another. WHAT SHOULD HE DO??
  
  Here initially the player had a 33% chance of winning (1 out 3).
  
  After the opening of one 'wrong' door, game theory proves that the best strategy is to CHANGE the door - ALWAYS.. Why??
  
  Well, If the player got it right initially ( something of 33% probability) and changed then he will always lose - this has a 33% chance of happening ... If he had got it wrong (66% chance) and changes he will always win. The total payoff is the sum of weighted payoffs, which will be 66% when changes, 33% when he doesn't .. ALWAYS... Experimentally this is true as well, as counter intuitive as it may seem.

• This is interesting for computer scientists.. One experiment asked programmers to come up with a computer program that can compete with people in the 'prisoner's dilemma' game, and there were many programs submitted that we actually tested with a large number of subjects. There was one program that - IN PRACTICE - always did best:
  the tit-for-tat, that is, if you betray me this round, i will betray you in the next one, otherwise i will cooperate......... Even though there were many formulas that if you calculate will prove to be better theoretically, this program did far better than them (after all this program's best possible result is a tie)..... Why? well it has the magical components: It is simple, provok-able, forgiving and straight forward... In essence it is positive, simple and just.... This is a deep insight about humanity!

• Game theory analyzes threats, promises, commitments, signalling and incentive schemes in depth, along with the elements that make them work and useful

• An interesting issue is the 'tragedy of the commons' defined as the scenario in which a group of people when doing a certain 'bad' activity in a number that exceeds a certain threshold, will all suffer damages and losses... A small number of them doing it will not have that effect.. this originated from sharing grazing lands, but has very nice applications to pollution and traffic jams for example.

• Applying game theory to economics in determination of demand equations and optimum profit levels (Oligapolies)

• Applying game theory to voting methodologies and determining the effects of each style of voting and democracy for example on overall fairness (the tyranny of the majority, the average preference, etc..)

• The application of game theory to Auctions and their types, and the methods of generating maximum return to the auctioneer and the maximum value of the bid-winner, introducing the beautiful dilemma of the 'winner's curse' ( you only win if you pay for something much more than anybody else thinks its worth )

This was a really challenging course that can raise a lot of healthy scientific curiosity to the underlying mechanism of many behaviors that sometimes 'just happen' , and can help a lot in supplying us with the tools and methodologies to have a good grasp and analysis of gain and strategy...

Dare to Live - Andrea Bocelli (Feat Laura Pausini)

( Here is the you tube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCMorpX8nic )


Song's Lyrics:

Try looking at tomorrow not yesterday
And all the things you left behind
All those tender words you did not say
The gentle touch you couldn't find

In these days of nameless faces
There is no one truth but only pieces
My life is all i have to give

Dare to live until the very last
Dare to live forget about the past
Dare to live giving something of yourself to others
Even when it seems there's nothing more left to give

Ma se tu vedessi l'uomo
Davanti al tuo portone
Che dorme avvolto in un cartone,
Se tu ascoltassi il mondo una mattina
Senza il rumore della pioggia,
Tu che puoi creare con la tua voce,
Tu, pensi i pensieri della gente,
Poi, di Dio c'e solo Dio.

Vivere, nessuno mai ce l'ha insegnato,
Vivere, non si può vivere senza passato,
Vivere è bello anche se non l'hai chiesto mai,
Una canzone ci sarà, qualcuno che la canterà

Dare to live searching for the ones you love
(Perché, perché, perché, perché non vivi questa sera?)
Dare to live no one but we all
(Perché, perché, perché, perché non vivi ora?)
Dare to live until the very last
(Perché, perché, perché la vita non è vita)
Your life is all you have to give (Perché) non l'hai vissuta
Vivere!

Dare to live until the very last
(Perché, perché, perché Ia vita non è vita)
Your life is all you have to give (Perché) non l'hai vissuta mai

I will say no (I will say yes)
Say dare to live
Dare to live
, Songs