All volumes are:
I. Communism Versus Democracy
II. Market, Business, Economy
III. Social Matters And Healthy Life -- This
IV. Sundry Other Things
CONTENTS (Of This Volume III)
00. Short Preface (to the whole collection)
[ Explains why the making of collection was necessary and what it contains (in all cases nothing new, but thematically selected). (2019) ]
01. Oh, 'manci, 'manci -pation! -- when nothing is added after the title the piece is from the quite big "Now, Look Here (Publicistics)" book
[ The paper discusses a variety of drawbacks of unnecessary movement for emancipation of the women, pointing by this at a big number of unwished by the women consequences of this current foolishness of the half of humanity. (2002) ]
02. Search For The Woman (Cherchez la Femme) -- from "Social Essays"
[ This is an opus about the women and the men, the differences between them, the emancipation, and what to expect after it. Regardless the fact that the topic is old as the world, it is remarkably actual nowadays, when the set for centuries equilibrium between genders is disturbed. (2004) ]
03. About the degradation of morality
[ This paper discusses, yet from general or philosophical point of view, the quite painful for more older people question about the degradation of morality, is it so, really, why it has happened so, to what this leads, and what can be expected in the future. (2012) ]
04. Neo-Malthusianism, or rational judgment
[ This paper throws new light on neo-Malthusianism, and looks more close at the question with overpopulation and how to fight with it. (1998) ]
05. Just Injustice
[ This material discusses many drawbacks of the system of justice, together with two concrete scientifically motivated (according to the author) propositions: 1) about unification of assessment of damages and guilt, and 2) one entirely new idea for personal modification of punishments. The goal is to have objective, simplified and rightful justice. The material is intended first of all for the thoughtful masses, because the jurists alone will not want to cut the branch on which they are sitting. (2001) ]
06. Social Evils -- from "Social Essays"
[ Here are discussed popularly, but philosophically and psychologically, some of the major scourges of the society, such as the: wars, violence, terrorism, corruption, and others, in order to discover their causes and reach to appropriate methods to fight them, which, in many cases, differ from the generally accepted. (2004) ]
07. Our Inability To Destroy -- from "Social Essays"
[ This is an essay about the contemporary consumer society, that creates artificial things but is unable to destroy them later on. It begins with philosophical reflections about the world in which we are living, and then observes some concrete cases of such inability like the: revolutions and wars, outdated moral norms in the society, obsolescence of the things, garbage of entirely different kind, and other things, and proposes during the review also some directions in which should be working. (2011) ]
08. About the woman and the man -- from "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ This is what is said, with following chapters: I. The Woman, II. The Man, III. The Parents. (2000) ]
09. About the mankind -- from "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ Again what is said, with following chapters: I. The Society (and what it lacks), II. The Civilization (by various topics, stating that we are much behind the desired). (2000) ]
10. About the intellect -- from "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ What is said, with following chapters: I. Definition, II. Reason And Intellect, III. Undeveloped Instinct. (2000) ]
11. About the religion -- from "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ The said, with topics: I. Support For The Masses, II. Morality, III. Existence of God, IV. Atheism. (2000) ]
12. About the violence -- from "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ The said, with topics: I. Necessity Of Violence, II. Acts of Violence, III. Conclusive Remark. (2000) ]
13. About the justice -- from "Ten Cynical Essays"
[ Here the topics are: I. Between The Righteousness And The Justice, II. In Searching Of The Escapism, III. In Affirmation Of The Ego, IV. About The Happiness And the Moderation, V. About The Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Freedom. (2000) ]
14. Bulgarian Survival (Personally Tried) -- from "Social Essays"
[ This is an essay about the basic rules for living by low living standard, as it is in Bulgaria. The material is quite motley in its character, but isn't abstract at all, and is based on checked by the author methods and techniques. The narration begins with general advices for reasonable way of life (which have mostly philosophical character) and the main strategies for survival, then continues with concrete recommendations for subsistence in urban conditions, with ways to avoid visiting the physicians, and ends with some special skills. (2010) ]
15. Cares for your health -- only point 2. from "Miscellaneous in the year 2016", from "Now, Look Here (Publicistics)"
[ Contains some short advices for leading of healthy life, which cost nothing and are personally checked. (2016) ]
16. The Right Way To Get Old (advices to the pensioners) -- from "Social Essays"
[ This is one of the last additions to these essays, a popular article about the proper way to get old, which includes some introduction, concrete chapters about the right look at the medicine and moderation, the dangers of fast transitional periods (here to the old age), cares about the body and its organs (based on personal experiences of the author), then about the brain, and philosophical conclusive remarks. (2018) ]
17. Manifesto of the IIE (Initiative for Iterative Elections) -- from "Curious Manifestos (politistics)"
[ Contains one of a dozen utopian models, that are better than the contemporary democracy. (2000) ]
18. Manifesto of the NNO (New Nomenclature's Offensive) -- from "Curious Manifestos (politistics)"
[ Contains one more utopian model of better democracy. (2000) ]
19. Manifesto of the FFF (Feminism Forcing Formation) -- from "Curious Manifestos (politistics)"
[ The next, rather funny than utopian, model of better democracy. (2000) ]
20. Manifesto of the USC (Union for Strength and Competition) -- from "Curious Manifestos (politistics)"
[ One more funny democratic model. (2000) ]
21. Manifesto of the CCC (Civilized Centralization and Circuses) -- without Addendum, from "Curious Manifestos (politistics)"
[ Also funny democratic model, but easily realizable. (2000) ]
SHORT PREFACE (to the whole collection)
Let me explain briefly why I make this collection of non-fiction and what it contains. Well, I make it because it is so done, usually, because one writes and writes on different themes and in various books and it comes, if comes, time when he (OK, sometimes also she) wants to collect the things by themes, this is as if more proper, and an attitude more directed to the readers. So that after more than a quarter of a century literary work, and especially when I intent to try to sell something as books (or ebooks), I have decided to make four volumes with my materials, papers, parts of books, sometimes even abridged papers, on the following themes:
1. Communism Versus Democracy,
2. Market, Business, Economy,
3. Social Matters And Healthy Life,
4. Sundry Other Things.
These topics, naturally, are not strictly divided, nor ordered in the best manner, but now they exist and this is better than if they were not collected in this form. They are not strictly divided because the topics intersect, but not very much, in this way the materials are better located. The ordering of the things is as if chronological, yet not always, because of some local clustering in some sub-themes, what I find unavoidable. But, mark, that in all cases I publish here
nothing new, this is simply a
collection! And what will be in these parts I will not explain as redundant, the names are eloquent enough. Probably it is good to say what I have left aside, how much. Well, about 10 percents (in all cases not more than 20), because I have almost nothing that is not actual in the moment, or can not become such later, if the situation changes; I have left aside mainly things, Appendixes, which look more scientific, or too obvious and elementary.
Another reason, why I make this in the beginning of 2019, is that I have stopped with this boring (for me) practice of writhing in one language and then translating in some others, no, this will happen no more, because in 69 years one has to begin to value higher his time and do just the necessary. And, after all, when I have moved from my native Bulgarian language, to my very familiar Russian one, and then to the contemporary standard for a language, the English, intending also to translate something (the beginning 3 books) in German, I have come to the top, I have nowhere else to move. For a pair of years I write everything first in English and now this will be also the last language for most of the things; the possible exception is if I have to publish something in the easiest for me way (like I have not yet published my multilingual dictionary Explain, in Bulgarian, or probably to translate it in Russian), or if writing poetry in different languages, or, then, if I decide to begin to use also my real name (and this only in Bulgarian). Put in other words, here are non-fiction things that are translatable, or which I intend to translate; the poetry, obviously, is untranslatable for me (I don't mean to be like Shakespeare, or Pushkin, or Dante, etc.), for the enormous
Urrh is impossible to think about translation, the
Letters (to the posterity) is also difficult to translate and I have never had such intentions, the same about not yet published Explain dictionary, the SF-stories (which are not exactly SF things but rather outmoded social SF) are fiction, they have nothing to do with this collection, and whatever new book of non-fiction I will write (like my future "No problems poses problems") I will write only in English.
So this is, guys and girls, if I were much read I would have adapted to the auditory, but if I am not, I adapt to my easiness and comfort. You try to do something better than this for the people, the word, the posterity, just for free, but I have done what I can. What means that I publish myself on many sites for free, and there I am relatively (for non-fiction) read, and I publish myself for some fee on some sites, and there I am
not read (because the people somehow feel that I say
right things, that are good and moral and necessary and allowed, and when so then they should
not pay, they are used to pay for ... silly or harmful or unmoral things, that's what the capitalism teaches us, alas). However it is, I don't think to become a prophet, I am rather an outmoded preacher, or, then, a thinker gone ahead of his time. Or also: those who are silly enough and need some teaching and instructing and explanations, they avoid giving an ear to me because they don't like to think (and this is
why they are silly), and those who are clever enough to understand me, they avoid reading this because I say trivial common-sense things, nothing really profound, in order to be read as a must in some scientific area. The only salvation for me, or the way to glory, was to preach silly things that people can easily grasp, but I don't want to come so low, or to delude them with invented fables, but I don't want to lie, I am used to seek the truth, not the lie. And it is too late for me to remodel myself, you take me (how I am), or leave me (to perish by myself, like falling tree-leaves with the coming of winter, ha, ha).
Jan, 2019, Sofia, Barbaria, sorry, Bulgaria.
OH, 'MANCI, 'MANCI -PATION!
There are so many things that can be said
against the emancipation of women that one just does not know where to begin. Because it has started not in some Muslim country, or in Bangladesh, or Rwanda-Urundi, to give some examples, but in countries like America, England, France, et cetera. And also not a pair of centuries, or even more, before, when also according to the American constitution the women have had no rights to vote, but roughly before a century -- and since that moment it goes as if from top to bottom (used as modification of "more or less", which in Bulgarian is built like "up or down"), if we do not take this tendency for historical necessity, to what we shall return at the end of the paper. And this means that once more time the people (more precisely, the women) are doing not this, what is necessary, but that, what
can be done in the given moment.
Only that some things that can be done (say, to stick one's finger in the nose, with an apology) is not always good to be done, right? And then, when this was necessary to be done, they have not done it -- for a number of historical, but to a great extent justified for its time, reasons. This "liberte", you see, is a double-edged sword, on which the humankind from ancient times cuts itself (as we continue to cut ourselves on our democracy, but the author speaks amply on that matter on other places). So that
the done not in its proper time emancipation at least does not give much honour to the women,
if the notion of honour by them is understood in emancipated sense, not in the olden religiously-sexual meaning. And, in addition to the harming of their reputation, this is also
quite silly, because they have won nothing with the emancipation, but have definitely lost many things! For example, they have lost the respect or veneration from the part of men about this, that they are the weaker gender, or the more beautiful half of humankind, as have lost also the privilege to sit at home and not to include themselves in the not very pleasant competitive work in the society, and similar things.
And this about the "weaker" gender becomes more and more understood by many people, because, if one does not count the extreme burdenings, the women are more endurable than the men -- on stresses, on insufficient feeding, on monotonous work (which becomes the bigger part of work in one high-technology environment), and as to the life span they beat the men at least with 5-6 years (and according to the statistical data for Bulgaria with whole
seven years, or with
10%, because for 1999 the average life expectancy for men was 67.6 years, where for women -- 74.6). Then this about the more beautiful half of mankind is not very actively popularized, but it is true, i.e. it is right that the
men are more beautiful, looking in a wider period of time, not only between 15 and 25 years, roughly speaking. And this is intuitively perfectly clear to the
women, because they are those who use at least five times more cosmetics than the men, and when something (or someone) is really beautiful, then this thing does not need any additional corrections (what proves your word "make up", which is, in fact, French,
maquillage -- to add something, to correct).
And the possibility for one of the family to sit at home and take care about the children, prepare the food, and make what one only likes in his or her free time, is a thing which begins nowadays to become main desire for the people in the current-day dynamical and stressing competitive society. If a pair of centuries before this might have been dull and boring then now, with all the media, including the Internet, everybody just dreams to sit at home, but there are not many those people who can afford this, for one must earn ones living. But before the emancipation the women have
sat at home, where now they can't anymore, or then don't want, to do this. And in the same time it is well known, at least on the West, that if one eats where one finds (in snack bars and taverns, or else buys ready-made food), alone washes his (or her) clothes, cleans his rooms, etc. (or pays to somebody to do this for him), than he spends practically as much money as for
two persons. Even only by buying of food, if one has enough time to tour around the shops, one can economize at least 10%, and all this is money. Similarly with the housing, the difference between such for one person or for two is not big. Well, if the women have worked as before in the field, or have looked after the animals, then the things might have been different (but how many are those who work in the field nowadays?). But exactly then, when the women were really quite overloaded, exactly at that time they have not raised their voices, for there was no emancipation then, but now they just lose -- because the latter is in effect.
Though this about the families begins little by little to become old, because according to Bulgarian statistics the total coefficient of divorces is 0.20, what means that on five marriages there is only one divorce. But this is only for the moment, where the tendency is such that in very near future (say, after 20-30years) we will come to three marriages on one divorce, then to two, and to even less. Already in the moment in many countries and regions (in the big towns) such proportion exists, So that
the family comes down from historical stage,
as
direct consequence of the emancipation! Because, really, the sexes are only two (and this is hidden in the very Russian word
pol meaning gender, because, if one begins to think about this, there is also the word
polovina but shortened to the same
pol and meaning half), and if both sexes have equal votes then exactly in the
half of the cases would have been impossible to achieve consensus, and without consent what is the reason of this artificially set in society limitation of freedom of the individual (be it man or woman)? Let us not doubt that the family institution (or marriage) was
introduced by men (for in the antiquity, when it was justified, nobody has asked the women), but predominantly
in the interest of women (for they are those who want to keep some man for themselves, where the men, as a rule, prefer to tour around from woman to woman like the bees visit different flower pistils). But then to what this reduces? Well, it reduces to this, that
the women simply cut the branch on which they are sitting.
And in this case we must ask ourselves: but why are they doing this? Well, because of the euphoria of freedom, else there remains only the possibility that they have not much brains -- choose the preferable for you variant. Because equal rights mean also equal obligations, isn't it so? For example, that the women, too, do military service, or work in mine shafts, or pay their bills in restaurants, or have to pay alimony in case of divorce, or receive pension on equal with the men age, and similar things. This, that
the men have not yet emancipated themselves, does not mean that they will not do this in a near future! Like for example: that by divorce the children, when they are boys, were given to the father, and to the mother only the girls, what is entirely natural, at least after the age of three (but also earlier, because the mothers who breastfeed their children can nowadays be counted on fingers, and to lead his child to a kindergarten can also a father). Roman law has established that the children were given, as a rule, to the mother, but there was not emancipation at those times, and if it exists now then the law can be changed. And that the mother also must pay alimony and see her children (if they are boys -- but such is the secret desire of each mother) once in two weeks for a pair of hours. Well, if that is what she wants, and if the father agrees to bring them up, then there is nothing bad in this, but what will she gain from this is not at all clear, because the women, at least up to the present moment, have not expressed such wishes.
And in general, what is this emancipation? Well, this means, of course, freeing (from the yoke -- although now not existing -- of the husband), but usually this is understood in the sense of equality. But to speak about equality there, where "dear God" has created the biggest inequality between individuals, is at least silly! We can speak about
equal rights of men and women, what is quite logical and normal thing. A pair of centuries before it might not have been normal for a woman to learn in a university, but this was because the universities were something like monasteries, and what will do a few women between hundreds of "monks" (not that the author can't imagine what they could do, but for those times this was something highly sinful)? Or also another now anachronism: according to the rules of Islam the women received twice less inheritance than the men, but then the women were bought and for that matter was natural that the men received more inheritance for to buy more brides, and why should be given more money to a woman when she, anyway, would not have dared, in those times, to buy herself (another) husband? So that, to cut the long story short: the woman must have equal rights with the man in the labour process. Well, and why not? What man will object that his wife goes to work, when she "craves" to do this? And why not in the sports, too? But this not only in chess and artistic gymnastics, also in wrestling, boxing, weight lifting, at cetera. Yeah, but
together with the men, not in separate categories! For, when there will be equal rights, then let them be really equal, not only on words. And do you know what will happen then, when (and if) a real emancipation of women comes in effect? Well, it will happen so, that
the real rights will allow to prove the inequality of different sides!
Because nothing else simply can be proved. Well, not always, for there are known examples of women rulers, shown themselves not worse than the men, though then nobody has spoken about emancipation. Even nowadays in the business and politics there is very good place for the women, for various reasons. The role of the manager, or the "magic of ruling", is not always clear, and for that reason exists rulers, and
hidden rulers, or, hoping to make the things more transparent, let us speak about:
tactical or operative ruling, on one hand, and
strategical setting of the goals, on the other. The tactical ruling, as a rule (not denying the exceptions), is normally to expect to be work of men, while the strategy, very often, can be performed by women. This is so because also in the family, if we make such division of the functions, we will come to the conclusion that
the tactician is the man, while the woman is the born strategist!
What concerns this question our people say that the man is the head but the woman is the neck, and this corresponds to the truth because the woman, most often, knows
only to require, and the man must know how to do it (it is not her business, right?). So that in that sense it is entirely admissible for the women to occupy ruling posts, and this is done in a number of companies, where are many women managers. This does not necessary mean that her intellectual level must be higher than that of the other men whom she commands, but for the strategist the tactical ability is not necessary! It is especially praiseworthy the entering of women in the politics and public relations, because there the point is not so much in the higher intellectual level, as in the softness of ruling, as far as the firm hand, particularly in democratic ruling, has many disadvantages. At least, due to the traditional relations between the sexes, one (be this man or woman) will hardly refuse to comply with the wishes of a woman than of a man, if strong compulsion is not applied. Alike is the situation also in many scientific areas, where the wide inclusion of women is justified, again not because of some higher intellectual capacities, but for the reason that, in the era of technologies, more and more scientific activities become monotonous, lose their creative character, and as consequence of this become quite accessible for the women and even are performed
better by them, because men are not much capable in doing routine things.
So that the author does not at all state that the woman must not take part in the social life on par with the man. She can and she must!
But only in the social life, not in the family,
because, as we have said, the sexes are only two. Now, if they were 17 (or something of the kind), as it were according to Kurt Vonnegut on the planet Tralfamadore, then the emancipation would have positively been justified also in this form, in which it is spreading in the recent years.
And there is another moment, which no emancipatess or emanci
stess (or, maybe, emanci
patka or even emanci
patiza in Bulgarian -- but mark that the noun
patka or
patiza there means ... goose) will admit, but surely thinks so: the question is not at all in the equality or having of equal rights, but
exactly on the contrary, i.e. in the inequality, only that as ruling of the women or neo-matriarchy! The author's opinion, a priori, is this, that at least 90% of all emancipated women don't want to be equal with the man, but that they ruled over the man, what now is not good. This is not good not because the author is a man, but because this will put, according to the English, "the cart before the horse", and it happens exactly so in many emancipated families, and soon after this the marriage is dissolved.
In the human history has existed matriarchy but this was in deep antiquity, i.e. when the society was pretty primitive and/or the life was very hard. But what has the level of development to do here? Well, it has to do because of the strategical role of the woman in the family, and the creative one of the man. The woman (or the feminine individual, also between the animals) is who stays closer to the harsh reality, to the life, because she gives it, even, I beg to be excused by the young women, to the animal. She is the most conservative sex, for the simple reason that her biological function is to
preserve life in the next generation. This is long ago known in the sciences and there is no need to dwell more about the matter. While the man (i.e. the masculine exemplar) is the creative individual, who must not only prolong the life but modify and enhance it with the use of genetic code, and also via the upbringing of generation. Even the sex of the child is established by the father, where the mother plays very passive role. These are naturally settled things and we can not (at least for the moment) run away from them.
OK, good, but what follows from this that the man is the creator and the woman is the "preserving container"; what has this to do with the matri- or patri- -archy? Well, the point is that when the existence and survival of the generation is endangered, and from here of the whole gender or kind of species, is quite normal that the conservative sex takes the command, that it requires and gives orders; while in times when there is no such danger, but instead of this creative evolvement of gender in the posterity is necessary, then the man must take the command. Pure and simple, isn't it? That is why matriarchy has existed in underdeveloped primitive communities, but today, naturally, would have been anachronism. In current times the human race encounters no danger of extinction but on the contrary -- of overpopulation.
A propos, about the overpopulation. It turns out that there is another moment, emerged synchronously with the emancipation, and it is high time for the people to mark the relation between both things. What we mean is
the another boom of homosexuality,
be it among men or among women. Today the question is not about, let us call it, traditional Islamic or, generally, by hot climate, homosexuality, nor about compulsive such (in army conditions, or in boarding-schools), but about the modern tendency for homogeneous sex, which, if we give credence to some Western authors, has not yet reached the half of the population, but is moving toward that. And this is impossible not to be related with the emancipation, although not in a direct way! But why? Well, if a given man (in addition to being of the weak sex) cannot command at least his wife (because at his work this is not possible for the majority of men), i.e. if he isn't the boss even in his house, neither he has chances to look after the children when the divorce, which now becomes a rule, comes, then why should he at all conclude marriage? If the matter is in having sex, then why not to practice one,
really, based on equal rights sex (because it is not at all necessary for the homosexuals to be specialized in masculine or feminine role, they can perform
both of them), or even if he is not set under equal conditions and he is that who plays the role of woman, then why could he not be commanded (sexually, but in the usual meaning, too) by somebody of his own sex? And the same is true also from the point of view of the woman, with this only difference that she is not weak gender, but also in many cases would have preferred to stay under the command of individual like she herself, and not under entirely different one (which, according to the women is good only to ... piss on the toilet ring).
So that is how the things stay with the non traditional, but with tendency to become such, sexual practice. And the sex quite easily will become such after a half to one century, for the reason that in this form of sexual relations at least the result, i.e. the posterity, is entirely separated from the pleasures or feelings, by the simple reason that there is
no result at all! But there are feelings, and they are even
stronger, because there is no other hidden goal, no care about the posterity (unless they decide to adopt a child for them), no strong differences between the partners. All in all, perfect harmony -- only that this is against the nature. But whatever this may be we must be aware that we are moving in this direction, and will be moving until the emancipation walks in seven-league boots. Though, as our folks say, there is no bad without some good (or as the English put it, there is blessing in disguise), because the homosexual sex is the only
effective method for restraining of birth rate.
Well, if we look so at the things, as at a historical necessity, then maybe the emancipation will turn out to be positive phenomenon, or, rather, will be neither positive, nor negative, but
unavoidable phenomenon, Then the birth rate will diminish, and the family will dissolve itself. And this is pretty real danger after a century, because till now the emancipation reduces chiefly to "exertions" on part of the women, to wishes to prove the unprovable, but it may become provable when (and if) the extrauterine conception becomes common practice (and one home
incubator will cost, approximately, after coming in mass production, about one dish-washing machine). Because, see, the woman is not equal with the man not for some other reason but in view of her biological destination as birth box -- or putting it more nicely: the woman is the
mailbox of the man to his posterity --, and if this her function moves in background, as it happens after the climacteric age, or is before the sexual life, then there are no other limitations that may hinder her to become equal with the man in her makings! In other words:
nothing hinders the woman to become equal with the man, except this, that she is a woman,
and if she does not insist on the second thing there are no obstacles for the first one. The point is in this, on what the woman insists? If she insists on the maternity and the family then she
must be against the emancipation, or at least against the massively accepted in the moment understanding of the question; but, on the other hand, if she wants to make career on a par with the man, then they are not the men who will interfere with this -- only that she will not be then a woman, at least in the classical meaning of the word.
It is, so to say, even so, that the woman is, in some sense,
more suitable than the man for making of career, because, as shows the last word , i.e. the relation between the professional career and the stone quarry (and in Bulgarian both words are written exactly the same), it consists mainly in scattering of the others with elbows, like stones on a slope of the mountain, i.e. in bright antagonism to the others and dissatisfaction with them -- something opposite to the collectivism. But the man, as a rule, is a "herding" sex, he is that who likes to gather in groups -- be it to watch football, be it to go hunting, or to war, or in the club and the pub, and so on. While the woman is that who chiefly
hates her rivals! Well, the things are not so idealized (neither is this something bad or good -- this is just natural setting), but such simplification is useful for understanding of the general case, which is reduced to this, that:
the man does evil deeds out of love, and the woman -- good deeds out of hatred!
And in our case she would have been the ideal careerist. Maybe not exactly ideal for to be really
ideal, but, still, quite suitable for the sphere of production. While at the same time the man could be also very good host and father, if this has to be done, and with the advantage that if he happens to become free of work he can make something useful at home -- either put new wallpaper in the apartment, or make a greenhouse in the garden (if he has the latter), or will begin to teach alone his children, or will make cheaper purchases than the wife, or something else. So that all depends on the goals and tasks. If the families disappear as social units, how the tribal communities have disappeared, and if each individual (be that man or woman) will be in position to bring up the allowed to him or her one child (for it is clear that some time this thing about the one child on a parent will become a law, in order to stop the population boom, which has begun primarily two centuries ago) in his or her home incubator, then there are no problems for the both sexes to have equal rights in the productive, and in every other (when there are not families) activity.
Even in the moment are needed very little efforts in the legal procedure for establishing of optimal equal rights for the man and the woman -- the mentioned dividing of the children by the parents, the question with their naming, about the inheriting (by this dividing), and some other small items. Under naming here we have in mind that the family name is still established by the father, but there is also second or middle name. And here the decision in extremely simple -- when we have three names (as it is now almost everywhere, but if there are two names a third one can easily be added), then it is possible for the second to be mother one, and the third to be father one, where this can be the family name for the corresponding parent, but it may be decided also entirely free by this parent. Or else, if we insist that each parent has obligatory some own "property" -- because at the children, at least when they are little, is looked exactly in this manner -- then it is possible that all names are established by one of the parents (and he or she will, eventually, form the other name in accordance with the other parent) depending on the sex of the child, where it can be established also before the birth (or "hatching"), or even ordered under the artificial insemination. The questions are not difficult and they can be quickly solved, and if this has not
yet happened then this is only because, at least on the West, people do not yet look seriously at the emancipation, because it is not very consecutive (how it could have been expected when it is feminine invention), and hope to preserve the families (at least for as long as it is possible). Besides, the men have not yet raised voices about real equality, because they hope that the women will "kick" for a spell and then come to reason that it is time to stop this, as far as, as is said, they will not jump higher than the head. This is the cause why the things are not yet settled, not unwillingness on part of the men to give to the women equal with them rights, because they are given to them long ago (at least for a pair of centuries).
In any event, the problem is complicates and full with social disturbances and the author's advise is not to hurry much in this hasty time but to rely more on the proved for centuries forms of patriarchy and monogamous marriage. If we will introduce something new then let us thing seriously about it before, not in post factum.
April 2002
P.S. Maybe it is worth adding in the end that the things have evolved pretty fast and according to the population census for 2010 in Bulgaria from all newborn children a bit more than the
half (55%) are such who earlier were called "unlawfully born" or illegitimate, and now are called "extramarital". It turns out that the men (for, who else?) have thought better and have begun to apply the simplest decision, because if there is no official marriage then there can't be a divorce and dividing of property. This suits the men, for lack of other alternative, they live together with a woman, pay as much as they can, and does not deny their paternity; more than this, in such case the very women are more endurable (is supposed), when nobody attaches them to some "macho", i.e. they are, de facto, free. The children this, surely, must not suit, but as far as they have no basis for comparison, and when the other children are in the same conditions like them (or their parents already live separately), then they do not disagree much. The women just reconcile with this, when they want to have children, but, I don't know, I think that if I were a woman, I would have been uncomfortable with this, I would have been ashamed to live so like the animals, and also to return some 4-5 thousand years back in human history; I would have tried to find some better solution (similar with the proposed in other materials variant of concluding of marriage for some preset period, with established in advance dividing of the children and attaching of each child to one of the parents, and with other details). The word is given to the women, for they are those who boycott the Roman law.
SEARCH FOR THE WOMAN
(Cherchez La Femme) -- Social Essay
|
|
Abstract:
This is an opus dedicated to emancipation, where is spoken about women, men, and the differences between them, that are not good to ignore, or then, if they are ignored, to what this leads. The topic is old as the world, but until about a century the things were more or less balanced, where nowadays the "beehive rebelled" and the people (the women, as well also the men) became confused. This confusion must cease somewhere to the end (or even the middle) of 21-th century, but because the steady state is influenced by all contemporaries we ought to give some thought to the matter in order to find whether we influence it in the right way or not. The provided here evidences are logical, as also ... etymological (because the words reflect the ways people that use them think), and also philosophical, though up to a certain extent metaphysical (for this is not a scientific treatise but popular examination). Well, the author is a man, but with regard to the objectivity of observation he tries to be more or less bisexual; as far as this isn't easy so we have said in the beginning that this is an opus, but if you reach to the poetical Appendix at the end you will surely understand what, still, is his hidden wish.
|
|
CONTENTS (Of This book)
1. The emancipation
The French understand, if not anything else, then at least love and sex, so that one must believe them when they say: Cherchez la femme (as cause for all evil things on this world), more so because to this truth people have come millenniums back, for to reflect it in the Bible where Adam and Eve were thrown out of Paradise because of the sin of Eve (though, if we begin to search for the reason for this, then
Adam has asked for her before the dear God, but then, if we continue to search the motives for everything, then it turns that the guilty one is not Adam but God, because He has mixed the pap, or the mud, of life). Well, some
emancipatess -- for this is grammatically correct building of noun of feminine gender from the verb "emancipate" -- would have objected, and with right, to this, maintaining that this is masculine assertion, because in those times women have had almost no rights. (But here I must add for the English readers that the salt of the invented word in Bulgarian -- "emanci
patka" -- is that the ending "
patka" means ... a goose, she-duck.) This is so, but if something is said by men from this does not follow that it is necessary wrong (as, by the way, if some view was supported by the communists, this does not mean that it was in all cases wrong, as until recently thought, and maybe still thinks, one democratic force -- it is meant the Union of Democratic Forces in Bulgaria -- which isn't more a force at all). As also
the marriage, what
is an institution invented by men (because it existed from ancient times), but this does not mean that it was not
in interest, most of all,
of women, because they are those who want to catch some man and keep him for a long time and only for
themselves -- in interest (realized or not) of the posterity, but this does not change the truthfulness of the said thought -- where the man is like a bee which looks how to pollinate more "flowers" (which, obviously, is feminine atribute and that is why it is spoken about defloration).
All nations (and these now are not only the men, but just the more older, as more experienced and clever, though as much men as well also women), make some associations about women and are well aware what kind of "goods" they are. The Slavs are as if the least offensive, because our woman (
zhena in Bulgarian, or
zhenshchina in Russian) comes from Greek γυvαικα ('gineka'), where the point is about the gene (or the jin, if we go to the Arabs), i.e. about the kin or gender, and the contempt to the feminine individual is seen only by the ... bitch, for which the Russians have the word
suka, which is related to the sucking (
sucha, this time in Bulgarian), but in it there is something ancient, something of the cluster of Turkish ... "
sus" (what may be taken also as variant of "shsh"-shut). Otherwise on the West there are many examples, say, with the French
dame (or
madame as my dame), which even in the very French corresponds with their damage, what means to tamp, compact, what isn't a casual relation because also in English the dam is a dike and a feminine animal, and in Russian there is their
damba as dike (and where a barrier of a dike is there is a hole or canal behind it), then comes the English damn, what you know well what means and it is related with the demons (but they are usually feminine), and also in German "
dämlich" does
not mean feminine but silly (though this is because it is something feminine), as also their
Dämmerung, what is twilight (as in some hole). (And let us mention that, as far as there are two kings of quotes, the usual double ones are used for citing of how something is written, but when single quotes are used here this means how the word must be read using the characters as mere Latin letters: say: "mine" is read 'main')
We can change the root to "mad-" (where is the mother, for example in Spanish
madre, where from, by the way, comes the name of the town Madrid), where we have the English "mad", and if you want also your "muddy" (what isn't exactly what '
mådi' in Bulgarian means -- and 'å' must be read as in your "but" -- but is something similar, dirty -- because these are, sorry, the testicles), what is related with German
Made, what is a maggot, worm (something, still, around the genesis, but the contempt is obvious), and -- would you believe it -- there was some Greece-Homeric μηδεα, what were exactly the woman labia, pudendum! Similarly are the things with the ... hmm, with the hysteria, because it comes from Ancient Greece, where υστερα means exactly uterus, and also follows, origins (and from there, again by the way, is the history), where υστερισμoσ is hysteria, what beyond doubt shows that the hysterias are normal conditions for the beings with "(h)ysterases". Phonetically the things here move around the sound of squeezing (cyst / "kista", and similar words), and this about the uterus must be known to the technicians because they study about a curve called
hysteresis, which is exactly an uterus with bent tips (the top one to the right, and the bottom one to the left).
Besides, for everybody understanding English is clear that "miss" as verb means some lack (there's some hole there), but with capital letter this becomes She-Some-Body (and from there also the Missis as, hmm, one with a bigger hole, maybe?). And let us not bother with exact etymologies (from "mister" or master, host, sire), because we speak here about associations, and the people, surely, have some (subconscious) ideas, which exist in Latin, where
sine is the preposition "without", but
sinus is some bend, fold, curve, even uterus, or bosom, and it must be clear that where is the sinus there is the "sine" (where from is the
sinecure job, as such that gives benefits without
cura-care -- but let me squeeze here that in Bulgarian
kur is ..., sorry, penis, so that you may imagine how funny sounds this word there). We shall mention also the known Greek
megeras (Μεγαιρα), as bad women, monsters, which there make relation with μαγαρα, what is just garbage, mud, but the root is very old because there was some old Hebrew "megera" as ... to cut with saw, rasp. And if somebody may think that this is another thing then let us add that from here comes Bulgarian
magare, what is a donkey, and it is a bad animal (why else should you call it also an ass?), but in addition to this it might be also a saw-horse, and this is a typical expression also for the Russians (who, meaning the men, use to say that their wife has a whole day sawn logs at their head), i.e. this is again something bad, vile, pestering, where the root was present also in the Sanskrit where
makara was, this time, some sea monster (maybe a dragon, with serrated spine), and also by the Arabs exists
mahara or 'mekiare', what is loading animal (i.e. donkey), and that the donkey-tricks are (as a rule) feminine business is clear to all.
Well, but this author treads in a very masculine way, could say some
amancipatess (to vary the word a bit, to the Turkish
aman meaning "oh, stop it"), because till now we have said nothing good about the woman; or rather some
anti-sexist (-ess), because nowadays on the West they don't speak about emancipation, what (if we do not count, hmm, the "
tzipa"-membrane from the word, how it is in Bulgarian) will say that it goes about some detachment (of particles, some emanation) from the influence (or the yoke) of the man, and the women now plead for rejection of the leading role of the sex-gender, so that there to be called sexist is as offensive as to call you pederast (well, till before half a century, because now this is accepted as wholly normal, though not using this word). Ah well, to reject the leading role of the sex is an obvious insanity (
dämlich thing), but as far as we all are now "democrats" then everybody can deny whatever he /she likes, as also accept whatever wishes (and the truthfulness,
evidently, is not at all related with the official assertions). Because if the sex had not determining significance for our behaviour then the dear God (or the nature -- cross out the redundant) would have not invented both sexes, because initially they were not present -- say, by the amoebas, and also by the worms exists only one sex. But somewhere from the fishes and above in the evolutionary tree the existence of two sexes
becomes necessary, and because they are only two there is no other way for them not to be maximally different (while if they were, say, 17, as it was according to Kurt Vonnegut on the planet Tralfamadore, then the differences maybe would have been smaller).
Be it as it may, let us spit now also at the men, but this is, for the most part, well known, because in Latin
malus means bad, evil, harmful, and
malum is the evil, where from in French we have their
malady and
malheur (all some disasters or evils), then the malchance, the malaria if you want, and all this comes from the ... grinding --
molo in Latin, where from is your "molar" as grinding toot, or German
mahlen as to grind, Bulgarian
malåk as small (and also this word), et cetera. In other words, the man grinds, crushes, and so on, and this is the man because in English he is "male", and in Latin the masculine gender is
masculinum, but the root comes from ancient times where in old Hebrew the number nine was called "
malhut" and symbolized the kingdom (i.e. the autocratic ruling), and here is the ancient deity Moloch, that required many sacrifices in order to be appeased. Only that this may be bad, but there are the women who require it, because there is no epoch in the human society when the women have not liked militaries and fighters. It is true that many intelligent people have considered (and consider) the brute (masculine) force for something bad, about what speaks, say, ... well, the "
sophia" or the wisdom in Ancient Greece, which in addition to the sophisticated thinking has given also -- you surely can't guess it -- the software and the French sofa! Similar "mild" ruling are also the finances -- fine thing, this time! Again similar thing is the very civilization, because it is ruling of
civil people. So that the masculine can be good or bad depending on the view point, where at the women, starting about a century before and back in all previous times, always have been looked with disapproval (not in sense of some delights in conversing with them, but as at imperfect human beings).
So, now the emancipation came, and if the author is against it, this isn't because he thinks that women should not have equal rights with men in the social life, but for the following reasons. First of all,
women are not equal with men, and there is no need, as we say, to bore a hole in the sea, but there is nothing bad in this to have
equal rights with men, in order to be able to prove ... their
inequality! Id est, there is nothing bad if women work in the mines, or become bodybuilders if they want, but I think this is hardly a proper activity tor them -- as a rule, because there are exceptions for each rule, and exactly they make life piquant, in many cases. Or, as Erich Kästner puts it in one place: "Long live the small difference!". We will return to this question also later, but the important thing is to stress here that the equal rights, still, do not mean equal capabilities, though they give better possibilities for personal manifestation there, where is even better to have women instead of men (say, as: teachers, medical doctors and dentists, many clerk's positions, in the services, etc.). In the end,
if the women were equal to the men, then why in different sports they compete separately? Or why they retire earlier, when they live even longer than men do?
Secondly, they began to speak about emancipation then and in such countries, when and where this
was not necessary, because even without this movement in half of a generation time, more or less, there would have been the same results, and this by initiative of the men (as we have said in the beginning about the marriage). Id est, it does not honour women to "raise voice" when this is not needed, but this, as it seems, is a general human phenomenon, because in the same way, for example, we in Bulgaria have reacted by the falling of communism, what (more than obvious) was initiated by the very communists; similarly also with the many strikes then, when they were not required (from point of view of the situation of the strikers, because now it is not better, but there are no strikes), but the masses wanted to shout a bit, i.e. the people (those without special moral qualities, or the masses, or the weaker ones in some sense) complain
not when there are reasons for complaining, but when their voice
can be heard. Well, be it as it may, this is a moral question and maybe the author is too hard on the women (to wish for them to be even better than the men), so that let us continue.
Thirdly, and this is the most important,
the women even
don't want equality (they are subconsciously aware that they are not equal) but
want just
feminine domination, matriarchy! Well, who does not want to rule (they also the children often twist their parents around a finger), but let us be in clear about the question. If the women as a mass are more susceptible to emotions (to remind you about the hysterias), more partial and unfair, even more silly (when there comes to judgements, not to expressing of wishes), more soft (because the sex,
still, determines our behaviour), then there is obvious that it can be no question about returning to matriarchy. We will not return to it not because of the reluctance of the author (he has not yet said that he does not want it, and even would have strongly wished to meet a woman for which to feel convinced that must obey to her, because she, in addition to having everything feminine in her, is also cleverer than him), but because historically looked there was matriarchy in ancient times. And why, you think, then in some tribes have ruled the women? Well, because the life was then too
heavy and complicated, and the woman is who gives the life and takes care for its prolongation, i.e., when life is difficult and the survival of the gender or species is endangered then it is right for all to do what the women want. Yeah, but it is not at all so now, and we'll hardly come to such difficult living conditions anymore that to be endangered the gender, more so on the background of the demographic boom in a worldwide scale. Anyway, we shall add more reasons for the absurdity of women's ruling further, when we have discussed more profoundly the question of ruling.
So, and now let us look in more details at
2. The masculine and feminine principles
Already from biblical times and in the Far East people were well aware about the insuperable differences between the man and the woman and have endowed also inanimate objects and natural phenomena with gender properties, what everybody knows, because these are the grammatical genders, that are present in each languages, with exception of the English. For each who has studied English (and I suppose also for those who read this material now) is clear that the absence of genders only simplifies the language, but nonetheless in all other languages the genders exist and people don't think to reject them. Well, there, where the gender is easy to be found, based on the ending of the word (how it is in Bulgarian) one is not often mistaken, and there is some reason to keep them, but in German this isn't so (and, for example,
der Löffel is the "he"-spoon, and
die Gabel is the "she"-fork, but both end in exactly the same way). In general, according to ancient eastern philosophers, there were two main principles of the world: Yang /
Yan /
Jang /
'Jan' ("he"), and Yin /
In /
Ing /
'In" ("she"), and this view is preserved in many languages till the present day, where for Yang we may mention ... the Russian 'ja' (I), which is also the Italian
io, and the French
jo, and the German
ich, and so on, and here, obviously is meant the man. Where the woman-Yin is to be seen better in German, where making of nouns of feminine gender from such of masculine is performed with the suffix -in (for example,
die Lehrerin is she-teacher), but also in general in the preposition "in", which is Latin and means to enter somewhere (where is some hole, in order to be possible to enter there -- I beg your pardon for the explanation)! So that, no matter whether we like it or not, but the man's thing is the hard one, the sharp, the penetrating, and the woman's thing is the weak one, the concave, the yielding, and that's that.
But let us have a better look at these principles, beginning with
2.1. The woman's principle.
One of its important characteristics is the
conservatism, i.e., prolongation or preservation of the gender, but
such as it is, not modified! This is conservatism according to the major goal for the woman (prolongation of the gender), but also of some other pleasures in life, which she grasps as related with this goal, and which may differ in some nuances, but on the whole are one and the same from times immemorial (and some men even say that she has just one wish, but wants that is were performed more often). The woman is this, what the Englishmen call "birth box", but, and I beg a pardon from the women, we may put this also as "walking uterus", because this is the idea of the English word "woman", which word can be observed (though, I'm afraid, the English men will not confess this) as a combination of womb + man (and you know that the "b" isn't read), so that all is clear.
Then there comes her unmatched
egoism. Well, it is clear that the life is fight for prevalence, so that if one does not mind his interests then there is nobody who will mind them for him, but with the woman this is raised to obsession and against the others. As a result of this always her own "chickens" are the best ones and she has no desire to look unprejudiced to the things, so that she is also maximally
prejudiced and unfair to the others. Having in mind this very strong (even twisted over) egoism she almost always reacts based on the
jealously (very often also on the hate) to the others, and not so much on her own interests (let us remind in parentheses that the main cause for the human disasters is not that they don't mind their interests, but that they
don't know well their interests, don't establish them correctly). Well, this has its explanation, because she is that, who carries the children in her womb, and they are not thousands (like, say, by the bees), but are counted on fingers, so that she could have been objective, either if it goes not about something of her own, or if the extrauterine conception enters firmly in our life. But the egoism is in her blood, because the women are not between those who use to group in bands (be it in order to play football, or to go to wars, or to the stadiums, etc.).
Another very important feminine characteristic, which we mentioned implicitly, but have not yet emphasized on it till now, is her
maximal nearness to the source of life, or
to the ...
animal, i.e. her animal nature! Well, the man also, as thinking animal as you say (though the Slavs don't like to be called animals), has his animal nature, but in him, still, exists also something intellectual, something from God, what isn't present by the animals, where the woman is the most animal-like human variety, and this isn't a wordplay, but long ago noticed (and fixed in all religions) characteristic of her. This says that she is more brutal, more ruthless, more lustful, more wild and primitive part of the humanity, though this is neither bad nor good, but just a necessity of life! If the women (I beg to be excused this time by the men) does not devour the man after the act, as the praying mantis does, for example, or does not put him in the pot (in order, say, to provide good supply of milk for the baby), after she has conceived by him, then this does not mean that she can not throw him away when he becomes old, or poor, or falls in disgrace, or after she has ceased to love him, i.e. after he has fulfilled his purpose (and let us remind you that the majority of divorces and alimony suits nowadays are initiated by the part of woman, not the man, and this in the era of emancipation, when women earn not less money then men, and often more). In the majority of cases this is a normal reaction because of concern for the posterity, but sometimes is reached to the so called "brood-hen instinct", who, in her efforts to worm the chickens under her, smashes from time to time a chick. It is true that the man also may react in some cases like woman, but by him this, not only happens rarely, but the very reaction has more civilized character and from love it changes, usually, to some degree or
indifference, where for the woman the rule is: from love -- to hatred, what is the most primitive animal reaction to an increasing emotional factor.
The next, but also very important, characteristic of the feminine principle is the inherent to woman
mediocrity and imperfection! And as far as this also does not sound very good for the women, then let me again remind you that the intent of the author is not to spit at them, but to reveal the truth, so that this also is neither bad nor good, but elementary necessity, or consequence of the existence of two principles in life, because God (or the nature)
can't afford himself to leave such important task like the prolongation and preservation of gender (i.e. the most important life goal) in the hands (or, rather, in the ... legs, but such is the usual expression) of some exceptional or extreme individual (because even a God can't predict to what could lead one exceptionality until some time passes, but then it would be too late to make things right)! The mediocrity is
indispensible requirement for the "birth device" and this is inevitable consequence of one good organized reproductive system. By the humans this trait, at least in the appearance, is a bit masked (due to the intellect of men, presumably, who prefer to spread some pleasant for the women fabrications, tales, or compliments), but by the animals is obvious that the masculine exemplar is that who
must be (and he is) more beautiful and attractive with something, for example: by the deers -- with the horns, by the canaries -- with the song, by the peacocks -- with the tail, by the bulls -- with the strength, and so on. (A propos, about the bulls -- and he is "
bik" in Bulgarian -- and the ... love, but in Bulgarian variant as "
obich": here surely exists some connecting association, because the Spaniards say "
besa me mucho", what means "kiss me hard", the English say "best", but also "beast", what is French and Latin, and have also the adjective "big" what is nearly the same as Bulgarian
bik-bull, and our
obich-love is not Slavonic but there is something ... Tartaric in it, because in Mongolian the phrase "
obicham te", what is "I love you", has sounded as 'bich-ham-te'!) So, let us return to the nice appearance, compare the woman for one wider period of time -- say, from 15 to 75 years -- with the masculine exemplar for each age and it is easy to observe that only somewhere between 15 and 25 years could be said that the woman looks better, but this is mainly for erotic reasons, and it can be argued about this, where the man looks nice on 20, and on 40, and on 50, and on 70 years, just as a perfect natural creation!
So that the woman (as a rule) is more faceless and mediocre by appearance as also by intellect, as by strength, and by whatever you want, but this mediocrity, on the other hand, because this means "
in the middle", is exactly what she needs for to withstand easily normal living conditions, and some extreme ones too, in order to be able to fix (conserve) in the posterity the substantial characteristics of those males, who were succeeded to survive, because, as by the animals, so also by the humans, the
females are more
endurable exemplars. These are experimentally and statistically confirmed facts. If some of you prefer to remain in error about the question then this is their right, but this phenomenon has its easy explanation based on the fact that the female is this who chooses, i.e. who plays the
active role in the prolongation of the gender, where the male does that, what the female wants him to do! Cynically or not, but the man is the obedient (and silly, if you want) figure in relation to the prolongation of the gender, and the woman is the mediocre exemplar who chooses the exceptional individual (in the same way how she chooses a nice flower to decorate herself), and this is an entirely justified requirement.
The mediocrity of the woman is expressed mainly in this, that she is one imperfect or
uncompleted individual (what linguistically is of the same root -- think about the perfect and imperfect times --, though people don't give a thought to this point), in a sense of her physical, psychical, and intellectual qualities. We can even not mention man's intellect in order not to restrict the validity of the observation for animals, but also because the men (as a rule) are not such persons who like much to use their intellect (if they can do without it). Even the very woman
obviously feels her imperfection, when for millenniums resorts to all sorts of ways to beautify herself, or to "make up" (according to your word, which is the French
maquillage), to amend, and when some men also do this -- well, it is explainable with their feminine qualities (especially in adolescent age, when the individual is not yet finally formed). In other words, if we express ourselves a bit aphoristic:
the woman is perfect in her imperfection as independent individual! She is perfect regarding the
effectiveness of the unit (weighs less, eats less, lives more economically and longer, spends her more moderate, etc.), but her main goal is the prolongation of the gender, and for this she needs a man (where for him this isn't his primary goal in life, as we shell clarify it after a while). She even -- and with the appropriate apology to the ladies --, well, as some men say: what do you want from a woman, when she can't even ... pee like a human!
But, for not to get women angry at us, let us finish with them with one poetical metaphor, which says, that "
the woman is the postbox of the man to the posterity" -- if the man has the necessary "pencil" (or, rather, "fountain pen"), then he can begin to write his "letters". This sentence underlines the
intermediate place, which the woman occupies between the man and the offsprings -- intermediate in sense of intellect, and of other qualities. Exactly this intermediate position of the woman is important for bringing up of the young children, at least until they are small, and, besides, genetically viewed the man is that who determines the most important attribute of the descendant -- his gender -- and who, most often, has dominant genes (though here also exist exceptions). So that the role of a go-between is very important and necessary (when we do not multiply by budding or cloning) and certain dose of specialization is also necessary, because if each human individual was bisexual then the most often intercourses would have had auto-reflexive character, and this would have strongly diminished the so needed in life variety.
And now let us move to
2.2. The man's principle,
but it has to be clear that it is as much as possible opposite to the woman's (the author
is sexist, however much this may disagree with the wishes of some women). So, contrary to the conservatism of the woman, the man is born
innovator, or
searching personality, who with many risky moments
has the goal to ensure,
not the prolongation, but
the development of the gender, i.e. its modification in accordance with the changes of external conditions. Taking into account the fact that the productivity of the man is such that even by the "conventional" way of multiplication one masculine exemplar can make hundreds and thousands of children, and with artificial insemination we go even to millions, it turns that the necessity of men is at least hundred times less. By the animals this is entirely valid and there one male serves ten females, where the hunters and ecologists find that it is justified for the males to decrease even more. In the ancient periods of human history the situation must have been the same also by many savage tribes, due to the hard living conditions and numerous fights between them, but nowadays in the civilized countries the polygamy is forbidden (probably by the initiative of men, for to justify the necessity of equal number of men and women), but this isn't entirely appropriate for the posterity.
As most characteristic expression of the searching male principle the author finds his ...
passion for games, where are risks, experimentation, not conservation, and this is, in fact, his major living goal, which can give something for the
development of the gender, not for its trivial continuation! For the man everything is game, including the life itself. And by our already developed habit we will again give linguistic confirmation of this beginning with the English word game, which is hunting as well as playing, because that is the preferred play for the men, or it was so during many centuries, before the playing machines, and now the computer games, ware invented; a similar idea is hidden in Russian word "
ohota", what is hunting, but also strong wish. Then in Czech they have the curious word "
herna", what
isn't, hmm, toilet for men (as some of you might have thought, as related with German
Herr-master), but playroom, yet this is exactly a hall for man! And what is the war for the man, if not one dangerous game (or at least it was a game, somewhere up to 19-th century, when there has begun to disappear the difference between front and rear)? And what is the career for the man, if not one social game? And the share market? And how many are the women (in productive age, not then, when nobody counts them for women), whom you will see to play card games, or chess -- well, as many as to stress on the exceptionality of these activities for them! And isn't the science also a game with the secrets of nature?
Next, to the woman's egoism and prejudice is opposed the apparent
collectivism of the male, especially by the humans, where men are those who like to gather in big groups, were it in war bands, were it at sporting events, or in clubs and cafes. As also the man is that who, most often, is capable to
selfless and gentlemanlike
acts, to justness or fair play (as it is known in Bulgaria, too). Even during wars he kills because of necessity, not out of anger and hatred (or so it is in the majority of cases). This isn't hard to be explained with the motivation for man's actions, which is to be able to express himself with something
before the others, with something that is valued from the others, or, at least, what is interesting for him, regardless the interest for continuation of the gender (or the personal benefits). Even when the man shows himself as egoist he does this for collectivistic purposes, in the name of family or group to which he belongs, while the woman, even when she shows collectivism, she does this out of egoistic motives, to preserve her offspring (who she feels as part of herself). This isn't an apotheosis of the man, of course, but realism. It may be formulated even a stronger sentence, namely:
the woman creates love using hatred, while the man -- hatred using love! But what is to be done -- inscrutable are the way of the Lord, or the way to hell is strewn with good intentions, or one wants one thing, does another, and a third results, because he has neither known himself, as this was required by the ancient Greek philosophers, nor can change something in the genetic tendencies put into him, except to obey to the behest of gender, which requires that the woman must preserve the gender, and the man must supplement and enhance it (if he succeeds to stay alive).
The next thing is that, contrary to the nearness to the animal,
the man is nearer to God or
to the reason (if we do not use the
hypothesis of God). This follows from the other qualities of the man, but chiefly from his intellect, this
underdeveloped human instinct that stays very near to the game, where by one average woman it is hardly to expect some intellect (at least higher than the average one), because she
does not need intellect for continuation of the gender (the sex can be whatever else, but
not intellectual business). The act of intellect itself is, in fact, something exceptional and perfect (to what we shall come after a while), and it is normal for it to be owned mainly by men; the fact that there are also many clever women does not mean that this is an often met occurrence, on the contrary, and in most of the cases it is explained with some
other drawbacks of the woman in question (most often physical), which force her to search
compensation in the intellectual sphere, because a bright and beautiful woman is one, hmm, blatant contradiction (at least while she is still woman in the sexual aspect of the word), and this is the reason why such women are highly honored, because the demand is determined by the supply! In the same time the intelligent men have never been highly demanded, where the strong one, or the wealthy, or the nice (at least till they remain such) are in big demand (though the situation for the bright men is not entirely hopeless if they are,
in addition, also wealthy, for example, i.e. the intellect is not such substantial
hindrance). This state of the things, however, is wholly normal from the point of view of dividing of the activities between the man and the woman, where the woman remains nearer to the animal, where from we all have come, and the man strives to be nearer to the divine reason, where to we all, little by little, are moving.
So, and on the place of woman's mediocrity comes man's
exceptionality and perfection. This is, maybe, the main consideration, because of which in Christian religion (as also in others) the image of God (or the supreme God) is always that of a man, though there is much more natural this to be a woman, because she creates and engenders (like Gea, in Greek mythology). It is true that each one is convinced that the woman creates the life but no religion could have acquired more followers, if its main God were not with the image of the perfect, exceptional, and omnipotent masculine individual. This, obviously, is related with the, excuse me for the reminder, cult to the phallus, which dates millenniums back, but could you imagine if instead of this cult there was such to the corresponding (it is to be called homological) woman's organ? Well, the author has not so vivid imagination for to imagine such cult. So that, as strange as it seems, but people have, after all, feeling for beauty and harmony! But this, that the man is the perfect individual, does not mean that the men are perfect in
every respect, nor that this perfection is always something good (for there are also perfect drunkards, for example). Still, the rule is, that the man reaches perfection in some area (in order to try, though unconsciously, to pass it to the offsprings), while the single perfection of the woman is her mediocrity, as we have already stated.
But this perfection carries also its consequences, because the men, being more diverse in the complex of their qualities, are also more susceptible to external factors like: unfavourable weather conditions, greater vulnerability to various diseases, including mental, more intensive metabolism, aggravated by their larger dimensions, more risky nature of their work, in comparison with the women and so on. In two words, this means that
exactly the men are the weaker gender, contrary to the widely spread delusions (again initiated by men, for to make yet another compliment to the women, that they value them as painted Easter eggs), where "weak" must be understood in sense of averaged characteristic of the men. But at the same time the record, or extreme achievements, were it in the sports, or in sciences, arts, or elsewhere, belong to the men, i.e. to
some men, where for nonextreme activities the women are, definitely, more appropriate, and that is why they are those who are engaged with a number of monotonous, or not requiring special artfulness, activities. Put it otherwise, the men are the
more specialized individuals, who could bring something new in the genetic code of the gender and that is why there are sufficient few men (but many "postboxes").
But there is one more important element for the man, which, definitely, is absent by the women (and that is why we have not mentioned it there) and this is the
sense of proportion! It is closely relayed with the reason, even with the wisdom, because in our contradictory world the most important thing is to find the appropriate
point of balance, something that was known in Ancient Greece (and even earlier) -- the slogan "Nothing in excess!". This is an art or wisdom, because this measure is based on
incalculable things, it can't be measured quantitative (because it comprises different qualities), and for this reason even the Eastern philosophers have claimed that
the wisdom (in contrast to the sciences)
can't be learned, and one either can come to it (based on his experience in life, on the
karma, i.e. on his genetic makings) or he can't. This is a kind of instinct, that has some analogue by the women -- the so called "woman's intuition", which is again on instinctive base --, but it is very important for reaching of right, i.e. well balanced, actions (because to extremities even an imbecile can come). And have you ever asked yourself why the man (as a rule) has sense of proportion, while the woman hasn't (and for that reason she is the most lustful, most violent, and other "most" things)? Well, in order to answer this question we have to look directly to the sex, where it is known that the woman ...
always can (say, about 15 to 20 coitions daily, I beg your pardon, wouldn't have been very difficult for her, how it has happened sometimes with some prostitutes in very busy days), while the man sometimes can, but sometimes can't! This, that the man may also not can, forces him (from an young age), willy-nilly, to become used to search the measure also in other things; this does not occur thoughtfully, but it becomes habit, instinct, where there is no such inner impulse for the woman and that is why she knows only to want (were it more men, or more clothes, or else to be dissatisfied by everything).
At this place some more careful reader might become aware, that this oscillation between "can" and "can not" is not exactly moderation, but working in the so called impulse mode. Well, this is so, but, regretfully,
the impulse mode is the only mass available substitute for moderation, for example: one eats meat at full in the morning, for lunch, and at dinner, and the next thing is that he does not eat at all meat for some weeks; or one does not drink alcohol, does not drink, and then at once begins drinking blast which lasts days in succession; or in the political life -- we either turn to the left, or then to the right (and in Ancient Greece there were changes of periods of democracy directly with such of tyranny); or take the wakefulness, when one usually thinks logically, and the dormant state, when he thinks associatively, but the logic is the last thing about which he cares; and many other examples. It is especially difficult to discern this imitation of moderation when the period of oscillation is of order of years or decades, but there is nothing to be done, because one (even if he is a man) can only
strive for wisdom, but to reach it he has not the luck. On the other hand, people speak about moderation for many centuries, all have heard that this is a good thing, and why then they do not behave moderate? Well, because this is both, not easy for them, and also
not always is very good, inasmuch as on this world with moderation nothing
great has been reached -- neither in the science, nor in the sports, nor in the arts, nor in conquering of a country or in state of war in general. Id est then, when it goes about great (extreme) achievements, they can't be reached with moderate actions, but in everyday life there is nothing better than moderation! This is seen dividing people not only by gender, but also by age, where the younger ones are less moderate, in the middle of life people learn, more or less, to live moderately, and in their old years -- and this is one of the
main signs of aging -- they begin gradually to loose their sense of proportion.
Well, we clarified basically both principles but let us conclude this chapter with one
thought experiment designed to
reverse somehow the things, to make the feminine sex the hard and active one, and the masculine -- the weak and passive. This can be done easily enough if we subject the sexual organs to one ... homomorphic, as it's said, transformation, i.e. to one
elastic change, which, retaining the "hole" and the "rod", has to swap their places! This is possible because by elastic change -- like something painted on a balloon -- it may be changed, for example, the cube to a ball, right? So that we may take the "hole" and draw and elongate it in a
proboscis, and the "rod" shrink to something like small button and conceal it in the lap (what isn't something impossible, because both genders are somehow represented in each individual, due to what it is possible to perform operations for changing of gender, and you also surely know that the clitoris by the women is underdeveloped penis). In this case the feminine organ will inflate and search to shove itself in the hole of the masculine and suck there something, and this will lead to various connected with this changes, to reversing of the things.
But this reversing is not only imaginary, it is, up to a certain extent, done by the plants, where, as you know, the pistils are hard and sticking out, and the stamens are very tiny and clumsy, so that, for to come to both genders by the animals the dear God or the nature, willingly or not, have gone through some similar variant. Yeah, but they have
rejected it, as impossible or at least unsuitable! Now, do you feel it, these kind of reasonings are highly similar to the well known proving by supposing the contrary, which leads to logical absurd, only that here logically all seems entirely feasible, but turns out to be
practically absurd. Well, this is not quite rigorous mathematical proof, because if something has not happened this does not mean that it can't happen sometime, but ... it is
almost so, because the evolution (or God) has tried a lot of variants for awfully long time, so that there are every grounds to believe that, if something is absent from the nature, it is in some aspect not appropriate, what, in essence, is an old Eastern assertion, i.e. that our world is the best of all possible. So that the conservative individual must be weaker, susceptible to pressure, more mediocre, more partial, and so on, and the creative gender must be more impertinent, hard, risky, and so on, and we can't avoid this.
So, and now it remains only to cast a look at the near future, when this big experiment named emancipation settles down a little.
3. Where to after the emancipation?
Because the men, even if they want, can't revert back the history -- well, the history, really, leads to frequent repetitions, but with some new element, on a new turn of the spiral of evolution, and here is clear that the women will not give up not one of their obtained liberties, if they have been given once to them. Though they have been given to them (or they have won them, if the women insist so much on this difference), because this has
become possible, with the relieving of life on the whole (and of the housework in particular). (A propos, for such cases, when some thing that has to happen, really happens, our so called "
shop", from the area around Sofia, has the nice saying, that: "This, what is needed, it wants itself alone!") So that, after we already have the emancipation, let us see what will happen in the near future.
But let us first make the important difference between the family, as an unit for bringing up of the children, and the society, as a place for labour and social activity, because these things have to be distinguished. In the society is clear that the woman can, and even must, take ever increasing part. And do you know why, most of all? Well, ha, ha, because she is
mediocre, and if so then she is the ideal individual for monotonous or routine activities, but nowadays (in the era of technologies) almost each kinds of labour is routine, and even the science and art have become industries (or "productive forces", according to the old communist terminology)! Here and there is, still, necessity (as it will ever be) of strokes of genius, but we don't speak about geniuses but about common people. The elitist positions, anyway, are only few percents (and even in those cases it goes, generally, again about routine). Besides, there have not left typical masculine professions, needing physical strength (the armies, still, are masculine, but in the polices for a long time work not only men). So that, however we look at it, if the women want to work, they can perform practically every work, and in many cases even better than the men, because there are activities where one average man would have felt bored, and in the majority of cases in working with customers the women are preferable. The same applies also in the politics, where the woman, again, is the ideal candidate, by the same reason of mediocrity, because the elected officials are, more or less, people from the masses, and have to think like average citizens, not like an elite (for otherwise they could not have been understood by the masses).
And when we mentioned the sphere of services (dealing with clients) then in the contemporary economies it occupies more than a half of the working force. This, by the way, was the major error of Marx, because the typical working force, as people from the factories, becomes less and less. Roughly speaking, in agriculture work only 5 to 10% of the people, in factories maybe about 15-20% (but with tendency for their number to decrease), in army and police about 5%, and all left (education, healthcare, banking, trade, tourism, services, and others) is some kind of services, where remain about 2/3 of the total number. But this can be taken for an error of Marx only by persons who think dogmatically, because the idea of the man was about
hired workers, i.e. such who don't work with their own means of production, and such are more than 90% of the working people. However it is,
the woman, definitely,
will become the dominating gender in the society and business, so that not only it is normal to expect that in the families (as far as such units remain, what we will discuss shortly) the women will be those who will win the bread (and the man will do the housework, look after the children, and so on), but it is not at all excluded, supposing that the gender of the children can be established earlier, or to be ordered (by artificial birth), that the part of men will become two, three, or even ten
times less than that of women -- after, say, a pair of centuries. The only obstacle in this respect can be ... the brains of women (well, as long as they have them), i.e. that they
at last will understand that they only lose (meaning that cut the brench on which they sit), because from the emancipation till the moment they must do many things like: go to work, and there have left no gentlemen more (when all are equal, and more so when the men are the weaker gender, then about what gentlemanliness we can speak?), and they will begin to retire on the same age with the men, and there will be no more families, so that they will have not even by one guarantied "sexual worker" for each of them, and so on. And there, where men will exist, they should be taken under protection of the state (or, eventually, of some women), because the slogan: "Women, keep your men!" has been raised somewhere about the middle of the 20-th century and has all causes for its existence.
And before we have come to the disappearance of the families (because this already become clear) let us squeeze here some thoughts about the
kinds of governing, because this emancipation have come out of women's wish to rule. Well, from ancient times it is known that
the governing has two sides, joined in one dialectical link, and these are:
the strategy and the tactics! The strategist says "I
want, this and this", and the tactic says "so and so
must be acted", but both are important, so that when we speak about governing we must have in mind which kind exactly. It is clear that there always remains the question with the dispatching of these activities, which stands above everything, but there are different ways for doing this (say, vertical dividing of spheres of activity), and it is natural to accept that this is the man (at least where the sex interferes, but in the business this isn't obligatory). From both sexes -- after all said till now this has to be completely clear -- the strategist is the woman, and the tactic is the man, and it was so millenniums of human history, in relation to what in Bulgaria we have the saying that the man is the head, but the woman is the neck. It is good if this mutual relation can be preserved in the future, but if the women so much long to be both the head and the neck, then let them support themselves alone; still, the role of man as neck just isn't typical for him (he wants only to play, the man, and what goal in life this can be?).
So, and now about the
families. Historically looked they are created as minimal social units needed for creating and bringing up of the offsprings and come on the place of former primitive communities. When life becomes a bit easier, then the genera remain only as background of the families, but even before a century there were big families where the oldest was the head, and remained as such while living. In the present day the bringing up of the children (we must not bother about the creating because it is done easily and pleasantly) is not a special problem (well, in Bulgaria at the moment this isn't so, but we are speaking about somewhere after half a century), and in the future it will be even more taken by the state. This is so even nowadays in many Western countries, where the principle is (or will become) that the child allowances are paid uniformly according estimations for average needs, and the money for them are taken from the parents or other grown people according to their incomes. If one is so much engaged that he /she can't care for his /her children then there is solution also for such cases, there exist various institutions (kindergartens, boarding schools, colleges, etc.). If we assume that life will become ever easier then there is normal to suppose that the minimal unit will be reduced to the number one, and this will be
the single parent, no matter whether the people live together or are divorced, or even are not so but everyone takes care for certain child.
Let us clear this better. You see, after the
families fall apart (and it is clear that they fall apart because of incessantly growing number of divorces) it is high time to come to some decision (what will happen sometime), where the most natural is even
before impregnation (accompanied or not with marriage) to be clear
which child to whom of the parents will belong, and he or she will mainly care for him (or her) and bring him up. This estimation can be done with some (marriage or pseudo-marriage, because it could be about homo-families) treaty, but there has to be some preset
default if there is no treaty, and the most logical thing is: if the child is a boy to be given to the father, and if she is a girl -- to the mother. If the women want to be equal with the men, or at least to try this, then there is no reason to accept that the mother as a rule will look after the children; it is true that the men have not yet come to the idea that
they are the main injured party by the divorce, but this "gentlemanly" inertia will cease soon. Such fixing of the children to one of the parents has also this advantage that in this way each will know whether he /she has fulfilled his /her obligation to the posterity or not, and this obligation will consist in
bringing up of one child, because only in this way can be stopped the galloping or exploding birthrate (according to calculations of the author the world population is "only" 200
times greater than the needed, but this topic is discussed somewhere else). If the author is right thinking that the higher living standard leads to the capability for the woman to take ever increasing (and prevailing) part in the society and production, as also to the falling apart of the families, i.e. if we take these things as "unavoidable evil", than the above-explained decision will be quite reasonable way for going out of the current mess. When even today the extrauterine conception costs two-three average monthly salaries (for the West), then there are no problems to expect that after half to one century one artificial mother (incubator for children) will cost as much as, say, a pair of dishwashers (or a second-hand car), so that each one will be in position to afford it, and we will go also without families. It is true that a man may populate a whole planet with his genetic material, but the woman also is not so limited, because for her life she produces more than 500 ova, so that she can give 4-5 (or more, if somebody wants them from her) for the corresponding gene banks. This may be a fantasy, but the future, looked at through the eyes of the present,
is a fantasy.
But this was about the question of multiplication, and the sex is something else, right? In the sense that when for a long time is made difference between love and sex then why not to make difference between sex and children? And on this place we must add that the emancipation has one more effect related exactly with the sex (but is it nice or not is a matter of viewpoint) and this is the
growth of homosexuality! Because homosexuals have ever existed (and they must exist also between animals), though now they not only become legal (at the end, why not?), but also their number begin to grow; while before this was only temporary substitute then now this becomes official characteristic of the person -- something like, say, the colour of eyes. And that this is consequence of emancipation must be obvious, because if one is a man and, as they say, the hormones force him to act, and one can never rely on one woman, because just when he become used to her and she throws him out, and he, anyway, is the weaker sex, easily vulnerable (the woman weeps and sobs a little and comes over the problem, but the man can not weep and there are not ... courses
in weeping for men), and so on, but one can not rely also on many women, because he prefers to have somebody
close to him, not to spend each time his physical etc. energy to take the stars from the sky and throw them down at her feet, so that what else remains at his disposition if not somebody alike with him?
And this about the habituation is very true because also other men before the author have remarked that
the man begins with sex and comes to love, while the women -- and surely here all must be on the contrary --
begins with love and finishes with sex. The man begins with sex because, well, because "the rod itches", but comes to love (usually), maybe by habit, out of sense of responsibility or gentlemanliness, or because of ... pure laziness, to search each time new subject for one (mean, right?) physiological need. While the woman begins with love because ... By the way, have you ever asked yourself why for so many centuries it was thought right that the woman must enter the marriage as virgin? The question is important because this is
knowledge (even from biblical times the copulation was equated with the abstract scientific knowledge), so that the woman, it turns, must be restrained from the knowledge, and this seems curious, because the man always prefers to know something than not to. Yeah, but
for the woman the knowledge does not bring happiness and this surely have been remarked by some man in ancient times and later the others have also agreed with him. After so much words it has to be already clear that the "birth box", for which the game element is foreign, has no need of knowledge, it does not help her in the life. That is why she (even if is not virgin) must be deceived with something, for example, that her partner (it may not necessary be her husband) is nice, or wealthy, or has good chances for career, or whatever, and you see where from comes the love (because it
is a delusion, but we shall return to this later), and when some time flows instead of this love comes the sex, because the woman tries to find the game element in the sex, she has no other possibility.
So, but when the man begins now more often to search his sexual likeness then this applies in full also to the woman, because, when she can very well live alone, can earn more money than the man, does not want to listen to anybody (and here it doesn't matter whether the man is more intelligent, for the woman the logic is of
no importance), then why on earth (or the hell -- as most like to say) she must have a husband -- as some women say: only (I beg your pardon) to piss on the toilet ring! And the woman, if we are frank, is something finer, frailer, more sensual, so that if one man may love another man, then one woman can even more love another woman; while by the masculine homosex there are some unaesthetic moments, then by the feminine one there are no such things. And exactly the
emancipatesses are between the first lesbians, i.e. it is not necessary for one
Emanze (as the Germans call them) to be lesbian, but the reverse is necessary. Well, if the women like this situation, if they don't value the "small difference", then, as it's said, let them continue so, but the point is that the author thinks that they don't give themselves account on the matter; the women know to want, and is it possible and at what price, this does not interest them, or they can't grasp it.
This, of course, as we have already mentioned, does not mean that the homosex is necessarily something bad; it is something unnatural, something
sickly, but it isn't socially dangerous, so that let it exist, if this is necessary, but not to force it
deliberately on the stage of life. And it has also some advantages, in sense of
stronger feelings, because by it the sex is ideal,
separated from the continuation of the family, i.e. it remains, really, only as some unavoidable physical necessity, but without the least illusion for conception. So that, in two words, if you are looking somewhere for love search it between the homosexuals! And at last we have come to the question of love, though not as sex but as strong feeling of affection and need, as profoundly expressed liking, which can be applied also to animals or inanimate things. On this subject are written volumes of literature, but only once the author has met a reasonable definition, which is the following:
love is assessment of the perfection of an object, what means that
if you love something you don't want to change it, you want neither to add something to it, nor to take anything away! Well, this assessments usually is a delusion, but in this situation you see that in at least 90% of the cases, when people speak about love, they have in mind something different (sex, habituation, physiological necessity, but not love), because the first thing, that two lovers do is
to model the other, in accordance with his (or her) own views, ostensibly to make her (or him) better, to care for the partner, and so on, though this, what they should have been doing, is just to stay there and admire the other, and if they do something for him /her this may be only some such thing that helps him to be what he is.
Well, maybe it is high time to finish, so that only one small prognosis for the middle and end of the 21-th century. The men, regardless of in- or extra- -uterine birth, of presence or absence of families, of homo- or hetero- pairs, or poly- -gamy or -andry, will remain in number as many as the women (it is hardly to imagine that the women will sacrifice their fun, and this in interest of the nature; in the human society, somehow, is preferable to be in equal number). To work will go about twice as many women than men. Marriages as a rule will not be concluded, but about 1/3 of the children will be brought up by two parents, where 1/3 of this number (or about 10% from the total) will me homo pairs, and the left 2/3 of the children will have in the moment only one parent (i.e. he may be at all only one, or they have divorced); there might have exist also some communes, for easier bringing up of the children, but because the latter are the greater ... egoists they will not like it there and such children will be not more than 5%. There will not be public incubators, unless one orders there a child (i.e. when is known to whom he /she is). Each citizen (man or woman) will be allowed to have one child, for whom the state will help, and if somebody so much wants to have more than this, then not only he will be forced to pay for everything, but will pay also some additional tax for him. Together with woman's protection from conception there will be used also some way for prolonged male sterility (but not irrecoverable). People will not speak more about emancipation and will become clear that the man is the weaker sex, regardless of his abilities for stronger momentary strains, or exactly because of this. And the children will be baptized with three names, where the family (as the most logical expectation) will be of the man
if the child is a boy, and of the woman if she is a girl; the second name will be that of the other parent; and the personal name will be temporary and each child will have to approve or amend it after, say, the age of 12 years. And with this we put the last dot.
April 2004
Appendix
Sure Test
Lisºten guys, I'll tell you noºw
Test worth more than golden oºunce:
Whether your girl's nice and you are blessed,
Or is she then ... emanci
patess.
This is simºple, even banal,
Yet a bit, I would say, ... anal:
You just slap her genºtle, kind.
Where? -- Well, on the behind!
If she's girl in th' proper sense,
She will smile and maybe mutter
Something nice, not take offense,
Soft to you remain like butter,
Otherwise with wrath immense
Turn to you will sharp as cutter.
July 2002, translation July 2013
ABOUT THE DEGRADATION OF MORALITY
The idea, which I will elaborate in this material is simple and taken from ancient Eastern philosophy, as also from Ancient Greek dialectics, and it reduces generally to the following: when morality degraded, but to the utmost (and even more than this, as is said), then it will
emerge again, modified. In principle this is so, but the difference is
in social price which we pay, for the things are not so simple, it is not as to say: "well, let it degrade then". Only the chaos, which in old Greek was written with just two letters, χα (or this was the root), was imagined as one big mouth (the letter "h" in many languages is not read, and the Italians, for example, take it at all away, and there the hygiene is
igiene, the harmony --
armonia, and so on), and then this reduces to one "a-a", and if so then it has eaten everything, but later on all emerged again from the other end and in another form, yet this method leads to much disturbances and shocks. And I am speaking about Eastern philosophy for the reason that in the Sanskrit was stated that our world was something thrice negated: it is
not constant, not perfect, and not isolated! In other words, it not only changes all the time, but is also not finished (imperfect is the same as incomplete; and mark that this is exactly the opposite to what Christian religion says), and is so entangled (with dialectical links) that this, what must happen, it happens anyway, but only after some things change and some cataclysms occur, in order to set them in order.
But let us begin and first of all convince ourselves must these things happen.
1. The degradation of morality is practically evident for everybody. It is something in what are convinced even those who welcome it and say to themselves "Wow, what f###ing goes now, not like before!" And it is even not necessary to compare what is now with the oriental countries and a pair of centuries earlier, when the women have not gone out of house without
feredje-veil, no, even on the West, and also in Bulgaria, the decent women have worn veils on their faces, not to mention to show something more than an
ankle, while nowadays they show freely also their breasts (were there what to show, but also if they are not much demonstrable), and even their genitalia, and by the Internet now sucklings, too, can gape at such things as much as they want and enjoy them. But in the times of Oscar Wilde, in the end of 19th century, when they said "to make love" was understood to speak with a person from other sex, to court or seduce, where nowadays this phrase means hard sex.
This sexual promiscuity, quite naturally, at least for me, leads to disintegration of the families, because the women, when (or rather
if) they marry and when they give birth to a pair of children, say to themselves "so why should I have a husband anymore (except to ... piss on the toilet ring, ah?)" and decide to get rid of him. So that the question isn't in this, is free sex allowed -- let it be allowed, if it does not interfere with the families, and from here, with the society -- but
in the consequences from this. Because today hardly somebody, be this man or woman, will come to the idea to ask him- or her- self the question: for what reason earlier the women were obliged to marry still virgins, when the sexual relation is a kind of "knowledge", in the Slavonic languages, but in the Latin, too (and supposedly also in the ancient ones), and if this is so, then it is not clear why some additional knowledge has to hinder the woman? Yeah, but it
hinders her, for the woman this knowledge (and maybe every other?) is of no benefit, it only unleashes or unbridles her, increasing her already boundless wishes, and it turns out that from this neither she benefits (for goes prematurely to look for vibrator), nor the family, nor the society as a whole. These things I discuss in other materials, but the idea is that the freedom in sex leads to dissolving of the families, and the woman is who wants to have children and family (to clutch stronger some man).
In this way the women not only "cut the branch on which they are sitting", in this way suffer the children, too, obviously, though they, having no basis for comparison, can't judge is it good to have a pair of parents, or one is enough. But it isn't the right thing if a boy is brought up by his mother also when he grows a bit (she, really, I beg to be excused by the women, can't teach him even how to ... piss, right?), neither only by the father, especially if these are girls (for the same "toilet" reason, if you want). If the dear God has wanted to be one parent he would not have created the two sexes, or would have left also by the mammals the reproduction with eggs, in which case they could have not at all known their parents. But it isn't so, and this is clear to everyone. It is clear also to the women, but they are extremely biased, and
for that reason are not in position to make the right decision, not because they are "a bit silly" by nature. If the people could have, like the French, at least according to the hearsay, quietly accepted existence of wife and mistress (respectively, of man and lover), then there wouldn't have been problems, but they, as a rule, can not.
But let us not more distract us in this direction, because the sex, however you turn it, is an annoying
hindrance in life, which brings us some pleasures, this can't be denied, but is, still, a hindrance, with which everybody copes how one cans. But the point isn't in the sex, the latter is
secondary element of morality! And morality, according to one my old, call it working (but it is true enough, and at the same time not restricting) definition, is a
set of rules, directed to uniting of people in the time, and in the space. The uniting in the space means to know that we don't live alone, that there are other humans around us, and above and below us, if you want, and we can't think only about oneself, because (at least having in mind the mutual tying of the things, but if you so much insist then think that this is because there is some God) this reflects back on us; saying it otherwise, he who looks only at himself, he very often does
not look rightly at himself, at his interest (for he does not know how), and he who thinks about the others, it often turns that thinks also about himself. Such uniting in the space can be reached also without morality (whose main carrier, till now, were the religions), via the strength and compulsion -- of some King or "Duce", or some other boss --, for the reason that the strong, if he is not very silly thinking about himself only, in fact, cares also about the others, he wants that people respected him, that they remembered him with something good.
Uniting in the time, though, can't be reached without morality, and this is joining of generations, relations between children and parents. Why this can not be reached, ah? Well, because if there are not families, then there are not, or almost not, also parents. And if there is not a gender, then very often there is also not a society in worldwide scale. At the same time -- in order not to think that I just "plow the sand" -- according to the data from last population census in Bulgaria in 2010, out of the newborn children
55% (more than the half!) were
extramarital, who until recently were called unlawfully-born (now they are lawfully, for the law was changed), and the common people called them just ... bastards! Well, if the major part of children are bastards then this does not hinder them, of course, but comes time and this will begin to hinder somebody, because in this way the moral is quite weak.
And don't forget also that nowadays the drug addiction, and already also the terrorism, have significantly grown, much more, maybe tens times more, than in the era of O. Wilde (or Karl Marx, or our liberation from Ottoman rule, in 1876, and other close in the time historical moments), and these things are obviously also related with the lack of morality, because people just
look for something which is worth living for! Those, who begin in early age to look for drugs, are such because, when there is everything allowed in the sex (sado-, mazo-, etc., as is written in the ads of prostitutes), and also in the absence of strong paternal hand in the lacking family (which hand would have firmly slapped the child's bottom if nothing else helped), don't know what more to require from life, and when food, shelter, and clothes are secured, then what more can these kids and adolescents want except something with which help they can
escape from this meaningless real world? And those, who bind around their waist dynamites sticks, they think that in this way they will at least leave this word
purposefully -- for they are not sadists, neither crazy, they are persons with some fixed idea, but it goes out of some moral understandings! On top of all this such people can
not be punished, because they don't live for pleasures on this world, they live for ... the eternity, so to say. So that when there is not a decent moral then people look for some ersatz or substitute for it, because by no means all are ... "calves" or morons or imbeciles or oligophrenics (chose the suitable for you word), which are contented only with the advertisements and the fables for happy life (full with smiles -- as in the ads), there are also restless, searching personalities, who in different circumstances push forward the society.
Anyway, let us not comment further obvious things but go to the next point, which in some extent explains why we think that we can do without morality.
2. Much morality does not lead to moral actions. This can look out pretty strange, but by the humans, who, in contrast with the animals, are far beyond the immediate needs in life, or have "jumped over" or overdone their necessities, if you like it better so, out of much morality often come to the exactly opposite of it. This isn't a new moment and all of you surely have heard the phrase that "The path to
hell is strewn with good intentions", i.e. only with intentions one can reach nothing, but out of strong wishes for something people begin to impose their views on other people, who, however, don't like them and begin to oppose, but the first ones, thinking that they are doing something in interest of the others, especially if it goes about "eternity", i.e. about "the other world", i.e. on religious questions, continue to insist, and in their insisting they come to wars and bloodshed. I personally don't think that there exists religion, that can boast that
in the name of religion it has not come to human victims, but as if with greatest "asset" in this regard is "famous" the Christian religion. More than this, it gives very bad example to relatively tolerant Eastern religions, to the Islam, for example, how to defend your own convictions.
This is really so, because earlier, before Christianity, and also roughly to the 5th century of new era, in the Levant, i.e. in the eastern part of Mediterranean, or in the Arab world, has existed quite good
tolerance to the other religions, if not for other reason then because there were many and different religions and people were simply
compelled to tolerate one another. But then begin the Christian crusades, and even much later, somewhere in 19th century, Turkey, as a sufficiently civilized Arab country, which eagerly wants to enter in Europe, and them to be like the Europeans, and introduces family names (for there was said before: Assas, son of Osman, son of Pishman, for example), decides once to conduct the "known" massacre of the Armenians -- because that is how they proceed on the West (and now try to say that on the West they don't do so!). Also in Ancient Rome around the new era was teeming with various cults, but nobody has taken them seriously, until the Christians have come and have given their negative contribution to the development of morality.
But in the same way we can "spit" also on the understandings of the common man, who has not agreed that his bride has had other lovers before him, no matter that every man allows himself to do this when he cans (and has money, of course), but only not his wife. Now, look, there is one very good definition (in my view) of the liking, or the
love to something and somebody, it is in this to think that the object of your feelings is ...
perfect, what means that it is nothing that you can, either add, or take out from it or him (or her)! You just stay there and enjoy, ah? Yeah, but when two people love one another, and this genuine, I don't speak about cases of pretence, then the first thing which each one wants to do is to
change the other one according to his or her own views, and this is
exactly the opposite of proper love. What means that we again overdo the things, even without any religion, just by ourselves, because that is how we are.
We can continue in this spirit mentioning also the Catholicism, about which the author has no direct feelings, but he has read some books, and somewhere in 15th century in the Western countries people have proclaimed "Better to the Turks than with the Pope!" Because the Catholics intervened in personal life of people in many cases
worse than the communists (and this of revolutionary times, not of 70ies and 80ies years of former 20th century). Well, nowadays the Pope may "flatter" all nations, saying "Glory to Jesus Christ" on all possible languages, and does no longer instigate wars (because it is not at all necessary to incite Americans, they are always ready to fight with everybody, especially when is necessary to defend their understandings of "democracy"), but in the times of Columbus, for example, he was not so peaceful.
So that we, all people in general, really take too close to heart every possible
delusions, and are ready to fight for them, naively believing that if somebody is ready to defend with weapons his view then it maybe is right -- and if he becomes victorious then it surely is right --, while if he does not want to fight then in this way he states the weakness of his thesis. And isn't it so even nowadays? Well, but if one scratches a bit his "mug" he may scratch out the thought that the truthfulness of a given thesis
has nothing in common with the power that stands behind it or defends it! The power or strength proves only the power, not the truthfulness of this, what is the cause for fighting. But such is our morality. More than this, we think that the duel-fight is a good thing, this lays in the Latin, but we may use contemporary Italian where
bello means nice, good, but
bellico is military. As also all militarists, i.e. the military people are very ... dear people, etymologically (the root "mili-" or "meli-" is very old and it means something nice, sweet, like honey or mead; in Russian this is exactly "
miliy", what isn't away from your "mild")!
Now listen, as an idea, and at least before the invention of gunpowder, in this view was some reason, because the important thing is the
duel, which proves who of the
individuals is stronger, this work for the selection of the fittest, so proceed all animals, and this is a kind of submission to "God's commandments". But not in contemporary conditions of fight or war, where one may stay on some safe place and throw out bombs, these aren't duels, this is devastation, this is slaughter. So that our morality stumbles, it has grown
hopelessly old, at least with five centuries, it must be changed, and if this is not possible than be dissolved. It is time for some new morality to come, and will this happen minimizing the bloodshed, or "losses of proteinaceous matter", or in some rough and chaotic way, depends only on us. Therefore let us proceed to the next point and see of what kind must it be and is it possible to reach it without self-destruction, defending "perduted"-lost causes.
3. The new moral must be first of all
tolerant! Nowadays there in no more need for selection of the best personalities, nor fight for survival, more so of the best, no, today the most important thing is not to shed unnecessary human (and also animal, if you like) blood, because it helps us with nothing. We must simply learn to endure the other one next to us, even if he (or she) does things which, but absolutely, don't appeal to us. We must somehow
moderate us, when from much "morality" overdo the things. Saying this otherwise, we must
begin to love people, how Christ has spoken (if we give credence to the fables about him), but also in the spirit of our definition of love and liking, and as the ancient religions have preached, too, stating that this world is
neither good,
nor bad, it is simply the best of all possible, but it is
just (understand, for all -- say, for the wolf and the rabbit).
This can be expressed in a bit different way,
sexually oriented, i.e. as masculine and feminine behaviour, and from here also morality. I mean not machoism and establishment of supremacy above the others, but with mild approach and accepting the foreign things, what is the feminine way for establishing of
supremacy. Up to some extent we must turn our back to all evolution of the strong till the moment and look not for dominance, but for mixing of morality, of "moral genes", if I can express myself so, what must guarantee variety of views and bloodless battle of ideas, not leading of direct physical battles! Because one always wants to impose his view, but accepting also the views of the others (not as approving, just as admission of another variant), allows fight, yet in a feminine way; this means that, instead of to fight with weapons for a given cause, let us leave everybody defend his or her positions and see in this way who will turn right after some time, or obtain some averaging of the views. Or peaceful co-existence of different moralities, something of the kind, approaching the things more elegantly and gentle, not brutally and in masculine way. (I express in various other places my views to the women, now and in the future, so let us not digress here, but the idea in this case is that the imposition can be active and belligerent, but it can be also passive, in a feminine way, yet not less insistent, and that this is the other side of the "coin", and if we want to have some middle point then we must look also from the other side, because they are for that reason two sides, in order to use which one is necessary, when necessary.)
But let us return to the tolerance. Say, if some woman (eventually wife) wants so much to have sometimes sex not with her permanent partner -- and, surely, the same thing from the standpoint of the woman about the man -- then why not to do this, but
not to violate the permanent relation, especially if it goes about family, for the children want also examples in life, and punishments, and cares, and not just in material sense. The children, by the way, don't obey most often
not because they are bad or ill-mannered, no -- however widely this is not understood by many people --, they just
want to grasp what is good and what not, and this is learned in the easiest way if you can remain unpunished (because the words, they are
second signal system, this is so, yet there is also the first one)! In other words, the punishment for the growing children has
healing effect, it is part of the upbringing, and when the functions of the family are neglected then the children can't learn many important things and continue, for example, to "learn" when they grow up, and want to check whether will be caught if they carried out some robbery, or try some narcotic drug, and other examples, too, So that if there are not families then must be increased the
functions of society, the children have to be given in some weekly boarding schools, which as if have begun to disappear in the recent time, and the children, left without control, in spite of the difficult sciences which they study, remain uneducated in the sense of everyday morality.
And take also the contemporary capitalism -- it is amoral from the very foundations, it is corrupted, it rests on money, and there are no money even in the animal kingdom, i.e. in this way we, in some sense, descend with one step
lower than the animals (because by them succeeds only the stronger instead of the meeker, or hard-working, etc., where by the people also the wealthier, and the more impudent, and so on)! But in the same time all religions deny the power of money, it does not proceed in the other world, God does not judge by the wealth, at cetera, and religions are based on the views of masses and behave, in general, in their interests (even when they incite to bloodshed they do this because people want this). So that it is clear that our society is bad, unmoral.
Now look here, I defend the morality
not out of moral considerations, but out of
reasonable such! Hardly more than 2-3% of the population has come to such positions, but the more intelligent inevitably must come to this view, because the conclusions from it does not differ much from those of various religions, only the approaches are different. In linguistic sense, I think, is good to remind you the meaning of English word "moral", which means teaching, lesson (where to be of good moral is moral
e), so that the morality is a kind of system of rules, instructions about life (and linguistically these are just habits, customs, for the reason that in Latin "mores" is plural from the custom -- recall the phrase "O tempore o mores!"). These rules are this, what the young ones want to learn. But ... it isn't that they don't
suppose them in advance. Id est, I mean, that the people, as well as the animals, have
inborn sense of justice, morality, because all want to be liked by the others (the little children and the animals, in addition to eat, want also to have somebody to play with, that is to make friends, not to quarrel). So that the
people are good by birth (i.e. they try, as far as they can, to think about the others), the society is what makes them bad (forces them to think only about themselves)! Remember this, please, because this is the obligation of new morality: it must make the
society more just for the people, must satisfy their expectations (that the bad will receive his punishment, and the good will be lauded, not vice versa).
At the same time in the contemporary society, as I have mentioned, is done everything else, but not to ensure some expected and justified punishment for those who have deserved it. More than this, in our time is insisted on successes in business, career, et cetera, which are all transient (according the religions) things, not on selecting of more moral personalities (and forget about the sex, it isn't important). Of course, in this world nothing is isolated, as I said in the beginning, so that one can't avoid to be egoist, but one has also no rights to strive only for dominance over the others (if not for other reason then because one, anyway, aims at this, i.e. exactly on account of this the morality must oppose to it, in order to force the given person to turn to the other side). While there were clans and families, and were many fights between different tribes and nations, there were reasons for selection and establishing of superiority, but nowadays the most important thing is ..., well,
preservation of the diversity (and even creating of new diversities), what is another way to express again the assertion about tolerance. For this reason is considered as good whatever mixing between nations, between wealthy and poor, if you want, between intelligent and mediocre, and this is the new morality.
As if close enough to this view are ... the different sports, because there the personal expression is not related with ideas for hegemony, though there also exist various ways for remuneration of the winners. There are no immediate goals in this area but exist some abstractions, to win the given medal. This, as I have said, looks good to me, but ... . But the bad thing is that this isn't mass phenomenon, this concerns only some 1-2% of the population (if not less), and it is much specialized, i.e. this not so much develops the body as
deforms it, in some aspect, so that the sports are also not a model.
But something has to be done, there must be
some families (I have an idea in this regard which is expressed in other places),
some ethnicities,
some rules for good behavior, but different from narrow national or racial, or of the caste or family, or some other, interests. And have to be taken into account the
intentions of people (this is morality, not only the results). And has to exist
considerable surveillance of (almost) everything and everybody, because we have become now too strong for to leave the things just to take their course (i.e. it is not important who with whom has slept, but who "bears grudge" against whom and for what, what can be done in order that this person, and others like him or her, "drops" this grudge). And everybody must have conditions for development, for more complete unfolding of the given to him by God /gods (or Nature), the more so because, when there are no (or almost no) families, and when the genius, as this is checked many times, is not passed by inheritance, we have to give it (the genius) chance to show itself, still, from time to time. But, if we will continue in this way, we will come in the end to the ideas of communism, and also of Plato from 25 centuries ago, ah?
Well, that's the point, that it must happen exactly so, because there can not be morality in the interests of
all people, and not to go out of some common (of the community) interests. We can't want that people evolved fully, when some are born in wealthy conditions (let us not necessarily speak about family), and others in poor, and if for health insurance and for education must be paid, i.e. they are
not available for all. So that the new morality, as it seems, will turn to be very old, the morality of each religion. So it is true, but I had in mind exactly the morality of
each one of the religions, i.e. of all the religions, i.e. (using the language of mathematics) of the intersection of all religions! This intersection, if we succeed to reach it with our egoistic inclinations, will be exactly the quintessence of morality over the centuries. It remains only to reach it. Because if we can not, then there will be "a little" chaos, then "a bit" more, maybe, and after this ... will be again necessary to reach it.
It is necessary to have clarity on all these issues when we criticize or accept the degradation of morality. The young ones try somehow to
survive, this is their right. For that reason it turns out that when people have everything, then they haven't, first of all, morality. And they look for it.
September 2012
NEO-MALTHUSIANISM, OR RATIONAL JUDGMENT*
[ * Published on page 27 of "Continent" newspaper from 28 Aug. 1998 creatively modified, in order to fit in one big page. ]
Exactly two centuries ago in England was published one brochure of Thomas Malthus which was significant chiefly for his cardinal conclusions about the difference between geometrical progression, with which the humans propagate, and the arithmetic progression, with which the production of foodstuffs grows, and by this situation up to the current moment all people on the globe should have been dead for long time like a swarm of locusts having eaten to the roots all grass or green bough on their territory. Like almost every assertion, based on
extrapolation of some temporary dependence but without taking into account the possible changing of the tendency (or the trend, as it is modern to say now in Bulgaria, because this is English word and, hence, seems more fitting to be used), this also turned to be erroneous, because, as one old Christian proverb says, "man proposes though God disposes", and it has happened so that "God" has allowed also in the sphere of production of food and other essential goods the geometric progression to begin to function, as also has "taught" the humans how to make condoms and other contraceptive means, which are to break the geometric progression in the population growth, but, somehow or other, we have still not died like locusts (yet it is not to be denied that we have very successfully tried to do this in other,
more contemporary, way -- with the help of nuclear weapons, for example -- and this danger is not entirely eliminated).
Yeah, but this is formal interpretation of the warning of prof. Malthus, and if it has turn wrong then this does not mean that his
fundamental ideas were erroneous, and these ideas are that there
have become just
too many people on Earth and they have begun to hinder one another pretty actively, because their "hunting territories", if we use this zoological term, intersect. The new moment, on which we shall dwell here, is that people can hinder one another even when their hunting territories are very rich and reasonably fixed (what is yet far from being achieved on a global scale), so that they again come to some insurmountable obstacle, and this time it is the
informational ceiling of human intellect, reaching of which brings the people "out of the rails" of their set from centuries behavior, because the main moment, which has baffled the expiring 20th century, was, to put it in one word, the
multiplication!
It has begun in the beginning of century with the conveyor of Ford, has continued with the automated and robotic systems in manufacturing, with the penetration of industrial methods in agriculture, has allowed creation not only of powerful and super-powerful weapons, but of weapons for
mass destruction (or for "holocaust", in order to convince the readers that the author also knows some "modern" words), has expressed itself in applying of industrial methods in education and sciences, what has transformed the latter from creative activity in real productive force, so that now in almost every area we speak about
technologies, was created a whole arsenal of substituents or "ersatz" products, be it of food, be it of clothes, or for entertainment, because they are susceptible to automated production, was destroyed nearly entirely the creative element in various traditionally creative activities like arts, sciences sports, (as also sex, if you want), and the single place, maybe, where the multiplication has not yet entered, is the reproduction of population, but as far as for a long time now they are talking about cloning, and the successes of genetic engineering are really impressive, there is nothing surprising if the near
decades these things get out from the pages of science fiction literature and enter in our life.
All this has destroyed basic time relationships between the effort for producing of something and the ready product, between the action and the result, and the humans, as far as they are not gods, have become confused and decided to kill "a bit" each other, hopping that in this way the things will better themselves -- similarly to the model of "healing" used for many centuries via bloodletting, what nowadays may seem to us ridiculous and unscientific, but this is the bitter truth (and, maybe, in the same way will look to the future people our "attempts" to solve our problems applying brute force and mass destruction, if, "help us God", the mankind will continue to exist in the future). While in the deep antiquity in each tribe there was special person responsible for preserving of the fire, and if it extinguished they have often killed that keeper, then much later, with the discovery of flint, the things were significantly improved, but even before a century the making of fire has still taken important place in the life of people, where now one simple lighter, that may be used for making of fire thousands times, costs (and is valued) as one egg of hen, i.e. as the strain of the hen to lay the egg (if we do not bother with the "effort" of the cock to engender it, of course). Similar changes have taken place in the area of transport and communications, have emerged the mass information means or media, which have also confused many human habits, and the capabilities of the so called thinking being have increased so much, that this poor being, which, in fact, is
not thinking but just
able to think, as long ago have remarked some more clever human exemplars (but does this only
after he has exhausted all unreasonable methods for reaching of the goal, according to the author), was not simply confused, but right away "dumbfounded" during this ending century.
But enough on this question, and this introduction was necessary for us in order to be able to predict the main problems of the next century that already "knocks on our doors". These problems, according to the author, are two, namely: artificial or extrauterine birth, and control over the population growth. The first one is dangerous with this, that it will break one important tie of mankind with the nature, will diminish the emotional contact of the mother with the child, and will alleviate up to such extent the life of more delicate half of the people, that they will again become
confused and will begin to think what else they are to do now (when are not do this, what was destined to them since the life on Earth has emerged) and in consequence of this all sorts of revolutionary cataclysms will arise. But as far as this problem is contained in significant extent in this of the birth control the author chooses to predict that
the main problem in the next 21st century will be the question of
restricting the human population on the globe! We will try to have a good look at it, but
not through extrapolation
of the tendencies, what is, as we in Bulgaria say, like to "make ones account without the innkeeper", but from the point of view of some
reasonable population, because the main misconception in the disputes with Malthusians was,
can the globe feed all this future avalanche of people, where the question must sound as:
is it necessary for the globe to feed so many people and will this lead to increasing of integral human happiness, what, exactly, has to be the single goal of mankind?
And so, let us begin. According to approximate and, maybe, controversial calculations the population on Earth in the II-I millennium BC was about 50 mln people, and to the beginning of our era has reached about 100 millions. This is one quite decent and sufficient number of people for a civilized society, what gives the
first way for computation -- based on human history. Later this number until roughly the year 1800 has still not exceeded one milliard, where in the current century we, definitely, have overdone the things when have jumped over 5 mlrd (plus or minus ten years here don't matter). But this was still possible to endure if people have lived nowadays so apart as in Ancient Rome, for example, but at the end of our century comes one more "scourge" for the mankind -- the world computer nets, which add the last touch to the means for mass communication, allowing quite accessible
personal mass information. And here, really, the globe turns to be pretty densely populated, because the important thing is not how many people live in one place, but
how they can
communicate in the process of their work or entertainment, where in this aspect is useful to remind you the biblical fable about the Tower of Babel (though we in Bulgaria, and also in Russia, write and read the town as "
Vavilon" -- due to our Slavonic alphabet), which reduces to this, that overly united mankind is not "in accord with God", i.e. it is not acceptable for the people, because violates the balance with the environment, shortly put. The new accent here is not only in the power of mankind (and its unreasonableness, which unavoidably accompanies the unlimited power), but in the psycho-physiological characteristics of human individual.
Now we will motivate
in another way the approximate
optimal population on Earth in the limits of
that around the
new era using the well accepted decimal system of counting. We will begin with this, that one maintains usually up to three circles or
ranges of contacts with the others around, namely:
a) of
first range, these which include persons of the order of 10 in the first degree or only a ten of persons --
very close relatives and acquaintances, which everyone knows (or at least thinks that knows) best of all, can predict their behavior, and is emotionally tied with them;
b) of
second range or 10 in the second degree, i.e. a hundred of persons -- relatives and acquaintances, which one knows by name and physiognomy, works or lives close to them, and, if not else, greets when meets them, but is not rightly to say that knows them well and does not experience any special feelings for them -- this is just the environment in which one lives and tries to express oneself and
make career;
c) of
third range or 10 in the third degree, what means a thousand of persons -- people, about whom one has heard something, or has seen them, but not only that he/she does not know how many children the particular person has (and has he or she such at all), is he (or she) married, and so on, but very often does not know, either the name, or the physiognomy, or does not relate one with the other -- here enter all publicly known "stars", of whom the given person is interested (were they footballers, pop singers, politicians, or from the highlife), as also other
casual acquaintances;
d) of
fourth range or 10,000 are now too many people, for to be accessible to an averagely taken intellect, and, usually, with so many acquaintances can boast only one-two percents of the population, so that it is not worth to take them into consideration. Speaking about ranges, and using the decimal logarithmic scale, we can not be very accurate, so that the given number can be multiplied by 2, 3, or even 5, what means that if somebody has acquaintances of second range, say, 350 persons, then they are not yet of third range. We can call this human phenomenon "
rule of the small numbers", where is obvious that, the more deeper are our contacts, the more limited is the number of people, with which we maintain such contacts.
The next moment is to define the approximate number of
areas of human knowledge and interests, in which we maintain contacts, but in such manner that they are well
balanced, i.e. that they have approximately equal number of people, who can communicate in the given area. The nomenclatures of human professions, as also the indexes of most of the libraries are of the order of several thousands, and these are
all areas of human knowledge. In some specialized libraries, or in given scientific institutions, may happen that one of these areas is detailed in tens more areas, but such narrow specialization does not change our sectioning because these subareas are usually very narrow and unbalanced as to the scope and number of persons who work in them. Similarly exist also very broad areas -- for example of football fans, which on the globe are, probably, more than milliard people, but this is not an area in which people communicate in order to compete with one another (such could have been the area of very footballers of national or world range, the participants in which are, naturally, some hundreds, or at least as much are those, with whom one good footballer can compare himself). In other words, we are interesting in such areas, where the people, directly speaking,
hinder one another, because this is their "field of game" and in it they compete with the others :hunters", fight with them, express themselves, or make career. Saying "communicate" we do not mean that people speak about the weather, or about sports, or about horses, as the English like to do, or about women, as men like to do (or about men, as for their part do the women), or about politics and politicians (because, the more
complicated is some area, the more people think that they are the most experienced and know how to better there the things), but communication with purpose to
personally express themselves there.
So that let us accept for easier calculations (because when some information is fuzzy and inaccurate the best thing to do is to simplify our calculations), that the areas of human knowledge are thousand, as the number of people who compete in them (not interfering too much with each other) are also thousand. In this way we take the ceiling for contacts of second range, as also one increased nomenclature of basic professions. So we get a sufficient population size or order of one million people. Taking now into account that we presuppose (though till now have not explicitly stated this) that these are areas in which people
create, not just perform necessary for the society activities (like production of goods, services, healthcare, education, maintaining of internal order, an so on), and assuming that with creative activities in society are engaged, usually, from 3 to 5% of the people, but, on the other hand, with the strengthening of productive forces and improving of technologies on the current stage, their number may be expected to grow, then let us assume that the creative workers in the future society will reach ten percents (or 1/10 of the population). This means that we must multiply the got million people by ten and so it turns out that the optimal number of people becomes 10 millions. But as far as our figures are with precision of an order, and can reach until the next decimal order, it comes out that the optimal population on Earth must be from 10 to 100 millions, or, if we take some middle point, then
these are 50 millions people.
Only such society could exist without big disturbances and disorders in the future, because when one satisfies his (or her) basic needs for food, shelter, and continuation of the gender, what remains to him is only the concern about expressing of his personality, and, eventually, improvement of the individual (what, however, is a thing that is not available for everyone, and the majority of people, after finding for themselves, as is said, their place under the Sun, more often than not substitute the strive for reaching of new qualitative development with bigger
quantitative affluence of things and pleasures). And as far as with the real entering of mass personal communications in life the
whole world is becoming one state, where takes place the competing fight between people for expressing of their personality, then this number of 50 mln applies to the
whole planet! In this manner we get another,
third, way for proving of our optimal number, because 50 mln is the number of population of one middle-scale country (like France, for example), and where the countries are bigger people rarely communicate outside their state or province, while smaller countries (like our, for example), are usually satellites of some of the bigger ones, and in this case the competitive struggle happens in the arena (or a part of it) of its "older brother".
In the above calculations we have deliberately overlooked one important moment -- the linguistic barrier, which is the next lesson from the fable about the Tower of Babel, because the language is used mainly to isolate or unite some ethnical or territorially limited group of people, and, hence, it must confuse our calculations. But this is not so for two reasons. The first one is that the international personal communications just
break down the state's borders, at least in regard of the areas of knowledge, and we are witnesses how in almost every science is now massively used the English language, and there is not a single international scientific, cultural, or sporting event of more significant range where English is not, if not the only one, at least one of the official languages. This applies also to each profession, in the industry, in the transport and trade, then in the area of entertainments, such like music, sports, discotheques, games, tourism, and so on. Of course there are still francophones, "teutophones", and others (and they
will exist) but on the level of everyday communications, where is no fight for expression of personality. It can quietly be accepted usage not of one single language but of 5-10 more acknowledged world languages, but, not only that for this purpose exist translators, the good computerized translation, at least in the areas of various sciences, not in fiction literature, is not more myth but a question of pair of decades. The second reason why the language barrier does not change our calculations is the fact that the linguistic dividing just
overlaps with our dividing in areas of knowledge, because there are no problems if, say, the doctors for heart surgery, or aviators, or footballers, etc., were from different language or ethnical groups, yet this does not divide the arena for their fight for expression -- the world "state". Besides, we have made our calculations based on 10% creative workers from the population, and the left 90% quietly can divide themselves even in 1000 language groups by roughly 1000 persons in each of them and still remain in the limits of acquaintances of second range, where their common number will again not exceed the prognosticated 10 millions of population.
There remains only to propose some
natural way for reaching of such drastic diminishing of human population and this is certain limitation of birth. Some statistics show that in order to have effective coefficient of reproduction of population equal to
one, i.e. for to remain in the next generation again the same amount of people, is necessary that on 100 marriages were born 265 children, where are taken into consideration not only birth rates and death rates, but also the possibility for conception in the family. We set ourselves the question: what must be the effective coefficient of reproduction if in
each family (a thing that is not at all easy to be reached, for the population growth in the Third World is still very high) were on the average
by two children? This is a task of school course and is solved applying the simple rule of three, i.e.: to 2.65 corresponds 1.0 , then to 2.0 -- how much will correspond? The answer is 0.755, what means that after one generation we will have population size of 75% of the current one, or diminishing of 25 percents. The continuation of one generation in Ancient Rome was about 20 years, but with the aging of population and prolongation of the period of education this time grows, so that now the average length is about 28 years, but for our calculations suffices if we accept that one generation is 25 years, because this gives by
one percent diminishing of the annual population growth, what, really looking, is nothing dangerous and is quite normal situation in many developed countries for numerous years, and this by itself, in natural way, not because they speak there much about lessening of population (or some measures are taken, if it was spoken about this), but even
in spite of this that every state finds such tendency for something bad and takes measures for encouraging of birth in such cases. The whole "trick" is that this must become a
mass phenomenon in the world!
As far as it is practically impossible that we will do something in a world scale before the earthly population becomes 10 milliards people (or after some 10-20 years) the expressed here means that from 10 mlrd we must go down to 50 mln, or one
decrease of 200 times of the population, or to 0.005 of 10 mlrd (what is five pеr mil). So that now the question sounds as: 0.755 to what
degree gives 0.005, and the answer is -- about 19, what can easily be proved using also a common calculator and multiplying this number by itself until it diminishes to five thousandth (but this can be done much faster typing 0.755 and pressing only the key for multiplication and then this for equality, what imitates rising in square, so that even on the third time, i.e. on 2 to the 3rd degree, or 8, we will have lessening to 10%, in the forth time, i.e. to 16th degree -- to 1%, and later we will jump over our goal). By duration of quarter of century for a generation this will give less than
five centuries time for reaching of the necessary population, or, as long as our calculations have been approximated, then in the worst case till the end of the next millennium, but never faster than at least two centuries, because the faster processes are the most dangerous. This is shown in the following table:
On one hand on this table should not be looked very seriously, because it is some extrapolation, but on the other hand -- it is important, because this is not continuation of an existing tendency (for it has not yet begun), and it rather shows what
must be the direction in changing of the population, if we do not wish to grasp at the so called
ultima ratio (or the last resort, in Latin), i.e. at the military solving of the most important problem on Earth. By this, obviously, we should invent also some new term, because the genocide or holocaust have never till now given decrease of to at least 10% of a given population (however "black" may sound similar statement), and here it goes about 5 per mil. But if it is so, from this follows only that our imagination is very weak, for during the whole outgoing century the mankind is simply suffocating on account of the impossibility for personal expression by this heavy population and boom of information, and by this high unemployment level, for the reason that by the enormously increased capacities of new technologies nobody needs so many workers (or at least there are not needed
qualified such, but only people who can press the buttons and turn the handles, yet one wants that the work was pleasant for one), and more and more people look at their profession nowadays only as means to earn their living, not as way to get satisfaction of the process or the result, how it should have been, but this just moves the stress for self-expression from the productive sphere to that of the leisure and entertainment. Only there the situation is the same -- exceeding of information ceiling for acquaintances of second range, as a result of what one again can not express oneself. Earlier (more or less up to 18th century) people have found pleasure even in this to make fire in the fireplace, to gather together to sing and dance, to make themselves some new dish or drink, to dress in some unique attire, to kill an animal, even to go to war, where must win the braver and stronger. Now everything becomes increasingly standard and impersonal, more and more technological and emotionless, ever more
ready (and present in the shops) even before one has set itself the goal to make it, and this does not bring the necessary satisfaction!
| Numb. of gener. |
0 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
16 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
| After (years) |
0 |
25 |
50 |
100 |
200 |
400 |
450 |
475 |
500 |
| Coeff. of decreas. |
1 |
0.755 |
0.570 |
0.325 |
0.105 |
0.011 |
0.006 |
0.004 |
0.003 |
| Popul. (mln) |
10,000 |
7,500 |
5,700 |
3,250 |
1,560 |
111 |
63 |
48 |
36 |
TABLE 1. DECREASING OF THE POPULATION BY 25% FOR GENERATION
The important moment, however, is to recognize that if the mankind will not make the
reasonable decision of this question, then this does
not mean that it will not be solved in some other way! After we have defeated the epidemics of plague, cholera, etc., have arisen the devastating wars, where died not only those who want to fight, for to show that they are stronger, but more often peaceful population that wants only to live; have emerged the cancer and the AIDS, as means to decrease the average lifespan and population number of more and more aging population. Like locusts multiply most actively when there is enough food, but shortly after this it turns out that the food has finished and they begin to die, so also people have immoderately increased their population in the last pair of centuries, what has generated new problems with the meaningless life (when there is not moderate competition and possibilities for personal expression or career), with the imperfection of
whatever form of social government, with the drug addiction, which has grown tens and hundreds times compared with the situation in the middle ages (because opium was sown on the East since deep antiquity, but there was not such demand on it), with the homosexuality, which, still, turns out, maybe, to be the best reasonable solution on the background of universal unreasonableness (?), with the mass (again) pollution of the environment, not with "ecologically pure dirtiness", as it was for millenniums, but with "
ecologically dirty cleanliness", as it happened in this century, and so on, and so on.
So that, if we do not behave reasonable, the nature (or God, if you like it better so) will find some way for establishing of the equilibrium on Earth, like, for example: mass infertility, by which will be born nice and intelligent children, who, when they grow of age, will exercise sex more scientifically than their predecessors of the beginning of new era, but will need no contraceptives because will be able to become pregnant only once out of thousands times, maybe; or will be changed the proportion of newly born boys to girls form 18 to 17, as it is now, to, say, 21 to 4, what will mean that the boys will be five times more than the girls; or the birth rate will be quite in order but in each next generation the children will have
by one more finger on their hands than their parents, and when the fingers become more than a dozen this will cause serious difficulties with the pressing of knobs and will hinder the general affluence; or the drug addicted will become somewhere about 70% of the population and will declare all the others as abnormally developed and subjects to compulsory addiction; or the percentage of suiciders in the near future will reach 1/3 of the population and this in reproductive age; or similar to these variants. In any case some way will be found, which will generate possibility for limiting of the competing individuals to the number of appropriate for the humans level of contacts of second range, or to several hundreds of persons, because nobody wants to live in a situation when for to express oneself in our world one must study for half a century, in order to shrink the area of competition as far as possible, and even after this to have only one chance out of tens of thousands, not to draw out the big win, but to find at all a decent place under the sun.
This is just a necessity. And what is necessary it sooner or later happens, or as has put it our
Shopp (around the capital Sofia): "What is needed, it requires itself alone", no matter how it will be reached! In view of this, despite the unreasonable acts of mankind as a whole, there are all chances to suppose that after a pair of centuries the population on Earth will reach again one milliard people, and after this will continue to decrease further, until falls also below hundred millions. Let us hope that this will happen in a reasonable way.
June 1998
JUST INJUSTICE
The judicial system, that has come to us from old Roman times,
is one of the biggest misunderstandings in the social sphere, but this impresses almost nobody, because, as the people say, it is no good to kick against the prick, or ask for trouble. Well, it is so, of course, but if we don't "kick" at all the loop only tightens around our neck, so that in this paper the author intends to throw some "kicks" against the system as a whole, with its inherent flaws, and after this to make two formal propositions: for
unified establishing of the damages and for
personal modification of the punishments.
1. Well conceived, but poorly implemented
It is clear that the idea for establishing of punishment in advance, for a given typical situation, and not to decide about this in each concrete case has its reason, but ... . But the thing is that the judicial system very often does not perform its primary purpose: to protect the society against criminal acts, ensuring impartial punishment of the wrongdoers. People break the law and litigate,
not because they don't know the laws -- they may not know the letter of the law, yet they know its spirit -- but because they hope to remain unpunished, were it when they could not be caught, were it when they win the lawsuit (though being not right), and there are not rare the cases when they apply their own justice, because don't believe in the official one. And the justice itself can never be really impartial, when is done by persons who, obviously, are both biased and can easily be corrupted. And the
judges -- they as if judge, for this is what their name says, but in reality are only a kind of ushers (or "conductors", according with the meaning of this word in English). The judge does not judge according to his (or her) meaning, or understanding of the situation, but according to the laws, and the best what he can do, for to express his view of the situation, is to
adjust the law to the situation, not vice versa, what means that, in this case, he is definitely biased! So that the unbiased judge is not a judge, and the biased one is not a good judge.
This is one vicious circle in which we move for twenty centuries and the way out is: either in applying of automated computerized systems and /or taking of administrative decisions, at least at the first levels (what nowadays is not more an utopia); or in the massive applying of representatives of the people --
Court Assessors (CA) in the lawsuits, while the role of the judges is reduced to functions of ushers or conductors or of professional consultants of the CAs. Yet in this case the CAs should not just stay there "dumb as fishes" all the time, but have to be able to ask questions, to require information and expertises and, generally, to do the work of the judge. Well, as far as it is not proper for a heap of people to ask and order, then it must be allowed for their chairman (de facto, the judge, but who must
not have right to vote) to coordinate the things, and to has legal education, but all responsible decisions must be taken collectively by the CAs with usual voting. And not in this, I beg to be excused, perverse way in which this is performed in the moment (at least on the West, for the author is not a jurist), where is required unanimous decision by all of the jurors, because we in Bulgaria know pretty well what is this unanimous decision, applied nearly half a century in our "people's democratic" structures. The voting has to be performed via traditional voting, with "yes", "no", and abstained, and decision has to be taken with simple or qualified (2/3) majority.
And -- something that is more than obvious, but is
not applied till now in whatever country -- these Court Assessors should not be chosen nation-wide by the people and proposed by the political powers according to some, clearly
distorted, views for best arbitrators, but to be a
representative sample of the population, what has to say that they are to be chosen in some
arbitrary way, which can guarantee proportionate representation of all layers of the nation (not of the parties) in the justice. These people must be much more than the present day CA by us, and to serve for a very short time -- a month, maybe -- what will ensure wider participation of people in the system of justice (not only in the reading of judicial chronicle in newspapers). If everyone will have at least once in his (or her) life the right to be CA then the laws will be, most probably, better obeyed. Each higher instance must have more CA, and the highest must be chosen from some
Court Assessorial Assembly (AA for short), allowing also nation-wide voting (using some phone-cards, Internet, etc.). And it is absolutely clear that there is no reason for them to be even number, more so 12 (as it is on the West), and each part of the suit has to have rights to reject somebody -- what is the luck of the accused (for the given level), such will be his (or her) arbiters. It is logically to accept their number to be, from the lowest levels up: 3, 5, 7, and 9, where in especially serious cases the AA may consist of 99 persons, only for the voting. And let us not indulge now in talks that
law-knowledge, for example, must be one of the learning subjects in the schools (surely more important in the life of each citizen than, say, the works of some of our poets or writers). Only that such changes can not enter the judicial system until they settle well in the basis of our democratic system, which continue to be
party one, or partial, biased, and does
not express the wishes of the population, but about these question the author has spoken largely in other materials.
Let us take now the
lawyers -- they defend, above all, their own fees, and not the truth, because for money can be proven what not. The law suites, since Roman times, have been predominantly place for personal expression of the lawyers, not place for proving of the truth, and everybody knows that the suit is won, most often, by the better lawyer, what says that wins
not the truth, but the competence (to
distort the truth, or to "pull the blanket to oneself"). Legally competent persons, if and as far as they are necessary in one lawsuit, can be used, though not as persons who speak
instead of a given part (except when the concrete person is in some extent hindered to do this), but as judicial advisors, consultants, or experts, in the same way as there are used specialists in other areas. When one has completed one's compulsory education and has learned to read and write, can move freely in the society, cross the streets or drive a car, employ oneself for a given job, and perform others
dangerous, to a certain extent, activities, where every other one can cheat or deceive him (or her, and especially in democratic conditions, i.e. in a situation of greater personal freedoms), then every such person must be able to defend himself in person, or to accuse alone somebody, when needed. He, surely, will not be professional, but he will at least be genuine and less deceitful than the lawyers, i.e. by such person to find the truth will be easier, than in the current situation. And when the real arbiters, or CAs, are also not jurists (with the exception of their chairman) then this will not be considered as something uncommon. In the end, the laws are complicated, and become even more complicated, because the
jurists want this, not because this is so necessary, for the reason that the feeling for justice or guilt is practically inborn in the humans and suffices literally a ten of "God's commandments", for him to know how to behave in the society. Add to this also the law-knowledge, about which we have just spoken, add the possible simplification of the things (about which we shall speak later), the various computerized guides, the judicial person (the chairmen of the jurors, for whom is proper to have right of veto when something against the law is proposed and voted), and it turns out that the professionalism is simply
artificially forced, in order to allow the jurists to protect their "bread" or living! It is not that we don't understand them, and that, if the people have not
wanted to litigate, there would have been at least twice less lawsuits, bur until the very population will not decide to press a little this privileged stratum, the things will not improve. How the judges are not real judges, so also the lawyers do not defend the truth, and the place both, of the ones and of the others, must be only auxiliary, subordinate.
But if the lawyers will not work for their fees, how they will work then, will somebody ask. Well, in the same manner how work about 90% of the employees, i.e. for a fixed payment. All lawyers can be appointed centralized via some arbitrary choice (taking into consideration their specialization); it might be also that somebody chooses some of them, but not because pays him more. Ponder a little, please, about the things: the question isn't so flat, as whether should be paid for a given activity (when each activity costs something) or not to be paid for it, but whether must be paid
in the moment of using of the service, when the interest of the doer distorts the character of the work (like, for example, the physicians want to be more ailing persons and operations, in order for them to get more money; the lawyers want to be more suits for the same reason). If before a century such thought might have been an utopia nowadays, when exist social insurance, nationwide education, employment law advisors, and other things, there are no principal problems for the existence also of law insurance, are they? So that everything is a question of will -- will, but shown by the very people.
And one more thing: due to the ever existing wish of people to simplify everything, in the judicial system are accepted some
obvious absurds, like this, that the Court is infallible (if a higher instance does not change some decision, but every worker in a given system is bound to defend it, so that this rarely happens), or that the decision must be always binary, i.e. guilty or not guilty, or that the laws must be obeyed literally, in spite of the fact that the people, if there is someone to ask them in the case, would have said something different, and similar things. It is clear that the higher instances, especially AA, or nationwide voting, have to be in position to interpret the laws as they deem fit, and even
not to apply them in some cases (without changing them). It is clear also that by a normal (not unanimous) voting there will be persons who vote both, "for" and "against", as well will abstain, so that there might be also
level of certainty by taking of the decision, which must at least be announced publicly. Every Court
can make an error and this is even very common practice! In fact also an entire nation can make errors, and it isn't that this has not happened or does not happen often, but the accent here is not on the infallibility, it is on the concrete view of the population in the given moment and for the given place, which standpoint may be changed later.
It has to be clear that it is not possible to write a program that will take exact decisions in an enormously big (not to say infinite) number of variants of behaviour, without existence of some intellect taking decisions
on the spot, while the judicial system tries to make exactly this impossible thing, and because of this the errors are
commensurate with the situation when such program is not present (i.e. if we judged as in the ancient times -- not according to laws, but according to the conscience of the judge)
*. If the best decision, as a rule, is the compromise one, then let the jurisprudence, too, become one good compromise between impartiality and humanity, and not to be lowed on us like something given by God. The very jurists, obviously, are contented with their role of gods, and they alone will never resign from this position, but if common people will judge, if they change often (so that everybody will wait his or her turn) and have no grounds for pretenses and career making, the things, probably, will be better.
[ * Let us remind the later case with Bulgarian medics in Libya, where all around the world was clear that they could not have been guilty in some
deliberate action (just because they were monsters, villains, giaours, etc.), but they were convicted in fully
lawful, according to their laws, way. This is not miscarriage of justice, regarding the judicial procedure, this is pure and simple unjust justice, or vice versa. Of course, someone may object, that even if the whole Libyan nation has conducted the suit, even then the result would have been the same, so that, whatever the procedure, in this case would have been taken wrong decision and, hence, we have no reasons to give this case as example. Yeah, but it is not the same whether we (i.e. the whole Libyan nation) can hide behind the law and be with clear conscience, or we will be forced sometime to answer before God, whoever he may be, or the people around us (and all over the world), or before our conscience, when comes time to think about ourselves (because such time comes once)! Such moralizing considerations may seem today exaggerated and funny, but the common people do them, or at least the laws, authorities, and religion require from us to stick to some morality. And, in general, from this, that the conscience of people, especially of big groups of individuals, due to their strong partiality, often makes errors, we must not come to the conclusion that can do without any conscience and morality. ]
The only rational grain in the jurisprudence, come to think about, is the system of Prosecution, i.e. of defense of the interests of the state, behind which stay those of the people. But there also are drawbacks in it because when the Prosecution initiates a suit it feels obliged to convict the offender as severe as possible, and the questions of elementary humanity remain in background. In this regard can be proposed also in this legal body to have three or five persons from CAs, or of some alternative group, but arbitrary chosen and non-professionals, who have to "hold the ball", in order not to come to harsh cases. Let us remind again that we are not against the professionalism of the jurists, but against their leading role and the possibility for mercenary extraction of benefits, maintaining also that each part must defend itself alone, and only when this is difficult to be implemented or impossible, just then to be allowed it to be substituted by an jurist. Such special cases can be, for example: physical or mental defects of the person; he or she can not appear because is dead or seriously ill; if the suit is initiated by the Prosecution but the victim or his /her relatives do not want to take part in person in the Court as accusers; defendant in a given case is the state (and we can't require in such cases at the dock to be called, say, the President); and so on, but when the physical person can be defined, even in suits from or against companies, they should be represented by the person who according to the law represents them (the President of the company), not by specially appointed lawyer (who is not a part of the lawsuit), he /she may take part in the suit, but behind the scenes and when the defendant or the claimant gives him the floor. Well, let us conclude with this the common shortcomings of the judicial system and go to one concrete question elaborated by the author.
2. Unification of the assessment of damages and guilt
The laws must be simplified as much as possible, because they also obey the Parkinson's law, stating that each work grows so much for to fill the time fixed for it, or to use the time of those who perform it. More precisely, here it goes about this, that each system strives to become more complex, hoping that in this way it will become better, but from a given point on it becomes
only more complicated, and later on it begins to function even
worse, exactly because of its complexity. Maybe at the dawn of ancient legislation the laws have done the work, at least because they were much less in their number as are now, or the judges were with much higher morality than of those today. It might as well be so, though we don't believe much in this, most probable for the author seems the thesis that the legislation was yet another utopia with which the society has fooled itself and continues to do this also today. Well, the humanity can not live without utopias, and it is also true that the point is not so much in the severity of the punishment as in its inevitability, which depends not on the laws but on the bodies for coercion and various systems for monitoring (of everything that can be monitored) and for manipulating of the population (in
its own interest), so that let us at least propose some way for unification and simplifying of the assessment for guilt, which
in the civil law is reduced mainly to material damages.
What we have in mind is that the measuring unit, which is the national currency, is the most uncertain of all, because in the business is not set on one asset only, there is money market, there are precious metals, there is unmovable property, and other things. Besides, no business has such ambitions as the judicial system, to exist not only for centuries but for millenniums. It is quite natural that there can't exist exact measurement when the "yardstick" changes, and it changes not only by high inflation, it changes also by stable social development, where under the normal 4-5% interest rate and /or inflation for 20 years, or less than one generation (which is now up to 27 years), all prices double. This, obviously, creates work for the jurists, but we think that this artificially created work can and
must be eliminated.
So that, with what are we to measure if not with money units? Well, with something that does not change, i.e. that
changes with the time, but which can be used for measuring of the living standard, so that when we express everything else with this thing, then the prices will remain constant! If in Ancient Rome such decision could not have been possible, then at least for a century in every more or less developed country (and even in such like Bulgaria) exists the notion
minimal monthly salary (MMS), to which are tied all social payments. (Well, they are tied in the "normal" countries, where by us they can not be properly "tied", because, at least in sense of social insurance is accepted that one MMS equals two MMS
**, but let us expect that this is our another "error of the growth" and, sooner or later, the things in Bulgaria will normalize.) Only that we propose to use not MMS, but the
minimal yearly salary (
MS for short), respectively averaged after elapsing of the year, because most of the damages will be commensurable with the yearly salary, and for smaller damages may be used at most up to two decimal digits. For the situation in the moment 1 MMS = 100 lv, or 1 MS = 1,200 lv, where it is clear that for damages less than 12 lv nobody will sue, and most of the cases are for damages of order of hundreds and thousands, even tens of thousands levs (i.e. from several to several tens of MS), but may be also bigger sums, in suits between companies or especially wealthy persons.
[ ** Then, but the situation is similar also in 2008, and in 2015. ]
From here follows that the most natural and simply decision is for all laws to be reedited (this is done quite easy, when there exist computerized data bases, as the things stay also by us), where all fines are expressed in MS and parts of it to the second digit after the point. Later on is possible for every one of the laws to be revised and corrected, as it often happens. But in the fullness of the matter the things are more complicated, because we require
only this to be the unique measuring unit, for the moment at least in the civil law, where it goes primarily about damages, not about human lives, which can not be restored again. This means that if somewhere is written "... and so many years of prison" then this, too, has to be expressed in MS. The simplest assumption, at a first edition, is
1 MS = 1/2 years of prison (in fact, the direction in the beginning is reverse, i.e. 1 year prison = 2.0 MS), and in a new examination the things may be corrected. It can be introduced also some ranging of prisons (say, such where 1 MS is counted for 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, or 0.7 years). By this, however, always when there goes about compensation of damages which can be recompensed, it must be allowed to the convicted to do this (where, eventually, is come to confiscation of allowed by the law personal property), and only when this is not possible only then he /she has to be imprisoned, because the prison not only will not return the sum to the harmed part, but will also add new expenses for the state. So that also for this reason is justified that the major (and single) measuring unit is MS, and not years of imprisonment.
But this means that also the very repayment will be done
exactly in MS, not in levs, i.e. it, surely, will be done in levs, but they will be momentarily converted to MS (with precision to the third digit after the point) according to the moment of paying of the sum, so that every necessity of calculating of interests or returning of the suit again to the Court as a result of changes in the living standard (say, high inflation) is avoided. This approach can be applied in full to all kinds of payments in the country, or at least to the suits for child support. The only thing, which is required in this situation from a given state, is for it to maintain correctly the MMS, a thing which it is obliged to do in any case, if it cares for its image before the world. More than this, so formulated the laws can be with one, really,
global for all countries sphere of validity, because the legislatures in all countries, anyway, aim at their equalizing, especially in the frames of United Europe, and this will be the best basis for uniting of countries with different standards of life. It might have been objected that it is better to use one average salary (income), but this is relative notion, with which can be speculated, while the minimal is announced publicly and is not subject of questionable calculation.
A bit more complicated, but not unconquerable, is the question with the
criminal law, where the sentences are reduced mainly to years of imprisonment, by the simple reason that one human life is invaluable and can not be restored (similarly also light, medium, and heavy bodily injuries). Well, it is so but ... is it, really, so? Because when we say "priceless" we don't mean that it has no price at all but that it is too big, or likewise "invaluable" means that it is difficult to calculate its value. Yet in many cases we are bound to have some price for this priceless thing called life; we must have a price not because this will return the life but simply because there
must be also quantitative estimation. If we do not dig to deep in the moral aspects of the matter, because under the capitalism everything, also the working force, is object of buying and selling and, hence, has some price, we can safely assume that this is not whole compensation, but measure for the punishment of the guilty, or partial reimbursement for the injured or his /her heirs. Even only to be able to have unified measure this will be suitable and useful, and here we presuppose that this is some reparation (and you have heard that with a delay of half of a century the Germans pay today retributions to the left alive victims of nazism). The unified measure is the first condition for simplification and unification of the things, more so in a sufficiently complicated system, as this of the jurisprudence.
So well, let us think that we have succeeded to convince the reader how necessary is such unified measure, which is clear that has to be expressed via MS, but on what basis must be done this? Here, again, could have been proposed to use the
average (yearly) salary or income for the country, but our goal is to propose not some utopia but something real and, naturally, is exceedingly unrealistic to accept that an average culprit (a murderer, for example) can repay the value of the human life (or part of it, if it was only bodily injury) for the time left to the victim /injured till the average life expectancy (say, 80 years), by average income of approximately 2.5 MS, if he (or she) has the same average income and has also to sustain his own life. In this case we must either return to the gone away centuries, when for destroyed life was taken life, and for partial injuries, for example, to cut the culprit a hand, or a leg, or whatever (what will not, even partially, reimburse the victim), or must change the "yardstick". We again think that the right measure is also:
by one MS for the left to the victim years till the average life span (initially we accept 80), but not less than 1/10 of this time (i.e. 8 years).
In other words, it is clear that it is not correct to have different measures for different victims, because before the justice all have to be equal, and that this measure must be the minimal, not the average, income. But this turns out to be justified also for other reasons. If the average human being earns his average income, he does this not during his entire life (80 years), but somewhere about 30-35 years, what is roughly 2.5 times less than his entire life span, so that the measure: for one year -- one MS, is quite suitable. In this situation, as far as neither the compensation is full, nor is supposed it to be accessible to the "average culprit", nor also is educative for him to escape only with money fine, is necessary for the major part of the punishment to be converted to prison, requiring payment of only (if the culprit is in condition to do this) one to two MS (this will be made more precise in the next point) to the victim, with addition also of the costs of proceedings. It is clear that when is decided that the person presents danger for the society he may (and must) be retained in special correctional institutions, during the investigation and so on, but these are details for each concrete case; the medical institutions, anyway, are not observed as prison, though they have similar effect for the culprit; our unified measure does not eliminate the necessity of isolation of the culprit, but it is measured through MS, and isolation can be applied not only because of guilt, also when is ascertained danger for the society.
Let us see then, with some examples, what we have got. For example, murder of 30 years old citizen. Then the punishment has to be 50 MS, calculated as prison this makes 25 years, but if the guilty can repay something, with confiscation of his property, this period will be lessened, besides, the initially established years do not correspond to the really spent in the prison years (for various reasons), so that this gives about 15 years real prison. This is quite much according to the current views, but it is not that this does not happen in some countries, and here we come to the question of personal modification of the sentence, with what we will engage ourselves in the next point. But if the victim is 75 years old, for example, then the punishment will be 8 MS, or some recompense for the heirs plus 2-3 years of prison. You see that such strong dependence of the age is something new in the legislature, but there is quite much logic in this, and the bigger part of the victims are predominantly below or about the middle age, what outlines about 20 years of prison; besides, the age, although not explicitly,
is taken in consideration by establishing of the sentence (using this "from ... to ..." in the laws); and in addition to this, if it goes about murder with robbery, then the stolen goods are required to be returned (and if they are inherited then are taken back), so that this also adds a MS or two to the sentence, what shows that our idea is quite acceptable.
Let us take now an average bodily injury, severe -- 50% of the value of the left life -- this will give half of the sentence in the previous case (according with the age). Or rape -- evaluated by the law for about 10% (i.e. without severe physical injury), but the victim is 20 years old and this will give 1/10 of 60 MS or 6 MS, where the victim has all chances to receive a decent remuneration, as also the culprit to stay for 1-2 years in prison. Or road traffic accident -- the calculations can be similar, but with some coefficient of guilt, which can be in the limits of 1 to 4%, for example, because is accepted that this is not premeditated murder, but it is not right to escape without any punishment; similarly in case of self-defense, and also for other alike deeds.
Now is seen already that we propose some
set of coefficients, by which is
multiplied the punishment, so that to preserve the universal approach for establishing of the guilt, based on the age of the victim. These coefficients can be the following: a)
level of injuries -- from 0.01 to 1.0 by death; less than one percent we don't think is appropriate, but for each of the categories of cases mentioned in the laws are defined their own limits; b)
guilt of the perpetrator -- similarly from 0.01 to 1.0 for premeditated act (in particular murder); c)
cruelty -- from 0.5 to 1.5, where the one is for not shown cruelty, and 0.5 is for some humanity, according to the commonly accepted understanding (i.e. there exists, or must exist difference between murder with sleeping pills, or firearms but on the spot, or after torture and beating); d)
conviction of the jury -- from 0.5 to 1.0, where if it is less than 0.5 is established the coefficient of the reverse statement (for example, not guilty); such coefficient is high time to be introduced, because the binary assessment can give (and gives) very big difference, and at least 1/4 of the cases are based on circumstantial evidences where, quite obviously, can't exist complete conviction; e)
modifier of CAs -- coefficient in the limits of 2/3 to 4/3, i.e. allowing two-fold changing of the punishment, but centered around the one, with which the jury in the higher instances (if and when this is allowed by the law) can force its own view, diminishing or increasing the provided penalty according to its (i.e. their) own conscience; and maybe some other more.
This will reduce the qualification of the deeds to
filling up of tables, but in this way the things will be made easier and more convenient for applying by everyone (including computerized systems, what is a matter of near future, at least on the lowest law instance), where using of computer tables will allow for all estimations to be done momentarily. By one proper voting of many CAs with various meanings (according with what was said in the previous point) the finding of the exact percent will be done automatically by the computer, or can be conducted voting for establishing of the necessary percent via binary division of the allowed interval of the coefficient in question. In this way both, will be considered the influence of various specific for the concrete case parameters, and also the laws will be possible to be written universally; the existing till now "from -- to" is very rough and in many cases erroneous; in addition to this it is important -- for various statistics and analyzes -- to know the estimations for each of the parameters, not only the "fallen from the blue" end decision of the jury. Together with this the unified assessment of damages or guilt allows also quite natural
proportional dividing of the punishment, when there are several accused /culprits, for which purpose is necessary, after establishing of the common amount of MS, to vote also for the part of the guilt for each of the accused. This will decrease the personal punishment when there are several accomplices, but if the damages and compensations are correctly calculated this is justified, and, in addition, will stimulate the offenders to reveal other persons who have taken part in the violation of the law, but are not yet known to the justice (i.e. also the "soaking" of other persons will be correctly done).
Generally saying, our approach is not at all new, where similar methods are applied for long time in various scientific activities, by making of diverse programs and planning of many activities, though it is new
in the system of jurisprudence! And it is new because the officers of this system set more on the emphasizing of their high position than on the transparency of their actions, on the divine mystery instead on the gnawing doubt, and so on. In many countries they even still wear wigs, in order to stress their "inhuman" nature, but we feel obliged to explain that the English "wig" comes from the well known ... fig, or rather from one single leaf of it (although it may be also wine leaf), because already since the time of Adam and Eve the people have masked their shameful places of the body with leaves of a fig tree, or, at least, have thought that have beautified themselves in this way (I may add that the ... figure, too, carries the same idea). Well, the author thinks that
only the just processing of lawsuits can beautify an officer of this system, everything else is only, as the Russians say,
figliarstvo (in order to use the same root), or buffoonery, tricks and frauds.
3. Personal modification of the punishment according with the means of the guilty
If in the previous point were some calculations then they were only simple arithmetic, which, anyway, is done, or was done when the laws were created. Here, though, we will present something that affects the mathematics learned in the higher school grades (9th - 11th), but what, still, is not higher mathematics, and it is forced to us by the very life, because even if someone thinks that the Court is an abstract structure and does not consist of people but of "vicars of God", it is quite clear that the accused or defendant is a common person, but at the same time the different defendants have different resources, so that one and the same penalty
is not one and the same regarding the different persons. In other words, we want to propose some
personal filter, which must modify the damages or the compensation
S (in MS), to some personal punishment
N (also in MS, but from there reduced also to years of imprisonment), at least on the basis of some personal factor, namely: his (or her) living standard expressed through his income. As far as, however, under the capitalism everything is expressed in money then this single factor is practically universal.
Our idea again is simple but powerful and applicable for whatever diapason of punishments and for whatever income of the accused. It reduces mainly to this that extremely big punishments, which can neither be paid out nor served in prison, must simply be
diminished, in order to become bearable. In our legislature there is not this paradox that someone may be sentenced to 273 years imprisonment, for example, but there is other wrong position --that he is prosecuted only for the biggest offense. Where we think that there must be made difference between the
assessment of the guilt and the personal
punishment (the very paying of the money and/or serving in prison). The assessment
S must be according to the explained in the previous point, and the personal punishment
N, must be according to the means of the guilty. As universal measure for his financial abilities we accept
his average yearly income (
PI for short), calculated on basis of the last five years, accepting (i.e. legalizing this), that everyone is in condition to pay out
up to one PI, but not more than two PI, in more special cases, or by wish of one of the parts, and everything left is changed with years of imprisonment. In this way we get quite
natural transition between the two till now used measuring units (money and prison), where many money are automatically converted to years of prison, but the very notion "many" depends on the guilty!
It remains the most important thing -- to explain how exactly will happen this modification of the punishment. Well, it is clear that it must be such that to decrease the big punishments, or to flatten the curve of penalties in direction of bigger values, but in what way? Now, the most natural way is to use some
exponent, because this curve is massively met in nature, by our sensitive organs (it is reacted in "times" of change, not in percents), and is widely used in various technical and scientific situations. Because far from all readers (more so jurists) are familiar with similar mathematical questions, let us stress that this is
the smoothest mathematical curve (it has unlimited number of derivatives and all they are the same!), so that is has not "fallen from the blue" but is invented (in the exact mathematical sense) for the reason that the practice requires it. Though there are no obstacles to be applied also the vulgar method for checking of its smoothness -- when one moves a finger on it then it curves but has no "bulges".
Good, we have come to the exponent, yet we will use not exactly it but its inverse function, called logarithm, about which all have at least heard, and especially the decimal one, as more natural for the people (where that one, which is called "natural", isn't quite natural for the common people). Our goal is so to flatten the curve of punishments, that
by value of 10,000 MS to remain only 1,000 MS, i.e. to diminish it 10 times there, but
the one (1 MS)
to be left on its place! Here we enter in more and more complicated matter, but we shall make efforts to explain it simple, although even if it remains not much clear there is nothing dangerous in this, because it goes only about some
motivation, and it is not at all necessary for it to be included in the legal documents -- it is just given a formula which has to be applied. So, and if we come now to logarithmic scale, then the logarithm of exponent becomes straight line, so that we have to draw a line through the point (0;0), because log
101 = lg1 = 0 (the logarithm of one is always zero, no matter what is the base of the logarithm, which here is 10), and the point (4;1), because lg10,000 = 4, and lg10 = 1, and we want exactly 10 times decreasing in this point. Then this line will have angular coefficient of slope 1/4 and therefore its equation, if we return to the normal scale, will be . If we now remove the logarithm we must apply antilogarithm, or to raise 10 (the base) to the power of each of both parts, what gives , but , where on this number
y we must
divide, in order to have the desired effect. So that by damages
S, for the punishment
N on the changed curve we will have , what for
S = 1 [MS] will give, really, lg1, what is 0, and then 10 to the zero power, what is 1, and
S divided to 1 is again the same. But if we take
S=10,000, then lg10,000 = 4, multiplied by 1/4 gives 1, 10 to the first power is 10, so that
S will be divided by 10 and this will give 1,000; respectively for
S=1,000 we will receive (after calculations) 177.828, what will be the modified punishment corresponding to damages of 1,000 MS; for
S=100, will have
N = 31.623; and for 10 MS -- will have
N = 5.623 MS.
Only that the curve will be such if the flattening preserves to point 1 MA, but we said that we want this to be not the minimal salary though the
personal yearly income, i.e. PI, which we will mark as
D. So in this case this, what we must do, is to change so the logarithm, that it to become 0 by
S =
D (i.e. for
S =
D the argument of the logarithm to be 1), and respectively to give 10 by
S=10,000*
D, and this means that we shall in the argument of logarithm take
S/D (but the first
S, by which we multiply remains the same, because we continue to measure the damages). So we obtain the formula for punishment . Before to give one table with some of the values of the curve
N let us turn your attention to one not much desirable effect in this case: when for big
S the curve will be flattened and diminish, then for small values of
S it will
increase, so that for damages of order of 1/100 of MS (or 12 levs at the moment) the punishment has to be about 30
times bigger. This follows not only from the reasonings in logarithmic scale, where we have straight line, but also from the character of exponent (and logarithm) which monotonously increase (or decrease). But there is nothing dangerous in these because there is one trivial solution: we apply our filter
only for values above the personal income D, and for smaller values the punishment is exactly equal to the computed damages. The transition between sloping straight line and its curving by exponent happens by
S =
D, and exactly this was our goal -- to correct only unbearably big punishments of the accused. The state of the affairs in table form is shown on Tabl.1.
| N[MS]for S→, D↓ |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
500.0 |
1000.0 |
| 0.5 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
0.841 |
1.672 |
2.812 |
4.729 |
15.811 |
26.591 |
88.914 |
149.535 |
| 1.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
1.988 |
3.344 |
5.623 |
18.803 |
31.623 |
105.737 |
177.828 |
| 2.5 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
4.204 |
7.071 |
23.644 |
39.764 |
132.957 |
223.607 |
| 5.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
8.409 |
28.117 |
47.287 |
158.114 |
265.915 |
| 10.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
33.437 |
56.234 |
188.03 |
316.228 |
| 50.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
50.0 |
84.09 |
281.171 |
472.871 |
| 100.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
334.37 |
562.341 |
| 500.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
500.0 |
840.896 |
| 1000.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
500.0 |
1000.0 |
TABL.1. FORMING OF THE PUNISHMENT ACCORDING THE INCOME OF THE GUILTY (IN MS)
As is seen in this table the formula can be applied in infinite diapason, including for guilt of companies, where the income of company for an year can be hundreds and thousands of MS, and here also is accepted that subject of payment are punishments to 1, and not more than 2, but mark, now not MS, but
PI of the person or company, what is entirely logical! The remained punishment is subject to serving in prison by the mentioned coefficient: half an year prison for one MS. This means that the entire punishment for wealthy persons /companies is bigger than for poorer ones, but this is correct, because by better way of life one has less reasons to commit offenses, and in addition to this if we are before 1 PI the punishment exactly equals the damages, only that will we be before or above 1 PI depends on the means of the guilty.
Let us now take in focus two lines -- those for PI equal to 1 MS and for 10 MS. For 1 MS: if the guilt is for 5 MS we get punishment of 3.34 MS, where one is paid and the left 2.34 MS give 1.17 years of prison; by 10 MS is paid again 1 MS and the remained 4.62 MS give 2.31 years prison; by 50 MS (received, for example, for a "standard" murder of 30 years old victim) we have 18.8 MS punishment, from which after paying of 1 MS remain about 9 years prison (which is not properly to be lessened more than this -- for good behaviour, or by subtracting the weekends, or after the later amnesty, etc.); and by 100 MS (a cruel murder of young person can quietly give so much) the corrected personally punishment will be 31.62 MS, where in the prison is served about 15 years; and so on. While for PI (or
D) = 10 MS we have: all damages up to 10 MS are paid (full retribution); by 50 MS we have corrected punishment of 33.44 MS, but paying 10 (or maybe even 20 MS, if this is financial offense) then in the prison will be served 12 (respectively about 7) years; and by 100 MS the punishment now becomes 56.23 MS and paying out 10 MS for the prison remain about 23 years.
In addition to this the correction will be different if we have several accomplices, because then their guilt will be less and will be paid out or served more fully. For example if the cited murder giving 50 MS is divided between two guilty culprits, say, with 60 and 40 percents, then we move to damages of 30 and 20 MS, which (this is not given in the table) will give punishments, by one, this time
average income of 2.5 MS, respectively 16.1 and 11.9 MS, so that it turns that the first will serve 6.8, and the second 4.7 years in prison; at the same time, if he were one person with the same average income, then for 50 MS we get corrected punishment of 23.64 MS, and if he pays again 2.5 MS (but only once, and when there are two persons it becomes twice more), then for him remain to serve 10.57 years imprisonment, what is more than for each of the both previous persons, but less than their sum. In the next table (Tabl.2.) is given in more details the proportion money [MS] and prison [years], depending on
S and
D.
| N m/p for S→, D↓ |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
50.0 |
100.0 |
500.0 |
1000.0 |
| 0.667 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
0.667 |
0.667 |
0.667 |
0.667 |
0.667 |
0.667 |
0.667 |
0.667 |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.118 |
0.565 |
1.177 |
2.207 |
8.163 |
13.95 |
47.44 |
80.02 |
| 1.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.494 |
1.172 |
2.312 |
8.902 |
15.31 |
52.37 |
88.41 |
| 2.5 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.852 |
2.286 |
10.572 |
18.63 |
65.23 |
110.5 |
| 5.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.704 |
11.559 |
21.14 |
76.56 |
130.5 |
| 10.0 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
0.50 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
11.719 |
23.11 |
89.01 |
153.1 |
TABL.2. USUAL SPLITTING OF PUNISHMENT ON MONEY (I ROW) AND PRISON (II ROW)
By the way, the proposed formula can be written also in another form, using non-integer powers, something in what each good school student in the last (or but one) year can convince himself.
but this changes with nothing the things, because the non-integer powers are, anyway, calculated via logarithms. This form seems a bit simpler in regard of the writing, but is pretty mysterious if we try to perceive its meaning, and because of this we explained the primary form. Something more, instead of decimal logarithms we can use also natural ones (with base of the Neper number
e), but then we have to raise the same
e in power, not the ten, in what we can convince ourselves if we start in the above formula from right to left and substitute before the third "=" 10
lg with e
ln . But, at the end, these are equivalent formulas (like, say, win and gain) so that let us not diverge more.
Another moment is the question with confiscation of the property that can be taken from the accused, if he (she) has such. This is done
before the personal correction of punishment, so that if via his property he can diminish the common amount of damages
S this will reflect on his sentence. Maybe it must be specified also the establishing of his PI -- this must be done based on the families (commonly living persons), because not everybody earns alone his income. But if the person is separate family, and has no permanent income, then it has to be taken to be 2/3 of MS (where this must be also the minimum acceptable value at all), because such is the tendency on the West for various social payments. If, on the other hand, there is no available data (say, he was imprisoned, or abroad and can not show documents for income, etc.) then has to be accepted that his income was 1 MS. We have also not specified when the money must be paid (in MS) -- whether before or after entering in prison, if this should happen. We think this must happen up to 5 years, but in view of various reasons it is not suitable to subtract from them the years in prison (this does not matter for suits against companies, but also for physical persons is not special problem, it the convict can find the money -- were is via withdrawal from an account, selling of property, collecting of rent when he is not living in the home, borrowing money, etc.), so that they run from the moment of ending of the suit. During this time the person can be free (and then to spare from his salary) or imprisoned, but if after elapsing of this time he has still not paid the money, then he must serve also this sum.
That is one of the ways for bettering of the work of Courts, for achieving of real assessment of damages (or quite close to the real one, in case of inflicting of physical damages and death), bur also for justified punishment, in accordance with financial abilities of the person, and in addition also for one easy unification of the jurisprudence in the entire world. There are ways, if there is desire for bettering of the situation.
October 2001
SOCIAL EVILS
(Social Essay)
|
|
Abstract:
Here we will speak about some major scourges of the society, like the: wars, violence, terrorism, corruption, and others, but not to scratch our tongues (as we in Bulgaria like say, and how do the media), but in order to find their causes, and from there to reach the right methods to combat them (which, in many cases, differ from the officially accepted). The problems exist since the human society exists (and will coexist together with it because we can't separate the evil from the good), but it is important to move in the right direction, because now, as they say, "the knife touched the bone" (and it touched it because we became too many people on the earth ball, and very powerful), and if we could not succeed to solve them in a half to one century then there are written bad things for us (in the heaven). Our approach to the matters is philosophical and psychological, but also popular, so that there is nothing inaccessible for the common public (if it decides to show some wish to think about the problems). At the end, by old habit, there is a poetical appendix.
|
|
CONTENTS (Of This book)
0. Preliminary remarks
We will surely not "discover America" saying that the main reasons for our sufferings, i.e. of the reparable by us, or those that stay outside of the
indifference to us of the world in which we live (where this world some of you, if wishing so, may replace with God), are rooted only in the human shortcomings, called also vices or sins, as well also in the bad social regulations (which are consequences of our shortcomings). This is known by the old Eastern philosophers (from the "morning" countries --
Morgenländer --, as the Germans say), but while in the ancient times the man was much weaker than that from today so also the harms inflicted on us by ourselves were lesser, or at least commensurate with those that the nature has caused to us, so that the situation was more or less endurable, but nowadays it is not so. Because we saw (well, some have not seen personally, but surely don't doubt it) that the 20-th century was the most bloody one in the human history, and judging by the beginning of the 21-st there are no reasons to expect something better during it either! Thousands years ago some wise men have come to the conclusion that unless the human beings change we could enter in no paradise, and for that reason (as well as for others) the religions have arisen. So that this psychological change of the humans is necessary, though we will not occupy ourselves here with moral sermons (in relation to which the author has come to the thought for the need of emerging of one
atheistic religion, but about this -- somewhere else), but will observe some concrete evils and propose (where this is possible) concrete "medicines", not searching for total decision, because the difficulties are part of our life and it is naive to expect (contrary to the media, which are always ready to praise, or else to spit at, each government to which they serve) that we will enter sometime in the paradise. But before this let us make some common remarks, or laws of the living things, of the humans, and of the society, without understanding of which we can only, as we say, "transfuse from empty into hollow" (the nearest idiom in English must be "to trash over old straw"). They are pretty common, maybe also metaphysical, but this isn't scientific treatise, it is popular consideration, so that even intuitive knowledge can do the work.
First of all about
the strength, because, will we or not, but we live in a world of the strong --
This is a man's world, as it's singing in a song -- and in this world even the right is determined by the power. With the Bulgarian
pravo-jurisprudence the things are clear because it comes from the right (or
pravaya in Russian) hand, but also by the Germans
Rechtsanwalt is a lawyer, where its first part is again the
recht-right, and the second is derivative from
walten, what is to rule (where from is also the Slavonic
vladika-bishop and the
vladeene-ruling), so that he is the man who enforces with strength the rightness. Such view exists also in the Arabic where the right was 'hag' or 'hak' (from here is the known in Bulgaria from the times of Turkish yoke 'dish hak' what was the bribe required out of Bulgarian hosts from the Turkish officers after eating and drinking at their full by some wealthy person during their visits in the
vilayet-region, and this meant "for the eating", for the rubbing of their teeth; and the single quote means that you have to read the word so, maximally near to the pure Latin vowels), but the sounding of the word is like hitting with a cudgel on the head. Well, when the strength decides, it is natural to expect that all living things will resist the effect, but the important law on which we want to stress is that
by the living things the reaction is not equal to the action, i.e. the Newton's law here does not apply, or more precisely: to stronger action usually corresponds
weaker reaction, and to weaker -- stronger! Similar behaviour is observed also by the plants, only that we will not concern us with them but with the animals, and primarily with the people, where such inadequate reaction is wholly
justified, because it leads to rejecting of the action when it is weak (stronger rejection), or to saving of power when it is strong enough and we, anyway, can't oppose to it. For example, if we receive a slap we can kill the man for nothing, and it is so also by the laws, where, say, for one stolen hen the fine is as for about ten hens, where for killing of a person, even of many persons, the culprit often remains alive. This is reasonable reaction, but the bad things is that only such reaction is
not reasonable enough for the humans (as homo sapience), besides, we, as a rule, try to enhance more and more the reaction (because the action is what makes us happy), and have no feeling to stop it in time, what, obviously, leads to escalation of the violence.
Another important moment is that the reasonableness of our actions is something very dubious and we, usually, act reasonable only after we have used all
unreasonable ways for reaching of the goal, because the intellect for us is one not yet developed instinct, but even this isn't enough for us and in addition to this appears also one
law for suppression of the reason in big groups of people. This is to say that not only the conclusion of the group is worse than that of the most intelligent in it (averaging the stupidity), but is more stupid even than the average, i.e. the stupidity imposes itself, prevails, rules, and the crowds act emotionally, like little children! This, that we don't listen to the wiser ones, has its explanation (because we can't understand them, and there is nobody who could warrant that they, really, are more clever than us), but we could have tried to search for some
middle value, but, alas, exactly the middle is what we never look for and prefer the total or extreme decisions. And there is also another nuance: when we increase a given perception or feeling then, because everything in our world is interwoven in various cycles, almost always we go to the other end (but moving
in the same direction), what is just an
illusion of bettering of the things, for we have again extreme perception, where the reasonable decision would have been to become
indifferent in this relation, what is exactly the equilibrium point in one centered modal scale (like, say, a thermometer from -50º to +50º, bent in a circle, but so that it works).
And one more thing, this time about
the society as a whole: it
is still greatly unorganized, and by analogy with the living things is more or less on the level of the ...
amoeba. In sense, that in a multicellular organism each organ "knows" for what purpose it is created and fulfills its obligations, while in no one contemporary society this is so. Earlier there were various attempts for reasonable regulation (castes, aristocracy) but nowadays we denied them too. But wait, will intervene somebody, are not all people, would-be, equal? And was the totalitarian nomenclature not enough for us, that we want now to return to the castes? Well, the point is not about this, but the idea remains, there is no organization, we imitate it by use of force or compulsion (of starvation by the capitalism, for example, instead of the whip of the slave master), but this does not make people work
for one another, but one against the other (hoping that in the chaos the things will become organized by themselves). It is clear that in the old methods of organization there are drawbacks, yet they are not in the very predestination, but in the
non-connected with concrete person distribution of activities, where the idea as such is reasonable. And by the contemporary capitalism the situation is such, that the more it develops, the more
disconnectedly people live; the chaos
may be some regulator but in the world of nonliving matter (due to the lack of other methods there), though not in the society, where this leads to nothing good.
So, and after this introductory philosophizing let us look in more details at some of the contemporary scourges or plagues.
1. The wars
Here we will begin with the assertion that the war, despite the fact that the Latins have called it the "last remedy" (ultima ratio), remains almost the
first tool for solving of international conflicts, and only
after it was conducted for some time the parts may sit at the negotiating table, but from the position of the power. This, obviously, is not solving of the problems, but rather one ...
bloodletting, as the cutting of the veins in the past, and with the similar naive explanation by analogy with, hmm, with the man who, when certain his part becomes too hard to feel comfortably, and until he does not let "something" to flow out is not pacified, so also here. It may safely be stated that for each war there are others, and hundreds of times more bloodless, ways, as for example: sports competitions, intellectual combats, economical competition, or then, if we so much want to have victims, then there might be also real fights, but with 1/1,000 of the army staff and of war weapons, or with equal number of people (say, by hundred solders). But the point is that until there are no killed, and so much that the nations become
frightened and horrified, the people can't become calm. Generally, for each war there are economical (sometimes also ideological and religious) reasons, what is very well known, but there are also
psychological reasons, which are rooted in the human nature, which is such that it likes the power. With the economical causes there is a way out and this is
reduced (or not whole) control,
in proportion with the invested capitals, what is analogue of a commercial company with units or shares, and blessed be God (and let us hope that this is so), that the wealthy countries at last, after two world wars, have reached to this conclusion. In other words, instead of wars there might be just economical competition; for the stronger countries this is one reasonable decision (rather than to kill themselves mutually), and for the weaker ones -- well, it is really silly, if a given country is not strong enough, to begin to fight with the stronger countries, isn't it? And about religious wars we must be ashamed to speak, because each person or nation has the right to deceive himself or themselves with whatever he /they prefer(s); the religion is essentially some moral, and the war, however we look at it, is unmoral.
But there remains the psychological reason, that
the people simply want to fight, to exercise supremacy -- this is the masculine principle in action. In this relation the sole remedy is, it seems, in the masculine sports, and if it is so much necessary then we may return to the ... gladiator fights of ancient Rome, because the gladiators not at all always were forced to fight, in most of the cases this was their view to life, their profession. Even by first possibility we may think (in worldwide scale) about some island (say, Iceland, and in a future also a planet -- Mars, for example, when the god of war is called so), where all who want this to be able to form teams, or by countries, or how they want, and to kill one another as much as they want (when the computer games are not enough for some of them). Funny or not, but such isolation is necessary, because there may be many people who want such strong sensations, but at least 3/4 of the population does not want them, and it isn't just for the minority to impose itself.
In any case, the contemporary strategy of threat with force and uniting in ever stronger military blocks is not a decision. The power may subjugate, but it
can't convince, and when some time passes then the wars begin again (look at the Balkans, before nearly a century and now, look at the Near East from the creation of Israel, and so on). And the military blocks do not solve the economical problems, they only satisfy the psychological, but kindling here and there new wars, because: what is the purpose of armies if they do not fight? And then, it is very good not to be produced nuclear weapons in the world, but does it happen so? This, what happens, is that the weaker countries do not have nuclear weapons (because the stronger ones do not allow them to have), but those that are stronger they have them, and there are no reasons to expect that they are more unbiased and more moderate, because exactly they use them (at least about the USA, I hope, you won't deny this). And the bigger are the blocks the greater are the disasters in the clashes. If the idea of such enlargement is some time to come to a single big block, which will deny the existence of the blocks, then this is good, but the goal is not at all such. The goal of a military block is, in short, to
fight wars, but smaller, local. Only the economical competition (the multinationals and the traders) can straighten the things, regardless the fact that the losers will again be the weaker ones, but there will not be bloodshed.
And one more remark: because here applies the law of inadequate reaction then each country tries to strengthen its reaction, what leads to escalation of the fights, till some country is forced to apply weak reaction (surrendering itself). By virtue of the said in the beginning must be clear that for applying of weak reaction without compulsion, or for indifference, is needed much reason, and in this sense the cold war from the last century between the West and the East was one reasonable solution, and even more reasonable was the reversing of the policy of the "stick" with that of the "carrot" (according to the known English proverb how a donkey -- that's better than a horse -- can be made to move when it is stubborn). And as was seen, one such intelligent (weaker in magnitude) decision, i.e. to give us hand, proved to be stronger than the cold and the "hot" wars, because in zero time the former Socialist Block collapsed. Well, this happened not without the Gorbachevism, but it became possible after the West already has begun to offer us the "carrot" (or the lump of sugar). So that also without wars the problems, surely, can be solved.
2. The organized crime
There also the usual (nice word, ah?) crime is social evil, but with it we, more or less, cope somehow. It is clear that here is applied the law of inadequate reaction (of the society against the criminality), where most often the compulsion is strong, but sometimes also weak (in cases of murder, as we mentioned it). And because the state is the most powerful (i.e. the prosecution and the police), and the criminals work for themselves, then it is possible to find some solution, though sometimes severe laws are necessary. It is supposedly clear that
not the severity of the punishment but its inevitability is the important thing, though due to some psychological moments -- one is interested in the
big win (respectively loss), and not of the probability for this, and the inevitability of the punishment is something doubtful -- it turns that the strength of the punishment
is important for the criminal (not for the folks). But here also is worth to turn your attention to the human "habit"
to fight with the consequences, not with the causes, for under the totalitarianism, definitely, the criminality was lower, and this not only because the militia does some beating (the police also does this sometimes), but because there were no grounds for financial abuse, by reasons that when somebody began to spend more money this caught the eye and he was taken, but now it isn't so. Or another example: since there appeared cash machines on the streets the stealing of money probably lessened, because there is not much to be stolen, but then are stolen objects.
Though let us come to the topic of
organized crime, where only with stronger force we are stuck. And first of all: what is organized crime and why it exists? Because, if we look only at the organization, there were various bands also thousands years ago, but today's bands are not the same, and what makes them more different is that they became as if a
state in the state! Contrary to the usual crime the organized one works not so much for itself as
for the people, however paradoxical this may sound, or at least for one large part of them. This is logical, at least from the point of view of the bigger scope, because one large-scale enterprise can't exist if there is nobody to buy its goods or services. For example the prostitution -- it exists for centuries and almost always was forbidden, but people want it, and that is how some organization comes on the stage. Or the dry law in the USA (even the "wild" Russians have not come to such absurd, not to be allowed to one to buy plane beer or wine, but the Americans "hid them the ball", though here we are not speaking about the drawbacks of the contemporary democracy so that let us not diverge from the point). Because, as our
shop (these are citizens around Sofia, they speak in dialect) says: "What is necessary, it wants itself!". So that, however unpleasantly, and to whatever government, it can be to admit this, but the existence of organized crime is proof for the weakness of the state and for its
bad ruling (ignorance, or failure to meet the wishes of the masses).
When the people (or some part of them) want something, for what is clear that it isn't good (nor moral) there are two ways for solving the problems: either this becomes forbidden, or is taken under the control of the state. And under "control" here is understood, as much as that the state "stuffs its throat" (say, with the excise duties on tobacco and alcohol, or with the so called patents for prostitution), as also simply
strengthening of the control (like registration of the weapons, and the vehicles, if you want, because initially they were not registered, or by selling of opiates for medical purposes). And this control, maybe, is the only one moderate decision of the question, when some want and others don't want, but this that people want is dangerous also for the others. So that in very near future will be introduced also obligatory for everybody taking of fingerprints (not only for criminally registered), as well of genetic secretions, dental photos, and what else turns to be needed -- say, everyone may be obliged to carry his or her unique number (EGN in Bulgaria) on a place easy to be seen (at the belt buckle or, ha, ha, even on the forehead, like a tattoo), eventually coded (but to be possible to be read at least by the law enforcement authorities at special lighting). This, obviously, leads us to one
police state, even more than this, to police
world, but this is the only alternative of the harsh and uncompromising banning! Also, as it was seen already, one can not entirely free spend his money now, because by big sums is asked proof for their origin, so that we must little by little become used to the fact that in a significant extent we are
returning to various totalitarian habits, only this time under the dictate of NATO, or the Currency Board, or something of the kind. When we can not realize that the freedom is a double-edged sword, and more freedoms mean also more perils for the society, than everything will have to be registered and monitored. And in addition to this let us not forget that
from the freedom wins ... well,
the stronger, of course, not the weaker!
3. The terrorism
This also is not a new element in the human societies, though lately it has grown greatly, because, in spite of the strong security measures, it became much easier to shoot from long away and to put different explosives. At a first sight this is a variety of the organized crime (because they are often related), but it isn't so according to the goals, for the terrorism does not add to the ruling of the state but aims at sabotaging or removing of it. Here
the strong measures are rather
throwing of dust in the eyes of the populace, because: how you will punish one kamikaze? He has already, as we say, put his head in the bag, in the name of his ideals, and the death penalty does not scare him. For him this is a matter of priority of values. The only way to succeed in the fight with the terrorism is by eliminating the causes for it, and they most often are religious or ethnic. Sometimes the causes are social (the poor or oppressed resent the terror of the state) and earlier was spoken about anarchism (not only in Russia, though they had some traditions there), but the idea for provoking of anarchy or terror between the population is not in the statement that the anarchy is the best regulator (the Russian slogan was "The anarchy is mother of the order"), but in this that
the terror is the easiest war! It only at first glance is very cruel, because happens in peaceful times, and unexpectedly, but otherwise is significantly less bloody than a civil war, so that if we do not grasp this and do not fight with the causes, we will come to nowhere. This, to what we may come via escalation of the security, is to begin to put guards not only in public places but also in the houses where we life, to surround each living area with trenches, barbed wire, and cordon of police or army, but this will only complicate our life (we will live in peace as under a war), without helping us much.
As a variety of the terrorism is also the international terrorism, with which we fight in our (or rather state's) foolishness using wars, but this also is not a right solution. If there is a great discontent among the people, even in a police state, and more so in conditions of democracy, always will be found ways for sabotages and terror. This is presumably well known but no country shows it, because we are used with the exercising of power and do it even when this is not good. And we have not yet seen to what may be come in the near future, because till now the terrorists have not begun to use nuclear, bacteriological (or, maybe, some genetical) weapons, but during the 21-th century we may have this possibility! Because now not only the weapons have become more powerful, but the masses much more
insensitive, and if there is not some action
in reality we do not give thought to anything (and when something similar happens and we begin to think, we invent not what is actually needed.)
4. The drug addiction
This social scourge also is not from yesterday, because narcotics have been cultivated on the East (and the South) for millenniums, but then only the old ones have ignited from time to time a pipe, where now this is priority mainly to the young. At the core of the things here lies the ...
escapism, the wish to run away from the reality, what is one purely human feature (the imagination, art, religions, etc.), so that even if we want we can't overcome it, but why has it become now so widely spread, while earlier, and under the totalitarianism, it wasn't so? But this is obvious: one runs from the reality when he does not like it, and this can happen in two cases, either when his life is very hard (but even then this happens more rarely, because the difficulties in life are simply necessary), or when the life is so boring, that
one has no purpose in life at all, and such is the case now. Allegedly under the democracy life is more interesting, supposedly one has more opportunities for self expression, but well -- the youth does not think so! And then this has to make us think about, because you know very well that now only with marijuana the things are not finished, and is reached to very severe cases.
According to the author there are two moments here, on which must be accented. One is that the
narcotics are not for the young, but for the old, by the simple reason that the old man
has what to
remember, and also has nothing much to do in this life, and, besides, they are not so harmful for him. And the other moment is that the forbidden fruit is sweeter, and one teenager will try only because he knows that this is bad (to see what will happen, to feel himself independent, and so on). But neither the first thing is explained to the youngsters, nor about the second question something is done. And let us here again remind one sentence of the author, that
the worst thing of the bad things is that there is something good in them (otherwise they wouldn't have dominated the peoples thoughts)! So that maybe in Scandinavian countries people proceed better (more moderate) allowing selling of ordinary (relatively harmless) narcotics (and surely after a given age); and in addition to this must be performed also good registering of drug addicted persons who use stronger opiates. Otherwise, with only prohibitions, we will come to nowhere, because this is also area of the organized crime. Well, surely also the society in its entirety, despite our population density, must aim to give goals in life, even invented ones (like the "bright communist future"), because the life, by itself, has no meaning (if, somehow, in the name of something, we will not jump over our personality).
5. The corruption
This is a question over which is much speculated at all times, but here, again, is not looked at the root of the things, because the corruption is one ...
intention of the system to reach the needed degree of ripeness! You all know that many of the vegetables and fruits are consumed when they ripen well, and such is the case also with the capitalism. Actually, have you ever asked yourself, why the cooked meal becomes ... sour? Well, because
it wants the sourness, for to
preserve itself! So is it also with the corruption, which oils the system, for to make it to work good, this is a
complement to it, what is simply necessary to the masses, otherwise it wouldn't have existed. It is true that it isn't good to bribe state's officers because they become used to do their work only for some compensation (and the same is valid also for the waiters, and in general in the sphere of services), but from this loses ... the state (or the company),
not the clients, who would have wished only to know better what is the usual baksheesh (and in some tourist guides it is even given). In other words, here the fight can be only against the big bribes, and with the "normal" such the easiest way is to
integrate them in the system (fixing urgent services, which are performed for higher charge, and this is done in mass). When people come to the conclusion that they must work mainly for the pleasure of doing the work and the need for the others form it -- and this will happen sometime, on the background of the increasing unemployment -- then the corruption will begin to disappear, as well as if there are not provided conditions for spending of unlawfully obtained incomes (to what we also, by the by, are aiming).
6. The poverty
As you all have heard,
the poverty is not a vice but it
is a nasty thing, especially in the postindustrial society. And the nastiness is even bigger when there are no reasonable motives for this, as it is now in Bulgaria (for we are stuck not because of bad leaders, not due to natural disasters, neither as result of big disorders and civil wars, but just because of our incompetent transition to democracy, consisting in going back to the "green" capitalism). According to Western conceptions the human being is "wanting animal" with the following five levels of wishes, beginning with the most important, namely: food, shelter, continuation of the gender (chiefly sex), self expression and career making, and personal enhancement. It is not so important how we will name them, but it is clear that for each one must be provided the first three as vitally needed, and the difference between people to be performed only by the left two. It isn't important also how will be satisfied the main levels (it may be via rationing system, or there may be some obligatory conscription, or when to everybody is paid as much as to can allow to by the basic things, or with social benefits, or special shops for the poor, and other variants), but the important thing is that
this is function of the state! And it should be performed
without the humiliation of begging, but just as
civil right, what is nowhere yet realized in this way because each one must at least ask for some help. But on the other hand this isn't so difficult to realize automatically, for example based on the taxes, which can be collected centrally, and the income of everybody to be known; this will ensure both, good collecting of taxes, and good assistance when is fallen below the taxable base. The things can be detailed (and the author does this somewhere else), but the tendency of development of the capitalism is such that this is unavoidable (if you like you may call it communism or socialism, but if you don't -- then shouldn't), and as far as the money notes as means of exchange are more and more eliminated on the West this can happen also without our discussion here.
But when we speak about civil right (of decent existence, according to the standard at the moment), is not bad to cast a look at the root of the evil, which is in this that
money stick to money, or that the wealth increases in size, and if some companies also split then this is for easier governing (for to bring again big profits), so that ... well, it turns that under the capitalism, where the main (or capital) thing is the capital, it is impossible to succeed without it, notwithstanding the efforts or capabilities! This is very important to know, because there are many speculations on the question, and if we assume that the capable can succeed alone (i.e. to get rich, because here moral values
do not exist, these are only rude calculations), then there will always turn up some wealthy person who will buy our capable worker, in order to work for him (as it, surely, happens), and this will be profitable both for the wealthy and the capable, so that the capable will be from the very beginning under the wing of the wealthy. This is elementary catch, but because the people neither are self-critical, nor want to think, then they are easily caught on it. Well then, but after the satisfying of the basic needs exactly the capable (in something individual) must be able to succeed, not to sell himself to the wealthy ones and work for other ideas. Under the developed capitalism the people have adjusted themselves, more or less, to this phenomenon (using many ways for sponsoring), but this isn't reasonable solution, for each is born differently rich.
Well, then the unjustness begins
already with the birth of everyone, by the simple reason that there
exists ... inheritance of the property! If one comes to think about, then there is no such thing by whatever animals, and only those in power are who obstruct the finding of suitable solution of the matters, because one thing is some minimal inheritance of a house, car, and small scale ownership, and entirely different one is when some persons are birth very rich (so that, if they do not throw away their money, they must invest them in something used for exploitation of the others, something that multiplies their money), and others -- sufficiently poor. This question also needs more detailed considering, but here we will mention only the most important moments, which are that there must be some established minimum of sufficient wealth for quite decent living even without the need to go to work, but when there are inherited sums or assets above that minimum they must be
drastically taxed (say, to be left only 10% of the money) and everything else to go in favor of the state and /or municipality. In addition to this those accumulated funds (shares of companies, land, etc.) must not only be left to the state, but be also distributed periodically and
in arbitrary way between all citizens (and also, ha, ha, between those who don't live in cities). This will improve the lottery element of our wold, as it befits in a good society, and
will not hinder the busyness, because there goes only about inheriting,
not about expropriation when living (and if one so much wants to know to whom his money will go then nobody prevents him of transferring them to whomever he wishes, on the understanding that the receiving part will pay the corresponding tax, if needed).
7. The disunion
This also is not a vice, but can bring a lot of miseries to the people, because the idea of each society is to make people work for one another, not one against the other, as we have already mentioned in the beginning. In principle there is nothing bad in one healthy individualism, but a society built only on contradictions between egoistic interests can't prosper well, so that here also must be looked for a good point of equilibrium. When the country is, on the whole, wealthy this does not hamper the things very significantly, but not at all each country is such and we are not from those that are. But in the wealthy countries people unite in various alliances, clubs, etc. (even more than us, because they can afford it), and the point isn't so much about the obvious alliances, as about the taking into account by our actions of the existence of the others around us, about the
love to the neighbour. This is a question of
reflexing of the thoughts of the others (say, I think, that he thinks, that ... etc.), which may be on several levels, but at least one or two are necessary, because otherwise the things don't go well. Take for example the prostitution, where people want that there were such possibility, but nobody wishes for his own daughter (or, then, son) to be engaged with this, but in this way the society is divided leastways in good and bad people. Or then now, by medical care to be paid, each physician wishes there to be
more ill people and with pleasure will invent different illnesses; or the paid education, what corrupts the educational system. Not that we must give up the competition, but it isn't right also to give up the moral.
And one more thing, because this disunion make we alone, without any reasonable causes for it, just on account of so difficultly manageable by us
tolerance. Etymologically in this word for the West exists some burden, which hinders us, but it is high time to learn to endure one another despite the differences (as long as they are not socially dangerous), because nowadays we live pretty dense and it simply can't do otherwise. And the reasonable reaction to an increasing action (as we have spoken in the beginning) is not in the going to the other pole, but in the indifference, what here means accepting of the existence of a given phenomenon by other people (for example of the homosexuality) without approving it for us, and not standing at odds against such things. Here the problems come also from the religions (as guardians of the morality), which very seldom are tolerant, but it is necessary more often to think about the social value of imposing of our views, as well also about the right of the others to have their own truths, or even to deceive themselves with whatever they want. However little may seem this error to us it can boldly be stated that
the biggest sin of the contemporary man (apart from the obvious anti-social phenomena)
is his intolerance.
Well, there are other social evils, like the excessive pride ("
gordynja" in Russian, what differs from the usual
gordost-pride), for example, which also looks a small thing but is a big hindrance in the society, but it may be co-opted with the intolerance, and there is also time to finish, so let us do it here.
April 2004
APPENDIX
Homo Sapience
Homo, Homo, sapience,
All you need is happy
ence,
But to live in paradise
You have to be just more wise!
Or, to put it like refrain:
Try to show that you have brains!
Not to be like, say,
Einstein* --
That is not what I've in mind --,
But it will be simply great,
If you'll learn to tolerate.
Or, to put it like refrain:
Try to show that you have brains!
[ * You have to read "ei" here as the Germans read it, i.e. as 'ay', like in "mine". ]
Toil to rate the others' wishes --
Not like yours, but every species
Have the right to ... fool themselves,
And to boast, and ring the bells.
Or, to put it like refrain:
Try to show that you have brains!
Well, it might be otherwise
(But I don't think that is nice),
You may live to be ... moron --
If you like it, just go on!
Or, to put it like refrain:
You may just have little brains.
You may think you are the Lord,
What you want you may afford,
You have taste and you have style,
And you can't be bad or vile.
Or, to put it like refrain:
You may just have little brains.
So, my dear Homo
sappy,
Two ways to the being happy:
One is to improve yourself
Live with others, make it well,
Or -- and this's the last refrain --
Live to show that you've not brains,
Being vulgar, mean
cretin**.
[ ** And here read it French-like, 'kreten'. ]
April 2004
OUR INABILITY TO DESTROY
(Social Essay)
|
|
Abstract:
This is an essay about our contemporary consumer society, that creates all kinds of artificial things but then throws them without making necessary efforts to destroy them properly. It begins with some philosophical reflections about the world in which we live (but philosophical ideas and conclusions pervade also the left part of the material), and then observes certain concrete cases of inability to dissolve objects or ideas which have fulfilled their part (such like the: revolutions and wars, outdated moral norms in the society, obsolescence of the things, garbage of various kind, and other matters), and proposes during the review also some directions in which we should work. Because this is a later work of the author many things are only mentioned without proper justification, so that if some readers find the material very informative they have two ways of action: either to refuse to read it further, or to look for some other of my works for explanations. As to the specific topic, then from the time of technical revolution, a moment which is initiated roughly with the Manifesto of Karl Marks, we are moving pretty strong away from the nature, without having prepared in some way our organisms for this, what leads to many cataclysms, but also to unsolved tendencies for pollution with garbage in whatever areas, just because of breaking the natural cycles, what ultimately leads again to cataclysms. At the end is placed traditional poetical appendix in English.
|
|
CONTENTS (Of This book)
0. Preliminary remarks
In the old Buddhists books is stated that our world is something thrice "not", namely: in it
nothing is perfect (what in many cases is the same as not finished -- in Slavonic languages, say in Russian, there is
sovershenniy-perfect, and
svershit-to-finish, but there Latin "perfect" means both, faultless and finished),
nothing is permanent, and
nothing is isolated (or independent of the other things), what surely is much more serious approach to the matters than by Christian Creation (but then that is why earlier has existed
theosophy, i.e. from one side the God-Theos, but from another side also philosophy and view to the world). From Ancient Greece, in turn, to us have come two main slogans or life rules: this to search the moderation in everything (even in the moderation, I should add), with the variety "Hurry up slowly", known largely through the Latin language), as well as the slogan that "Everything flows, everything changes" (what coincides with the inconstancy in the Buddhism). Besides, the thesis about the dialectical link of the things -- I would have rather said about the "dial
actic" (from the lactans or lactones, milk filaments), or "
diaelastique" (as a ball hanged on some, at least two, elastic cords -- this is something on what is based the imperfection and incessant dynamics, and the connection, as also Ancient Greek's view about the moderation, i.e. the looking for a middle point. Well, naturally, for to have dynamics and movement must be added also
cycle or circle (which, with adding of one more dimension, turns to spiral or solenoid), i.e. there has to be always performed some returning to certain old state (with eventual modifications or small differences). And these are, roughly speaking, the main ancient wisdoms, but we, the people from the entire globe, stubbornly refuse to add them to our basic rules for behavior and worldview, we are ready to believe in whatever religious or not fabrications and fables, but not in the common links between the things and in the "great" cycle, or in the "great" middle point (these
medi /
metha things, that are nice, I would have added, like ...
honey, because this root is very ancient, it is related with the
mead, which beverage was fabricated during millenniums in various parts of the world).
And because we don't want to search for moderation, and do not think at all to close the cycle -- for we want just to reach the top, and after us, I don't know, maybe deluge or whatever? --, then it happens so that ... ha, ha, well, it turns out that we,
still, do what must be done, close the cycle, moderate ourselves as much as we can, only
in the time! And how this happens, ah? Well, very easy: one day so, another day otherwise; two months, for example, we gorge ourselves, and then 40 days we fast; or for 5 years we have democracy, and then follow 10 years of tyranny (in Ancient Greece, where the dictators were called Tyrants); or 3 years (or even 30) we wage war, and then 20 years (exactly as is needed for the new generation to grow) live in peaceful conditions; or -- nowadays -- we long time have such moral norms that one self-respecting woman can't show even her face on the street, and then, after some 20 years, she may show even her, sorry, pudenda by the Internet, said as an example; or the institution of marriage is so sacred that only the Roman Pope can warrant dissolution of marriage (if one can get to him and have enough money for bribe, which is not called so), and thereafter one marriage can't endure five years on an average; and similar examples.
Well, somebody will say, hence if turns that we, still, can do what we must do, even not being very wise. Yeah, this is so, but at what price? At the cost of needless expense of "biological material". But all these were generalities, on which we will base here and there (even implicitly) our explanations in the processing of this material, so that they were necessary, but my goal in this case is to reach to our inability to destroy various things, to dissolve and remove them, because this is the cycle, having made something to destroy it later, for to make it again, as, for example, grows the corn (and if we leave it in the field, then it will grow not in such abundance later). Not that we don't try to crash, or that we don't want to do this, on the contrary, the dear God (or the nature -- as you like it more) has made enough efforts to put the instinct for destruction very deep in us (as also in the animals), because this is what common linkage of the things means,
each thing carries in itself also its negation, in some way. So that we "die" to crash, especially the children, by the simple reason that for them this is
creation, i.e. they do in this way most of all "work", or raise big noise, produce the biggest effect with their actions exactly when they throw some plaything or just break something. But also the elderly people, who now, but also in the ancient times, like most of all (and have liked, and will like in the future, that's for sure) the actions. This is clear, but if we are not capable to destroy some given thing properly, then the actions happen in reality, the built by us is ruined, the people kill one another, and we simply pay higher prices (when our brains are not much, and this as collective intelligence, not by one single person). For this reason I will try now to show some basic, or at least actual in the moment, situations where we don't destroy the things rightly, and will mark on the way (I can't be precise in the needed extent, even if I want, in such global problems) some of the possible directions for suitable reacting.
Not that I believe much that the world will listen to me, but if I don't share what I have to with it then it, sure thing, will not be in position to listen to me, right? But I don't give much credence to this also because for my 60 years I have come to the conclusion that the world
must not become very clever -- as it also does not want to -- because the life is more easier to live the less you understand it! For this reason the most happy ones are the young, especially the children, and the wisdom is rather for consolation of the old (though this is, as is said, "from another opera"). In this spirit is also the statement (of Spinoza, I think) that one feels free only because is conscious of his actions, but not of the causes that force them. Similarly, there is one ancient Hindu poem "Bhagavad Gita", where god Krishna, who is a variation (i.e. incarnation) of Vishnu (who, in my view, is in his turn the
Varshitel-"Doer", in Bulgarian, so to say the "maintenance" of the created by Brahma world, where the main destruction is performed by the god Shiva, who often, hmm, ...
shibaet-hits us on the head with some cudgel, I'll tell you -- or take then your verb to shiver --, maybe with the help of the beautiful
kalna-muddy, in Slavonic, goddess Kali, of the underworld). So in this poem the primary moral (the advice of Krishna) is the following: each has to act according to what is put in him, respectively, the people are to kill themselves, if this is so needed. What is right, but not exactly, because in that times the people were much weaker than nowadays, when one single person can quite easily blow up a nuclear bomb, and even carry it in the rucksack; or some teenager can buy himself an automatic pistol and kill as much people as he succeeds from his class in school, beginning with the teacher, and, eventually, ending with himself (what, though, will not return the life of the killed). So that the stupidity is necessary for the world, it is
sacred, as the intelligent people have understood from times immemorial (because, for one thing, the genius and the simpleton are very much alike, by this that both of them are not entirely normal, i.e. not like the others, and for another thing, the simplicity is indestructible, and if so then it is better to comply with it), but the more intelligent people must also do what they can (because it is in their "karma", isn't it?), and then the masses can take this in consideration, if they want, or not take it. Well, such is the situation, who wants let him read further, and to whom this moralizing is boring enough let him watch his video and get loose from that clever man, who is ready always to teach (because to him only the upper head stays properly, ah?).
1. The revolutions and wars
The revolution, or the overturning, revolting of the things, is an obvious example for tough or cruel closing of the cycle. If it was closed in milder way then many victims could have been avoided, what is well known to the governing people, and they, really, very often close the cycle smoothly. So for example, in many countries the slavery, or the serfdom, or the dependence of some colonies, has happened with decrees of monarchs, i.e. from above, not from below. But this has never happened
before arising of some disorders and rebellions, and before it has become clear that, if there will not be allowed to the masses this, what they want, then, as we said above, this must be
again allowed them, but after new disorders, fights and bloodshed. The now classical example for gentle and smooth destruction gives us the "Great Gorbi", who succeeded so smoothly and without flowing of any blood to bring the communism down, so that he deserves every honours and prizes, but there are not much people who have grasped this, because his party colleagues, most probably, have spat at him for betraying the communism, and his adversaries have spat on him for this, that he wanted again the communists to have ruling hand over the country. Be it as it may, I deal with this question in a whole book, so that let me not digress more from the point, but I can give you also another example for "gentle" dividing -- this of former Czechoslovakia in Czech and Slovak Republics, where all was decided in advance, and starting on a good day, from the New Year.
So that the revolutions and wars, at least the civil ones, can definitely be avoided -- and in the contemporary economical crisis we have a good example for proper (well, in certain limits, of course) avoiding of world wars (at the expense of local ones, with the Arabs, with
not entirely white people, so to say), because the crisis in 1928, step by step, has resulted in coming of the "hit" Hitler to power, and then to the Second World War. Hence, when we want, we can, but then why do we not want in time, earlier, before the bloodshed? Well, very simple, because it is very
difficult to establish how much earlier must be reacted (for the people are always dissatisfied by something, and if everything is allowed to them then in the society will reign anarchy -- as it also happens nowadays in some areas). In other words, the sufferers must first alone demand this, what they require, and the governing authorities must in their turn decide whether to give it to them or not. So that revolutions, at least "velvet" ones, or maturing of revolutionary conditions, have always existed, and will exist always.
And the wars? Well, this topic the author has also considered, but even if he has not done this, it is clear that always exist
peaceful ways for settling of the disputes, as long as the people want such solutions. Because with the wars there are several moments. First (but not necessarily on the first place, ah?) there are
economical reasons, which can, and must, be decided with economical means (as we now, little by little, also try, with the help of international capitals, i.e. which country or company invests more in a given weaker country, it will rule,
de facto, certain
part of this country); in this sense is useful to share with you my linguistic researches, which lead to the conclusion that already the Romans (if not other folks before them) have regarded the finances as ... well, as fine thing, of course, as something ethereal, delicate, thinned as the end (
fin /
fine in the Roman languages), or as fin of a fish (to use now the English). Then there are also psychological reasons, this that the people just
want to fight, they like the power and the strong, such persons are purely
dear to them -- what is easy to be seen in the Slavonic languages where
mil /
miliy means "dear", but also on the West, because here are all the militarists and military forces, and the root 'mil-' is very old, this is the smacking sound 'ml' of relish, from here is the Teutonic
Milch-milk and your mild (weather or not) and other thing, and in Arabic, too, 'mleh' meant nice, good. And at last (but not at all at the least place) is the desire to
destroy, desire not only from the part of the humans but also of the
situation (and, in this case, the desire is in quotes), because when many buildings and property are destroyed this gives work to the people, they organize themselves for some time, avoid at least for the moment the wars -- this is one naive or also pulse mode of working, but between the humans the things are performed exactly in this way (when we can't find the needed middle point, nor to destroy what is necessary in the proper way).
You try now to imagine such situation in which everything, at least from the times of ancient Romans, till the present moment is preserved, and is known even where each of the deceased have left his or her bones in the earth. Well, if so then we should have built out skyscrapers, maybe, only above 3,000 meters, or on the bottom of the seas, and wherever we went we would have treaded on someone's remains, even being in the nature. So that, due to the mutual connection of the things, it turns that when the country A destroys something in the country B, then it, up to certain extent,
helps it (as also when the wolves eat the hares it turns that in this way they better the breed of hares -- or that when we kill our, hmm, cockroaches at home, or pester them with various chemicals, we just force them to become more resistant, what, in all appearance, is really so). In this sense, even if we succeed to solve the above-mentioned aspects of the wars, we should seriously engage ourselves also with a periodical and
planned destruction of our own "assets", so to say, because this is the way in which the economical crises arise, because we continue by inertia to create something, but it has long ago come the time to stop this and even to destroy it, to reorient us to something else, or simply to change something, for otherwise our live becomes dull and we begin to quarrel and fight only because we are bored and have nothing to fight for! And don't think, please, that this is meaningless philosophizing, because there is one ancient Chinese proverb, which we think is a blessing, good wish, but which is known as the "Curse of the Chinese", and it states: "May you live in interesting times!" Well, our times, even from the very beginning of the 21st century, are, really, very interesting, a crazy action.
2. The moral norms
My simple definition of the moral is the following: this is
set of rules intended to unite the people in the space and the time. Wherein the accent is rather on the time, i.e. between the past, through the present, and to the future, between old and young, between the generations, for in the space we somehow can deal using the right of the stronger (as by the animals). (In the Latin the word for moral is
mores, and also in plural, and in my view in it is hidden the ... murmuring of the sea, or of that who teaches, but maybe the
mare-sea is simply symbol of the multitude -- compare with your "more" -- and this means many things, norms, that must be respected.) I personally have the feeling that the young people, those between 20 and 30, and even to 40, have the feeling (this time they), that the moral is just empty babble of the "over-matured", but this is not so and without a moral we can't do (because if we could do, then it would have not existed, right?). I can't deny that they have some reasons for such feeling, because nowadays are breaking too many moral norms, but they are breaking in order to give rise to something new, not to reject the moral at all, let us make this small difference! They are breaking also because by the humans, well, there is something
wrong, in our genes, because when people have good moral and stick to it, they stick so rigorously to it that begin to kill one another in the name of it, what expressed in such extent shows, definitely, that they
don't have the needed moral. So that now, let us try the contrary, let us live without any moral (because surely all have heard the saying that the ways to hell are strewn with good intentions), and let us see whether this will not turn to be good (wanting the worse). In certain extent this is true, but firstly up to a certain measure, moderately, not a total rejection; and secondly: when we refuse some social norm we must have before this some
other (alternative) ready, to which to head, if we don't want to end up "between two chairs and on the floor" (as we, the Bulgarians, ended from the moment when we stepped on the way to the democracy, but as far as now the whole world became confused in the last 10 years or so, then we don't bulge too much before the other nations).
These moral norms, however, are not so much, they usually can be counted on our fingers (the Ten Commandments in the Christianity, for example), and, more than this, they are intuitively clear to the people, as it is also clear why they should not be violated -- because the things often reverse and how we have behaved to the others, in such way later they return it to us (so that if we correctly reflect the world around, and if it does not contradict to itself fairly often, then we should not have special problems). If it is so, when one decides to ponder about, it must be clear also why (most frequently) they are violated -- well, mainly, so to say, out of braggery, i.e. because we hope to pass between the drops and in this way to soar high in our own eyes as very cunning, but also for to smear more on our "bread" than the others. I have looked at these things in other of my works, but here out topic is the bad destruction or rejection of these norms when they grow old (because
everything sometime gets old, as far as there is nothing perfect, nothing constant, and nothing isolated, as I have already mentioned). So that when we destroy something our first job should have been to asks us the question:
why till now this was not so, i.e. what exactly has changed, because it is naive to think (though many people think precisely so) that when we destroy something then it is at all unnecessary, erroneous, and, in two words, the folks before us were very big morons, what is not so -- the people are
just the same morons, before, now, and in the future! But instead of asking ourselves these natural and sensible questions we simply "die" to deal precipitously and destroy totally, without closing properly the cycle, and so react not only the uneducated masses, no, so behave also the governing officials at highest state's level, forgetting about our connections with the previous generations.
So that many denied nowadays things were entirely justified at their time and under the actual conditions. For example: the slavery system earlier was the best possible solution, better than the tribal system (i.e. with better exploitation in it), and when the Americans much later decided to fight for to keep the slavery they have had their grounds and there the slaves have fought for preserving of the slavery, and the decisive fight at the end was within a hairbreadth of the reverse result; or the communism for its time and place was entirely necessary (because the capitalism then was still very rough and green and the great powers, instead of taking joint decisions, have preferred to kill one another), and, something more, this order has fulfilled one fundamental task, it
has made the capitalism afterward (with its warning precedent) significantly
better. Or to take the democracy and the centralized ruling (monarchy, dictatorship, Sultan state or even governed by Christian Church state): if the democracy was so much good then at least we, in Bulgaria, as immediate neighbours of the Greeks, but also they alone, would have had
25 centuries now only democracy, but it does not happen so, because the latter has not less drawbacks than the centralized ruling (but these questions, too, are profoundly discussed by the author on other places, so that let us not diverge from the point). Or also the emancipation: if one comes to think about then it is more than clear, even to the women, that they are more labile than the men, more emotional, not so logical, and so on, and it is better if the man rules in the families (because
someone must stay at the top, by two persons the democratic voting simply does not work); and, on the other hand, the families have been for millenniums obvious necessity for bringing up of the posterity (there were not child allowances then, nor open to all education, nor relieving the housework appliances, and so on), so that everything has stood stable on its places.
If we ask ourselves why earlier have existed more restrictive moral norms than now -- at the end of the civilization, surely (but let us not digress) -- it is clear that we should be in better position to moderate the things so, and will try to act more logically. Because, let us take the sex in focus: if we succeed somehow (as the French for now more than a pair of centuries) to make difference between family and sex, then there are no problems, but we, as a mass, can't behave so, and for that reason it was necessary to prohibit the extramarital sex; and also, obviously, there was not in those times this population boom that we encounter now, so that if, instead of to engage ourselves with birth and rearing of the offspring, we practice sex from our first youth and till old age, then all will gain something from this, and that is why now the things stay how they are, but not because it is moral for everybody to copulate with whoever he /she wants, it isn't moral, but we simply overlook this, because now it is preferable so. Or also the related with this question about the prostitution: naturally that it isn't moral to exist loose women, what can be seen by this that nobody would like for his (or her) daughter to become "companion", but when this is the first woman profession and one can win good from it, so it is assumed now that it is better if the state wins, than the organized crime, right?
And in order not to allow to some of the readers to say that we only criticize, here are also some, very broadly formulated, propositions about the raised questions, i.e. how more reasonably and rightly to crush the old norms. For example by the democracy (skipping explanations of whole books) the things can be significantly bettered if we succeed correctly to divide the ruling persons in
three categories:
tactical body, i.e. the immediate managers,
professionals, businessmen, people of public relations, economists, and so on (if we succeed to formulate some more or less good criteria for the governing, because it to a big extent is an art), which must be elected by some
competent commissions or collegia (or in the worst case, and in the beginning, by the parties); then
strategic body or
representative sample of the people, chosen by some
arbitrary choice between the whole population (and not only from the best, who can later turn out to be even the worst), as assessors, arbiters; and in addition to this also some
moral or moralizing body, or
elders,
sages, consisting of people chosen
democratically, as much as from the top, also from the low ranks, and in several iterations (in order to be allowed to choose from the bottom), people to whom we trust, to teach us what is good and what bad, but who do not govern.
Then by the emancipation must be made first of all difference between the
society, where the woman, naturally, must have equal rights with the man -- but with this substantial remark that these equal rights may only ...
prove her inequality with the man, her
peculiarities as individual --, and the family or
reproductive unit (because this can be performed also without families). The families -- when it become pretty clear now that they can not exist "until the death takes them apart" -- must be concluded, if this will be at all done, only
for specified period (by default of 5 years), after what each of the parts has the right to cease the family, or to ask for changing of the period of prolongation (say, with another 3 years). In addition to this
before concluding of the contract of marriage or forming of the reproductive
unit the parts must be in clear about the procedure of dividing (regularly by personal control of the property) of the things, but above all of
the children, where each child by his or her birth must be inscribed to
one of the parents, say, by default the boys to the father, and the girls to the mother, if it goes about first child for both of the parents, and else to that of them who has not yet a child; more than a child to the parent, as a rule, should not be allowed, and must be related with many, mostly financial, difficulties for the parent. In this way all questions can be decided and updated (with a bit mode details, explained on other place).
And about the prostitution I also have reasonable proposition, so that it, on one hand, continues to exist, but, on the other hand,
becomes moral! How is it possible? Well, very easy, placing it under medical and other supervision and it is performed not for material (at least not big) gain. Here is one such possible variant as draft proposition. There are created "
Samaritan societies for sexual services" with persons from both sexes (something like legal call girls /boys), where the employees work for the average in the moment and in the country salary, plus free food, clothes, medical care, and retirement under first category. So that, when one youngster feels that by him it not only stays during the whole time but he also wants to help the women (for this is a question of vocation, right?), then he applies there, and if the appropriate council approves him, then he is nominated for a trial period, and later also on a term contract (but not longer than 3 years, and even better for an year). Similarly also with the girls. When these people get bored -- because this isn't sex with desired partner but a kind of
beneficence -- each one can leave the job, or change the status to "on call" (by preset norms of payment). May be received only small presents (say, worth up to 2 minimal daily salaries) for seance, but not more than 5 (or 10) such salaries per whole month; the clients, for their part, pay equal and not very high tax. There are no problems if someone wants to keep a mistress (or the reverse, a lover), he needs only to pay her salary and all insurances. And don't think, please, that this is something unheard of, some fantastic tales, because in some religions have existed sexual compulsions on certain holidays for unmarried individuals.
3. The obsolescence of the things
From the time of the mentioned technical revolution we have begun to throw many things in the garbage, not wearing them enough. It is clear that in this way new working places are opened, but the work of these people is entirely unnecessary, it satisfies whims, if we admit it frankly. Because if a given commodity, that can be used 10 years without major repairs, and with such about 15, and even 20 years, is used only 2-3 years, then this means that, by an average duration of the human life of 70 years, just when the children come in their teens and we have to send them ... to gas chambers, or something in that spirit! Well, the goods are not humans, but they also have their "soul", as the old people say, one becomes used to them, they are not entirely soulless things for him (or at least it was so earlier), and it is also wicked to throw away good things, so that our consumer society is simply a society of the throwing away, what, however one looks at it, isn't a good thing. And I'll tell you also the following: as one treats his things, so he treats the nature around, and the people, too, if he is a "good owner" to the one thing, he is good also to the other!
But well, let it be so, this was only the moral aspect, which undeniably is not good, but at least is not so bad for the nature, where throwing of
artificial things on the garbage, of things taken out of the natural cycle (-s), obviously harms the nature, and, ultimately, also us (because
she -- the Nature must be feminine, she gives birth, creates things -- will succeed somehow to cope with the situation without the people and our civilization, as she/it has done this for millions of years). Generally speaking, under the capitalism very many things are thrown away, because there are various unnecessary developed cycles, either of shortage, either of surplus, but it is one thing to throw away agricultural production, or to pour milk in the rivers, and it is something different to heap somewhere rusting old cars, or washing machines, refrigerators, et cetera. As long as the world is divided into rich and poor countries, as it is nowadays, then this is not so bad, such like Bulgaria take all redundant but useful goods as second hand and are even glad, but all this is so for the moment and the tendency is to some equalization, first in the framework of communities (U.S., European Union, CIS with Russia, Arab countries, etc.), and then also in the whole world, because if one community is not closed but open to the others around it, if maintains contacts and trade relations -- well, this is like the communicating vessels, in them soon everything is leveled. Poor and wealthy people will still exist for a long time, until the capitalism exists, but the countries will equalize themselves not later than the middle of the 21st century (with the possible exception of some very unfavorable climatic areas). So that what are we to do later, i.e. what are we to do now?
Well, I have some propositions, but first of all, I think, has to be legalized (and get used to it) some notion for
service live of each durable commodity. There is nothing difficult in this, because it is clear, roughly, how long it will endure, just that now this must be required from the company-producer, in accordance with all needed normatives, where there must exist also the corresponding control organs (for not to begin someone to offer, say, refrigerators with service life of 6 months). For many of the products this will be only one more formality (as, for example, the producing country), but for some high expensive and bulky wares, and in all cases for the cars and more voluminous vehicles, this period must be observed, otherwise will be required to be paid taxes to the state. I will propose three things, which may be applied as and /or. One of them is paying of
tax till the end of service life of the product,
regardless of this whether one uses it, or have thrown it on the garbage (or still keeps it somewhere, if has found a place for it), what reduces to this that if one car has to serve for 12 years, then if somebody buys a new one after 3 years, then he /she must pay a tax for the old one for 9 more years. In case that the thing was sold (with official document), or, respectively, bought back by the shop as compensation, then it is registered to the shop and the latter must pay the tax for it from the day of buying it and to the end of the required period, unless it succeeds to sell it officially as second hand ware, and then the tax goes to the new owner. More than this, for many of the merchandises, for which till now taxes were not collected (like refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, etc.), such taxes will emerge; if the people buy new such things before expiring of the service life of the old ones; there must be also some regulations for this to how many persons (or rooms in the dwelling) is taken for normal to have one such product (say, a TV set or computer can be put in each room, or for each person). It is not at all difficult to exist also some way for acknowledgement if the merchandise is damaged, in which case, naturally, this tax will not be paid. Well, there must be maintained some data bases, but for the contemporary computers this is not a problem more, especially if there goes about 5-10 such goods (per person).
My second proposition is an
excise for new models of long-lasting machinery, which must be in the limits of 10 to 30% of the value of the wares (for cars about 30, for refrigerators -- 20, and for TV sets -- 10%, for example) and it to remain valid during the first several years of the boom (from 3 to 5 years). Out of this will again win directly the state, and I can't see which state will be opposed to one more excise duty, and will lose only about 10% of the clients, who are more prosperous and can't wait until the thing gets cheaper (also by itself, not only because of the excise). As much as such things are produced mainly by big companies, registered for VAT, then there will be no problems for collecting of the tax by the state. And the third thing is obliging of the companies selling such products
to buy back the old similar
products from the clients, returning them from 10 to 20 percents of the value of the thing, where must be also regulations about what to understand under "similar" products (because one may buy living room furniture consisting of sofa with two armchairs and a little table, but to have at home only sofa and two armchairs, or some other variant). This means that each company has to go to the person and see what he has at home establishing in this way what it may return him back, but not less than 10%, and the customer must be in position to choose that one who returns him most, but all this
notwithstanding whether the company will use somehow the obtained back products or will burn them, for example (if this is a furniture set), as also to take over the payment of taxes for the old goods, if such still must be paid.
Well, this may increase the price of the new products but in return the old ones will be used oftener; this may lead also to some socialization of the society, i.e. more suffering will be the wealthy ones, but this is an obvious tendency (unless one specially turns a blind eye -- i.e. the tendency is in this, that the world goes to socialism, no matter that usually not this word is used). At first sight this will increase the unemployment, but in a long run I don't think so, because will be wanted more workers in the services for repairing of the things, by using of the garbage, if the wares are thrown out, and so on, so that everything can be balanced, by good regulation from the top. In this way the progress may slow down a bit, in some areas (of goods for mass consumption), but, my God, where to we are so hurrying? A very fast progress may lead only to sufficiently fast destruction afterwards, or at least to creating of
conditions for fast and strong destruction, which, if will not be satisfied -- well, then will arise
even more drastical destruction. So that if we slow a bit the consumption, at the expense of this we will be in position to direct our efforts to more actual things, for which there is never enough time and money (to new energy sources, healthier feeding, better medical care, better and more individual education, and so on). This will make also our life more quiet, because: for less than a century now is changing the photography, the technique of recording of sound, the telephony, and what else not -- continuing in this way, one just don't know what to study and what will be good for him in the future! Isn't it really clear that from much haste and rushing we can only stumble and fall down (in the next economical crisis)?
And I will to remind you also this, that on this world (and, maybe, on the "other", too) there are only two ways for
incessant moving in one and the same direction (what we also try to do, isn't it, to move always forward and even further forward in the living standard), and they are the following, expressing ourselves in the language of mathematics, as mathematical curves: either
in circle (i.e. in cycle, spiraling etc.), or
in exponent, i.e. always higher and with ever increasing velocity, but so that be always in position to grow even higher and with the same increase of the velocity and acceleration. But the exponent, it is
invented mathematical curve, in the nature "more and more" and ad infinitum for one long period of time does not happen, one day comes time for slump and closing of the cycle. So that some limitation of our consumerist appetites, and done with mild or financial means, would have done us nothing bad (in the long run). One lives happy when he meets with some resistance in satisfying of his desires, not when he may find everything what he wants ready in the shops. We rush greedily to consume because from this wins the business, not because this is healthy for our organisms. But enough emotions, for the next point is in some extent consequence of this.
At the end I will add one more, fourth, variant for increasing of the usability of produced and still good wares, which is applied in various countries, but not in the poor ones, or at least not in Bulgaria. It goes about
charity bazaars, which are organized mainly under the protection of some church and where everybody who has something redundant but still good (like: TV set, refrigerator, bedstead, suit of clothes or other garments, pots, garden equipment, etc.) offers it free to the local governmental institution /church, there are organized temporary committees for assessment of the things (cheap enough and only for the more valuable things), then they are sold and the money remains for the organizer, that does something for the people in the neighbourhood. Together with this there are pair of days in the year (maybe related with some church holidays) when everybody who has unnecessary things at home just
takes them before the house and whoever comes by and likes something he just gets it; the things stay so for some days and what remains is moved to the garbage. If we (as not much religious people) don't know really when to organize such
free markets then I may propose, say: 4.4, 8.8, and 12.12 -- very nice dates, I'll tell you. The only thing that I am afraid of is that by us from early morning will come out the "minorities" and will begin to run around and collect more valuable things in order to sell them later, so that will be necessary for the citizens (well, also for those in the villages) to watch for this, unethical deeds not to happen.
4. The garbage
Surely I will not "discover America" stating that nowadays our garbage grows with significantly faster steps than the galloping world population, because if the people double on the average for 35 years (what, by the way, means for one century exactly 8
times), then the garbage, a priori, doubles in the best case for 20 years (but I an afraid that this happens on the average for 15 years). And grows especially, let us call it so, the "garbage of the prosperity", this what forces to us the "modern" way of life, not the actual household food wastes, as it was earlier, and which today, by my rough estimation, are merely about 20% (in weight) from all that we throw away. More precisely speaking I find that the garbage is divided more or less so: 20% these are old metallic and other durable wares (cars, washing machines, electric stoves, TV sets, etc.), which one rarely throws on the garbage but they are big and obtrusive, state long time, and require many efforts for their destruction; 20% these are wastes from construction or reconstruction (plaster, wallpaper, bathroom tiles, parquet, toilet bowls, if you want -- and even if you don't want --, etc.), which can be used for nothing; 10% is broken glass (bottles, jars, broken window panes), which supposedly are collected separately, but not much seriously, and incompletely, at least by us; 10% are plastics (mostly bottles), which as volume, however, may make up to the half of all garbage, because they are full with air, which we later bury in the earth; 10% is wood (woodwork of windows, old furniture, some crates for vegetables, etc.), which may be burned, but nobody does this; 10% are other industrial wares like fabrics (i.e. clothes, mattresses , and similar things), plastic appliances and others, which seemingly can't be used for whatever; and 20% this is the real household garbage.
Now, this question, surely, is not new, and
something is done about it, but this is not at all enough. My propositions in the case are reduced to two types of measures: for one thing the garbage has
to be collected differentially, so that this, that can be used again, to be used, but in this situation the collecting of many kinds of garbage now is not profitable, so that is
must be made such (at least for the purpose to be made easy their destruction later); and for another thing
to decrease the production of unneeded packaging (wrappings) or ads, without which, definitively, we can also do. Put it otherwise, there are two ways to keep your home clean: either to cleanse it regularly, or to muck less, isn't it? Let us look now in more details to the things.
About using of the garbage: these 20% household garbage were and will always remain the proper garbage, we shall not deal with them (it might be required dividing of this, that decays and turns to fertilizer, from this, that can't, but I think that even if somebody pays us for this, still, the majority of people will not do it). The wastes from construction, however, which give 1/5 of the whole garbage and show no tendency at all to decrease in the near future (because people want to modernize from time to time their homes), must be collected separately and shredded and used for filling of some low places or abysses, or for dikes, or for something of the kind, but in any case they can't be burned or melted. The old sets and appliances, like cars, washing machines et cetera, which are roughly again as much in their weight, first of all must diminish due to the proposed in the previous point measures, and then must be used all that may be taken from them, and the left has to be added (in general terms) to the wastes from construction. The broken glass must be collected also in this way, but to be divided in white and coloured, as this is done in some countries, and to be possible to see what is put in these containers. The plastics, ah, nobody does nothing about it, and it is expected that very soon all glass packaging will be turned into plastic one and then this part will reach about 20%, and by this with all the air in it; hence here either the bottles must be flattened before entering the container, or to be collected often enough and in bigger containers (also transparent, to be seen what is in them), or then their collecting must be made profitable. This "profitablizing" of the things isn't a new phenomenon, it is done sometimes and requires that the state pays higher (maybe 2-3 times) prices, than the actual, but this must be the state for to have better control, because otherwise some of our guys may decide to organize production of empty bottles for returning as scrap. Then the things that can burn must be burned, there is no other way, and if this is not profitable for the people, then there must be again some increased purchase prices -- if you can, then propose something else, but to bury the wood in the earth is just silly. And the textile and some other things that can also burn can be destroyed in this way, too.
Now about the packages: well, why should they always be shining (i.e. to be with some plastic or foil) and more than the needed? Because of the commerce, isn't it? The same also about the printed advertisements. In this respect the business will do nothing to better the situation, because the packaging turn to be cheap enough, so that there must again some other instance to say its word, for example the state, explaining, on one hand, to the people the alphabetical truth (which I tell for some 20 years, but why should somebody listen to me?), that
each advertisement is paid by the client -- because there simply is no one to pay for it! Together with this must be also some financial burdening of the clients and producers, for to make them to show some sense of proportion regarding the packages, where the radical decision is the production of the major part of plastic and paper packaging to become priority of the state and be charged with an excise. I personally very well remember the time when we went to buy yogurt with pots (and it was really thick and they scooped it with big spoons), or that the folks carried their cigarettes in cigarette cases and didn't buy every day hard packages with cigarettes (which later threw away), or that the cooking oil was poured in bottles, the sugar was weighed, and many other wares, too. It is true that the packaged wares are more comfortable for selling, but nowadays, I think, there is nothing else that is used less than a packaging, which is, if not something more, then simply superfluous, it is not from the nature, i.e. it is outside the natural cycles. Until we make (if we can) such cycles (say, bacteria that consumes the plastics), I advise most insistently to refuse the unnecessary packages for single use, and if needed, to introduce excise duties for almost all packages, because this our attitude to the world around us
is not of a good owner, it is of a squanderer (or, to tell it in Italian, because there is sounds pretty comical, of
perdigiorno, 'perdidzhorno', where
giorno is a day).
5. The people
But wait, what wants to tell us this author, will it now come out that the people must also be destroyed, and that we do this, too, not properly? Well, in certain sense, yes, we don't know how to do this, too. But the point isn't in this, that it is better the people, after they leave this world, to be burned instead of buried in the earth. The point isn't only in this, but this question, too, is not solved for all and depends on some religious traditions, where according to me the only reason for which one might have preferred to be buried is that if sometime may become possible some resurrection (not by God, surely, he, being a god, must succeed somehow to cope with this task), then, theoretically, this might happen from some bone cell, and when one is dissolved in atoms then there simply is no way for this. Well, but if this is so, then let everybody save by a hair, clipping of a nail, or, if wants it so, to ... spit in a piece of foam plastic, and leave this in some bank save, and in this way the question will be solved (for the moment). But I don't think that many people will express a wish to be resurrected after a big amount of time, because when one grows old even in the current time it becomes difficult for him /her to live with the young, and what to think about after 5-10 centuries, for example, or at least I do not wish to be resurrected after passing away. But in any case the cemeteries in many cities are already overfilled, occupy perhaps about 10% of the city area, spread on the ground, instead of to be at least in 3-4 storeys, and this having in mind that one will rarely encounter a grave older than a century, and what will be the situation after a pair of centuries, if we continue in this spirit?
But, as I said, the question isn't only in this, it is that we don't know
when and in what way to get rid of some people! For example, by court sentencing of the offenders and sending them in prison, is still considered, at least in USA, but I thing also in every other country, that it is important for the culprit to understand his errors, and is he sane (i.e. not crazy) or not, where the point is wide away from that-- if you ask me --, because the purpose of the sentencing is twofold: on one hand to serve as a lesson for potential future criminals, and on the other hand to isolate this individual from the others because he is dangerous for them. I don't say that it is irrelevant whether one understands his errors or not, but in severe crimes this makes
practically no difference for the society, the important thing is to isolate him and punish him hard. But if this is so, then also the juveniles, and the insane and mentally handicapped (as much as one murderer can be sane), are subjected to
one and the same punishment, and this regardless the fact whether they understand or not their faults. Besides, I have the feeling (who has more precise information in his disposition let corrects me), that nowadays in the prisons and correctional institutions, including the warders, stay about 5% of the population (or one out of 20), because in many cases the convicted were forced to
wait, for to enter the jail, what I find as not at all small figure; and earlier the people there have worked something, but now, by this unemployment rate everywhere, what kind of work one can find for them, so that they just stay there, they are fed, clothed, healed, educated, and so on, and in many cases live better than many of the ordinary free citizens. In short, I want to say, that the keeping of our prisoners comes very expensive for us, with the only excuse, primarily, to be in position to beat our breasts that we are very humane.
Not that we must shot everybody, but: firstly, the
dead penalty is simply necessary, because it is what restrains the criminals, and further, if it comes about terrorists, then they
never will better themselves, so that it is an absolute luxury to leave them alive; secondly,
the prisoners must work something or live in harsh conditions and in remote areas (on islands, if there are such), so that not only to repay what has given, but also to carry some gains to the state, because it is very insolently to want that the good and honest citizens work also for those that are in the prisons; thirdly, by relatively slight offenses, say by financial, the convicted must have some possibility to work off their sentences, instead of to stay in prison, deducting their incomes up to 50%, if needed, and also after going out of prison, if it was necessary to stay there for some time, to be charged with additional "prison" tax, until they succeed to pay off their financial obligations, if they can, to the society; fourthly, each sentenced -- as also each citizen of age -- must have the legal right to chose the death, if he wants, and the society must give it to him in one organized, legal, free of charge, and painless way; fifthly, there are many cases of minor offenses and immoral deeds, for which must be find some way for public accusation of the person and his directing in the right way, and not only when some crime is committed, i.e. there must exist some
moral organs, whose duty is to become interested how a given person lives, what he does not like, what he wants, and is it possible or not, and the people must feel the social environment in which they live, not to fight alone with the injustices, in other words, the world must become more moral (as it was for many centuries); sixthly, there must exist organs (when we are not totalitarian country), which have to study and fight with the
causes for the offenses, not only with the consequences; and surely other things.
If we do not take measures about these questions the terrorism, and the crime between juveniles, will continue to grow, and this for
no reasonable causes, i.e. not because the people have nothing to eat and where to sleep, but exactly on the contrary, because everything is arranged, with the exception of this, that some are greater individualists than the other people and suppose that only they are right. Because, good or bad, but this world is the best of all possible -- otherwise some other would have been established.
There is, however, also another question, not so harmful to the society, but important enough and still
not solved, which arises again because we can't get rid of some not very actively taking part in the life of community people, without excluding them from the left, but just sending them, so to say, in a "sidetrack". I mean the retirement, what is relatively new problem -- arisen this time not entirely in the time of Marx, but rather in that of ... Otto von Bismark, because it turns out that he was who has introduced the social securities in Europe (or at least in Germany) --, for earlier there were not occupational old-age pensions, and only in some exceptional cases (for senior governmental officials, widows of fallen in the battles for fatherland, orphans, and other similar situations), i.e. for 5, maximum 10% of the population, and the other people have worked until they could, i.e. until they "kick the bucket". So that this question is raised and stays so and nobody even
tries to solve it properly, because in the last decades is only moving above the age for pension, more or less synchronously with the growing life span, but this isn't decision of the question (just financial regulation of the funds), on account of the fact that even for a pre-school child is clear that one 50-year-old man, to say nothing about the older ones (or about the women -- because they live longer than the men, but surrender earlier), naturally, is not so efficient as a 20 year old; it is true that exist experience and mastery, but labour productivity falls and fatigability increases, and there some very special mastery is not needed nowadays, by this widespread automation. And then, by this situation, who else can propose something reasonable, if not yours truly author.
Here is the simplest proposition:
after 50 years to allow work, as a rule,
only on half-day basis, with the exception of special decision of the enterprise for each given person, hold every year. This is reasonable proposition because it is compromise, is not either so -- else otherwise, and if begins to be applied then the presence of aging people in the enterprises will diminish, roughly speaking, by half, because they, too, will be glad (for it is not that they don't like to do something, to be useful, they want this, but are just not so fit anymore, even if they went to fitness -- something what they, almost sure, don't do), and the young ones will have more space for development. But this solves the problem for those up to about 60 years, and now we climb also above 65 years, and after some 10 years or so we will reach to 70 years for going on pension, what is a full calamity. And even for these people this is not a good decision, because one first wants to leave the work, and then begins to think with what to occupy himself! And there is no smoothness, the step is only one, to the half.
My next proposition is significantly more acceptable and almost with nothing more difficult for implementation. It is reduced to this that there are
8 levels of reduction of the working time with by one eighth (i.e. 12.5%), which enter by 5 years, beginning with the 50th anniversary, or as follows: at the age of 50 each worker begins to work with 1/8 less time (it may be each day, but the reduction may also be accumulated for the last day of the week), after 55 years is working with 2/8 = 1/4 of the time less (what is obvious that will be felt), after 60 years -- with 3/8 (roughly with 1/3) less, after 65 -- then on half-day basis, after 70 years one works (if they still keep him at work, of course) only 3/8 of the time, after 75 -- only 1/4, after 80 -- the symbolic 1/8 of the working time(every second day for two hours, for example), and only after 85 years and until one wants, even if he goes to work, he receives nothing. But in order to reach one practically ideal equilibrium between this, works one or not, i.e. this to depend on the enterprise, but also on the very person, must be decided also the question with receiving of some pension if he doesn't work, right? The possibility to work when one already receives pension is not a new phenomenon and many people do this, but if they have gone to pension significantly early (say, they have worked in army), while now this will become at 50 years (till which time, if there is not very strong unemployment, and if the tertiary education is counted for length of service, one will have at least 25 years of service, or sufficiently enough for a decent pension) and for all people, what is correct to call
initial retirement; later, after each 5 years, will be possible to add more service, if there will be such, taking into account the part of the working time for this period (but not recalculating the whole service from the beginning). By the contemporary computerized systems there are no problems to make these calculations on ongoing basis and momentarily for all, what will even enhance the collecting of taxes. So that one will receive, say, 3/4 of the salary for 3/4of working time, but also 1/4 of the pension which is due to him till the moment, and when the part of the salary will decrease, then the part of the pension will increase, and not only as percentage but also as length of service, so that somewhere around 65 years for the person will be
just the same whether he will receive salary and pension, or only pension (in sense, that if he continues still to work, he will receive 15 percents or so more money, and his pension will also increase a little, but at the same time he will lose as many percents of his income, because to live at home is much cheaper than out between the people). Well, I simply see no drawbacks.
6. The information
The last thing, that I will rather just touch, is what to do with the informational avalanche, where we are again outside of some cycle, because we only add, but don't delete, where the natural decision (of the nature) is the things somehow to get lost and to remain only little, but what is worth to retain. In this relation I recall one existed between the programmers aphorism, that the church only for that reason succeeded to stay so long, because it knows how to collect, forbid, and spread the information. And we nowadays don't know this, I mean as storied on an
electronic medium, because the books they grow old, and if they are not issued anew they will disappear after some time. Especially alarming is the problem with the Internet, where the only solacing fact is that it is still very new, so that till now we have not had to think about (but when will be forced to do this, will we be in position to do it?). We not only have not some method for gradual loss of what is not used, but we do not divide the things, don't put them on shelves and in different libraries, but throw everything in one heap, or WW-web or net (well, there are different languages, surely, but this has meaning only for the Bulgarian, Hungarian, Estonian, and other similar less spoken languages, yet there are world ones, on which speak milliards of people, where division simply does not exist; besides, this is not division exactly by languages but by countries and /or alphabets).
Said in another way, till now we just boast that have so much "gigas" and "teras" in one place that can write everything -- because we, really, can store
all textual information of the humanity, so to say, each pronounced word by whoever, or even
by all people on the world! And mark the word "textual", as characters, because if one photo, for example, is somewhere around 2 MB (1000 by 1000 pixels and by 2 bytes for the colour), then the same volume will have the ... collected works of Shakespeare, or the Bible, or Mark Twain, or whom you prefer (only Lenin will take place as for 2-3 photos, and Agatha Christie or Simenon will require, maybe, about 4), because as much characters give also 1000 pages by 2000 characters in them. There may be problems with analog information (represented in digital way), as sound, pictures, and mainly as "moving" pictures (for movies), but there, too, the capacities of repositories grow with wild rates (until we reach nearly atomic level, maybe).
So in passing arises another problem, for which I give also the corresponding solution; this problem is that we have not ... words for more than giga (10^12) things, and the decision will become clear now, but let me give first some explanations of the previous names. The kilo comes from the gluing together in heaps (like the words
kley-glue, in Russian, or then your cluster); the
mega is of the kind of magazines (what usually, at least in Slavonic languages) means big shop; the
giga is from the Greek giants; and the
tera, obviously, is from the terra-earth. Well, then let us continue in this spirit: after this (1000 times bigger thing) comes
soli -- from the Solar system; then (again multiplied by 1000)
gala -- from the galaxy; then (once more time by 1000)
hypi (for the Russians, maybe,
gipi) -- from the hyper space (whatever it may be, or at least from the very big hyper something); and at the end (again by 1000) is the universal Universe, what should have been
uni, but I think that it sounds better as
guni. For completeness of the observation, but without much thorough thinking, because I doubt that so much stronger diminishing will be necessary, will give also the decrementing (again by 1000 times) units, which are: mile, micro, nano, pico, plus the new:
fifi,
sisi,
tutu ('tyutyu'),
nono.
7. Conclusion
If we sum up the major moments of this essay may be said that we, the humans, have never been able to destroy properly this, what is necessary to be destroyed, but try to destroy that, what we can, because the passion for destruction is deeply hidden in our genes. Till before a century and a bit more we have coped more or less (using not at all always legal ways, is righteous to be added, when we live in legal state) with these problems, regardless the cruelties or murders, because on the background of this, what the nature has served us (like epidemics and other cataclysms) we alone have not harmed ourselves especially strong. With the significant increasing of the power of mankind, however, and the distancing of the destruction from our personal presence at the very place, it turns out that now we have not more the right to destroy so spontaneously; as also that with the introduction of artificial materials, which are not part of natural cycles, becomes necessary to close compulsory these cycles, wasting additional energy and time for unnecessary (at the first sight) destruction, because we apply also unnecessary (from the point of view of the nature) creation. Long ago was time to start returning to the nature, to learn how to fit in it, and change
not the nature, but ourselves, when have begun to make changes on our own initiative.
August 2011
APPENDIX
Crashing's Not Easy
Why the children want to crash,
And throw things, and break, and smash?
Well, they want just to
create,
And for them destruction's great.
Why men like to fight in wars,
To combat and scatter blows?
Well, for them to ruin is
Often their masterpiece.
But the children are excused
For to build they are not used.
Wheºre grown men are much worse
For they like to shatter first.
All in all, in every deed
Some destruction you will need,
And if even you are God
You must wield the crushing rod.
Year, but if the case is such,
You first ponder and then touch,
Do it caºrefully, calm,
Don't spread horror but give balm.
Otherwise, or if for fun
You've done it, -- the case's not done.
For, flown certain proper time,
And your work costs not a dime.
That's because the things
react,
They regroup and build new packs,
And in turn make you regret
Silly brandishing the bat.
And especially that's true
When to folks you something do,
For they can
accumulate
And return, but when it's late.
So you hit and you are hit
Growing clever not a bit.
Hence, you better don't give blows
To avoid much ahs and ohs.
July 2011
ABOUT THE WOMAN AND THE MAN
I. The Woman
The woman is the best friend of the man, better, obviously, than the pet animals! This does not mean that the reverse statement is not true, but in the beginning we will speak about the woman, so that let us be content for the moment with this partial truth, and as far as in our review we shall resort to analogies with animals we may call her also female, and let us try to find some common characteristics of the female individual by the people (i.e. of the ancient Yin or
Ing etc. -- it depends on the language). The typical features are collective and this does not hinder the existence of many exceptions from the rules in various concrete cases, but, how it is known, the exceptions only confirm the rules (with their exceptionality), and, if you want, we may speak about masculine features by the women and vice versa (something what is mass phenomenon), but the piquant moment here is that these exceptions manifest itself most often by the homosexuals, where they are just
compelled to show (although the sexual orientation is not necessary for their manifestation). Each of the two sexes in its individual developing is built on the basis of a kind of neutral or "children" sex, and after certain age comes again to it, so that it is reasonable to retain in itself features from the other sex; in this sense is useful to think that the neutral sex is such in which features
from both sexes are present but there is no clear predominance of one of them, and not that it has neither masculine, nor feminine features. We will not only list these moments but will also motivate them going from the primary goal for prolongation and development of the kind (what, in fact, are two different things, to which we shall dwell later on), trying to show their unavoidable necessity (i.e. the life could not have existed otherwise when there are two extremely different types of individuals). The features which we will formulate are valid mainly in the sphere of continuation of the gender or in the sex and family, while in other activities they may not show themselves, as also be modified to their opposites, what, however, does not mean that they are not true; these characteristics make the bottom line in the actions of the man and the woman, or motivate them, though their manifestation may be suppressed by the influence of other factors. Many of the statements may sound shocking, but then this is the main "charm" of the cynicism, that in the search of truth it reveals many widespread delusions and thus unavoidably shocks the masses.
1. As far as the main purpose of the woman is to continue the human race then
she, inevitably,
is the conservative element in this process, because to "conserve" is synonymous with preserve, or prolong the existence. A short linguistic consultation with the English leads us to the spread for the woman designation "birth box", and even the very name "woman" there must be simplified writing of the combination womb + man, and you know that the "b" in the first word is not read, so that it should have been written as "womman" but the second "m" has disappeared
*. Similar is also the origin of the Russian word
zhenshchina (or Bulgarian
zhena), which comes from the Greek
gyneka (γιναικα), what is related with the root
gen (gene, or
jin, written
cin, in Arabic -- well, in Turkish, but the word is Arabic) and means "spirit, idea for something", i.e. for the life. So, and conservative individual will say that the woman wants just the same worldly things -- food, shelter, satisfaction from life -- and this in the interest of posterity (what means
for herself, because in her view she is the posterity), and should not be considered in sense that she wants for them to be
exactly the same in their kind, because the principal quality of life is its diversity and changing. In other words, the woman is conservative
in her goal for continuation of the gender, but not in the ways in which she performs this! So happens that the conservative female is
not at all conservative in relation to the tranquility of the others around, but is directly revolutionary in her wishes -- as quantitative (mainly), so also qualitative -- and in this way is cause for the majority of induced by the humans disasters and cataclysms in the society. From here stems the well known phrase:
cherchez la femme, or "search for the woman" (then, when there are no other reasonable causes for a given event). Similar meaning is hidden in the Biblical fable about the apple of the knowledge, where the woman is who turns to be the cause for all subsequent disasters for the humanity. Not only the Trojan war in ancient times, which according to the legends was fought for certain Helene, but also most of the wars, due to their economical causes, arise from the care for the offspring, or the birthing appliance. All aspirations for easy and wealthy life come again from the conservative woman's understanding that exactly this is the purpose of life (not that this is not so also for many men, but they have other stimuli and quickly become bored by the easiness, while the woman may be bored only by the insufficient degree of her desires). But the most conservative quality of the women is so important that we assign to it the next point.
[ * Let us not go into details about the exact etymology of the word "woman" because it is not only questionable, but gives also nothing useful, for via some old "wifmon" sends us to the name "wife", where the question about the hidden in the word ideas again remains, and then, if it is so, may be added that for the Slavonic ear this "wifmon" sounds nearly the same as their
vime, what means -- I beg your pardon -- udder, what doesn't sound more flattering for the women. ]
2. From both sexes the feminine is the most egoistic one, because life is based on fight for supremacy of each individual over the others and against the others. The continuation of individual gender stays above the continuation of the kind, as far as this depends on the female; no such one will prefer the life of other's children before those of her own, for example, or will admit (without battle, as it's said) that the children of the others are better than hers, when they are really better (with the stipulation about the exceptions). If the woman had given life to thousands of children (as the queen bee, as an example), then she would not have been so egoistic and would have looked at all other's children as at her own, i.e. she would have cared first of all about the kind, but with a pair of children she just has no other choice. Along with the egoism goes also the
partiality and the
lack of objectivity of the female, and this non-objectivity is raised on such height, that for it exists special term named "mother's love". And this love is exactly so much
unfair as the life which we live! As far as our life is a series of coincidences, or play of the genes, for which one should not be held responsible, it is also utterly unjust to the people, because they are praised and punished for things depending, not so much on themselves, as on genetically placed in them, so that if the females were not as much unjust to the foreign and biased to the own offspring, for
to compensate for the hardships of life, then at least 90% of the children in the families would have lived as in asylums for homeless, because at least so much of them are ordinary middle (and even retarded and inapt) children and, hence, there are no reasons for showing of some special love to them. Surely that the men, too, are partial to their children, though this usually does not extent to injustice to the other ones and does not border with hatred to them, neither lessens the need for punishment of their children, but is based on the logic (that if they can't teach all other's children to something useful, then they can teach at least their own breed).
All thoughts of the woman, looking objectively, come from coarse egoism and the conviction that she is better and more beautiful than the other women, that her children are the best, that her husband is the: cleverest, wealthiest, strongest, and so on (or at least he is obliged to be such), where this reaches to the extremity of envy and hatred to everything foreign. It may be definitely stated that one genuine woman is motivated in her actions
first of all by the envy to the others and the hatred to them! If she wants something, then this is because some other one already has it and is with nothing better than her (in her own view). Even the owning of some man is for her a matter of personal pride, that she has succeeded to attract him and has not left him to some other one; the well known jealousy is mainly feminine feature (although it can be found also by men), because two men much easier would have shared one woman between them, if needed, than two women one man (it also from physiological point of view the latter is more difficult). The egoism of the woman is unequalled and this is very conservative feature, which might have had negative effect by one reasonable form of organization in the society (inasmuch as such form can exist), but it is necessary for the continuation of the kind! The only way to overcome this (if at all necessary) is the artificial extrauterine conception, which would have given opportunity for equalizing in the partiality to the children from the side of the man and the woman. Nothing surprising if this happens after a century or two, but till that moment the woman will remain the most egoistic, most malicious, most unjust, and most anarchical social individual, what is consequence of her conservatism in the life goals (as also of the absence of one very important masculine characteristic, to which we shall come by the analysis of the man). This is
neither good, nor bad -- it is just natural (or due to God, if you like it better so) ability of the bisexual way of life and is easily observed also by the animals, where, say: the bitch barks most of all (and bites, too), and this maliciousness is true also for the other mammals; the female of the praying mantis (an insect) devours the masculine exemplar after the fertilization in order to ensure the needed for her and posterity hormones; the feminine lasciviousness by the humans and the animals exceeds the masculine (and the sexual drive is an egoistic manifestation), et cetera.
3. Another important feminine characteristic is her
maximal nearness to the source of life, or
to the ... animal, i.e. her animalistic nature. The man, too, as thinking animal, appears to be some animal, but in him, still, exists something intellectual, something from God, which is not present by the animals, while the woman is the most beastly variety of the humans, and this isn't some quibble but long ago remarked (and fixed in all religions) singularity. This explains also why the woman is more brutal, more unscrupulous, more lustful, wilder, and more primitive part of the humanity, what also is neither bad nor good, but just a necessity! If the woman does not eat up the man after copulation, like this mantis insect, for example, or does not put him in the pot after having been impregnated by him in order to secure later breast milk for the child, then this does not mean that she can not let him down and leave him when he grows old, or poor, of falls in disgrace, or after she ceases to love him, i.e. after he has fulfilled his purpose (and in the majority of cases the divorces and suites for child support nowadays are initiated by the part of the woman, not the man, and this in the era of emancipation, when the women win not less than the men). This in most cases is a normal reaction, because of the care for the posterity, but sometimes is come to the so called "instinct of the brooding hen", which in her efforts to warm the chickens under her squashes once in a while some of them. It is true that the man, too, can occasionally behave like a female, but by him this not only rarely happens, by him the very reaction has more civilized character and goes, as a rule, to some degree of
indifference, where by the woman the rule is: from love -- to hatred, what is the most primitive animal reaction to increasing emotional irritant (see "About the Creation"), so that the conclusions remain valid for a typical or average woman.
4. Another feminine quality, which also is consequence of her conservatism in the continuation of the gender is her
mediocrity and imperfection. The continuation of life is the most important goal in nature and it
can't be entrusted to an extraordinary individual, because nobody (even the mere God) can't predict to what this could lead when some time passes, but then it will be too late to better the things! The mediocrity is
obligatory requirement for the birth box and this is unavoidable consequence of one well organized reproductive system. By the humans this characteristic is quite disguised (because of the intellect of the men, supposedly, who had preferred to spread some pleasing for the women fabrications and compliments), but between the animals is obvious that the male exemplar is who
must be (and he is) more beautiful and attractive with something, for example: by the deer -- with the antlers, by the canaries -- with the song, by the peacock -- with the tail, by the bulls (and the men, too) -- with the strength, and so on. And now compare the woman for a longer period, say, from 15 to 75 years, with the masculine exemplar for each age -- only somewhere between 15 and 25 years might be said that the woman is the more beautiful one, but this is mainly for erotic reasons, and the point is questionable, while a man looks attractive at 40, and at 50, and at 70, simply as a perfect natural creation.
The female is usually plain and mediocre: in her appearance, and in her intellect, and in her strength, and in what else not, but this mediocrity, at the other hand, because it means "
in the middle", is exactly this, what she needs for to withstand easy normal living conditions (and some extreme, too), in order to succeed to fix in the posterity the essential characteristics of those males who happen to survive, because, as by the animals, so also by the humans,
the females are the most enduring exemplars. These are experimentally and statistically confirmed facts. If someone prefers to remain in delusion about the question then this is one's own right, but this phenomenon has easy explanation based on the fact that the female is who makes the choice, i.e. she plays the
active role in the continuation of gender, while the male does this, what the female wants him to do! Cynically or not but the male is the obedient (and silly, if you want) figure in the continuation of gender, while the female is the mediocre exemplar, which chooses for herself the exceptional individual (as she chooses a beautiful flower to decorate herself), and this is entirely justified requirement.
The mediocrity of the woman expresses itself first of all in the fact that she is one imperfect or
not yet
finished individual (what linguistically is from the same root), meaning her physical, psychical, and intellectual features. Even the very woman feels this, when for millenniums she resorts to various means to beautify or "make up" herself (at least this is what says this English word, which is, in fact, French, to enhance, heave, add something), and this that some men, too, use makeup -- well, it is explainable with their feminine qualities (especially in adolescence when the individual is not finally formed), what we touched in the beginning. The woman can't exist without a man, because she will lack the purpose of her existence, while the man can quietly do without woman, by the procurement of vital products, as also by the filling of his time with some creative or playing activities. As far as the woman is the birth box of the man she is also his appendage and has
no independent existence, i.e. she is incomplete and imperfect! But then, on the other hand, she is entirely perfect birth box, what might been paraphrased so, that:
the woman is perfect in her imperfection as independent individual! And here we may not touch the man's intellect, in order not to diminish the validity of our review also for the animals, but likewise because the human being is of those who don't like much to use their intellect, if can do fine without it.
Well, but to avoid the possibility the author to be accused of saying only compromising the woman things, let us say also something good (at least according to him) -- one nice definition, better than this about the birth box, namely that: "the woman is the
post box of the man to his posterity". In spite of the fact that the feminine anatomy has some hole (only that it is more elastic than that of the real post boxes), and her "box" is initially good sealed (for to protect it from meteorological and other conditions before use), the meaning of this sentence isn't in the geometrical analogy, but first of all in the
go-between role of the woman, because the man can't alone send his "letter" (although he has a special "pen" to write it), as well also in her
intermediate place between him and the children -- intermediate in sense of intellect, but also of other abilities. Exactly this intermediate position of the woman is important for raising of the offspring, at least till the children are young, what is something that neither satisfies the searching personality of the man, nor is in accordance with his abilities. And also, genetically looked at, the man is who establishes the most important feature of the offspring -- its sex -- and who, most often, has dominant genes (though here, too, can be exceptions). So that the role of intermediary is necessary (when we do not multiply by budding and cloning) and certain amount of specialization is also needed, because if every human individual was bisexual then the most often intercourse would have had self-reflexive character, and this would have greatly diminished the so needful in nature diversity.
II. The Man
In our continuation of viewing the describing of characteristics of the masculine individual (old Yang or
Jang) is reduced essentially to negation of those of the feminine, but, still, these conceptions need some elaboration.
1. In contrast to the female,
the male is first of all
searching personality,
which, with many risky moments,
aims to ensure, not the continuation, but
the evolution of the kind, i.e. its modification according to the changing of outside conditions. Taking into account that the productivity of the man is such, that even by the "conventional" way of reproduction one male exemplar can beget hundreds and thousands of children, and with artificial insemination we reach now to millions, it turns out that the necessity of men is at least hundred
times less. By the animals the latter is entirely valid and there one male attends to tens or so females, where the hunters and ecologists find justified to diminish the number of males even more. In the ancient times of human history the situation might have been the same also by various savage tribes, because of the hard living conditions and the numerous battles between them, but in contemporary times in the civilized countries the polygamy is prohibited (most probably by initiative of the men, to justify the need of as much men as women), but this isn't quite fitting for the posterity. However it may be, we shall return to this in the next section, and now let us continue with the male individual.
The most characteristic expression of the searching male principle is his
passion for game and this, in fact, is the goal in life of the man, due to what is performed not trivial continuation of gender, but
evolvement. For the man everything is game or play, including the life itself! You know that in English "game" is hunting but also play, amusement, because the hunting is the game of the man, or at least it was so during many centuries of human history, until the playing machines, and later on the computer games, have been devised; in the Czech language exist the word
herna, which does not mean ... male toilet, as some of you might have thought (from German
Herr), but playing hall, though this is again some place for men; and in Russian the word
ohota means hunting, but also strong wish, from the point of view of the man (because you have hardly seen women to go hunting). And then what is the war for the man, if not one dangerous game (or at least it was a game to the end of 18th century, more or less, when there began to disappear the difference between front and rear, due to the unrealized population density -- something about what we shell speak in the essay "About the population")? And what is the career for the man, if not one interesting social game? And the share market? And how many are the women (in reproductive age, not when nobody counts them for women), who you will see to play backgammon, bridge,
belote, or chess -- well, exactly as many as to emphasize the exceptionality of these activities for them! And isn't the science also a game with the secrets of nature? And other examples.
2. Contrary to the egoism of the female here is present the evident
collectivism of masculine individual, especially by the humans, where the males are those who like to gather in big groups, were it in fighting units, were on sporting events, were in clubs and cafes. The man, most often, is the one, who is more capable of
unselfish acts, of gentlemanly deeds, of
justice (or fair play, how it is known almost everywhere), and for whom is invented the term honour (because you very well know that for the women this word has entirely different meaning). Even on wars he kills out of necessity, not out of malice and hatred (or at least it is so in the majority of cases). This isn't hard to be explained with the motivation for his actions, which is to reveal himself with something good
before the others, with something that is valued by the others, or, at least, what is interesting for him,
regardless of the needs for continuation of the kind (or for personal gain). Even when the man shows himself as egoist he does this out of collectivistic motives, in the name of the family or group to which he belongs, while the woman, even when she shows collectivism, she does this out of egoistical motives, to preserve her children. This is not an apotheosis of the man but realism. And it may be formulated even stronger sentence, namely:
the woman creates love going out from hatred, while the man -- hatred out of love! But there is nothing to be done -- inexplicable are the ways of God, or the way to hell is strewn with good intentions, or one wants one thing, does another, and it comes out something third, because neither he has known himself, as the ancient Greek wise men have wanted, nor can change something in the genetically given to him, unless to submit to the dictate of sex, which requires that the woman preserves the kind, while the man supplements and improves it (if remains alive). This is a requirement of
minimal necessary mutation in the gender, which works with the slowness of millenniums, but it, still, works.
3. While the woman is near to the animal then
the man is near to God, or the reason (if we do not use the hypothesis of God). This is direct consequence of other characteristics of the man and especially of his intellect, this underdeveloped human instinct (which is treated in the essay "About the intellect"), while by one average woman is hardly to expect a notable intellect (at least higher than the average one), because
she does not need intellect in the continuation of the gender (the sex may be whatever, but not an intellectual activity!). The very manifestation of intellect, in fact, is something extraordinary and perfect (to what we shall come after a while), and it is naturally to expect for it to be owned mainly by the men; the fact that there are many bright women does not mean that this is frequent phenomenon but on the contrary, and it is explainable in the majority of cases with some
other shortcomings of the given woman (most often physically), which make her to search
compensation in the intellectual sphere, because clever and beautiful woman is one, hmm, colossal contradiction (at least until she is still woman in the sexual meaning of the word), and this is the reason why such women are hugely honoured (because the demand is determined by the supply)! At the same time the clever men have
never been especially demanded, while the strong ones, or wealthy, or beautiful (at least till they are such) are much demanded, what has to say that the intellect between the men is an usual thing (although the situation is not entirely hopeless for the clever men, too, if they are
in addition to this also, for example, wealthy). This state of things, however, is wholly justified from the point of view of the dividing of activities between the man and the woman, where the woman remains nearer to the animal, where from we have come, and the man tries to be nearer to the divine intellect, where to we, by the by, are moving.
4. The man, not only because of the put in him features, but also because of his incessant ambition for self expression over the others,
is the most perfect and exceptional of both sexes. This is, maybe, the main reason why in Christian religion (but also in the others) the image of God (or of the superior god) is always image of man, although it is more natural this to be a woman, because she creates life or gives birth (like Gea, in Greek mythology). It is true that everyone is convinced that the woman gives birth, but no religion will win supporters if its principal god is not with the image of the perfect, extraordinary and omnipotent masculine individual. This, obviously, is related with the notorious cult to the phallus, which goes back thousands of years, but could you imagine if instead of this there was one to the corresponding (it is said homological) feminine organ? Well, your author has not so gleaming fantasy and can't envision such cult. So that, as strange as it may seem, but the people, still,
have a sense of beauty and harmony! Though this, that the man is the perfect individual, does not mean that the men are perfect in
every single respect, nor that this perfection is always something good (for there are perfect alcoholics, for example). Still, the rule is that the man reaches some perfection in a given area (in order to try, though unconsciously, to pass it to his posterity), while the one and only perfection of the woman is her mediocrity, as we have marked this earlier.
But this perfection carries in itself also its consequences, because the male individuals, being more various in the set of their qualities, are also more susceptible to external factors like: unfavorable weather conditions, greater vulnerability to various diseases, including psychical, more intensive metabolism, aggravated by their bigger sizes, more risky nature of their work, in relation with that of the women, et cetera. In two words, this means that exactly
the men are the weaker sex, in contrast with the widely spread delusions (again due to the men, for to flatter the women once more time), where "weak" has to be understood as an averaged characteristic of the men. At the same time the record achievements, say, in sports, sciences, arts, etc., belong all to men, i.e. to
some men, while for non extremal activities the women are, definitely, the better sex, and that is why they are those who are engaged with various monotonous, unpleasing, or not requiring special mastery activities. Put it otherwise, the men are the
more specialized individuals, which could bring something new in the genetic code of the kind, and that is why there are enough a few men (but many "post boxes").
5. But there is one more substantial element by the men, which, surely, is not present by the women (and that is why we have not mentioned it there), and this is
the sense of proportion! It is related with the reason, or even with the wisdom, because in our contradictory world the most important thing is to find the needed
point of equilibrium, something what has been known already in Ancient Greece (and even earlier) -- the slogan "Nothing excessive!". This is a kind of instinct, which has some analogue by the women -- the so called "woman's intuition", which is again on instinctive basis (but this is only similar thing, without to correspond in full with the sense of proportion, because the women, as a rule, don't have it) -- and this instinct is very important for achieving of correct, i.e. well balanced, actions (for to reach to extremes can also an imbecile). Maybe it will be interesting to explain here
why the man (as a rule) has sense of proportion, and the woman has not (and that is why she is the most: lustful, cruel, and so on "most" being)? Well, the answer is directly related with the roles of both partners in the sex, where is known that the woman ...
always can (say, 15-20 coituses daily, I beg your pardon, would not have caused any special difficulties), while the man -- sometimes can, but sometimes can not! This, that the man may not always be in position to do it, willy-nilly, forces him (from an early age) to become used to search the right measure also in entirely different things; this does not happen consciously, but it becomes a habit, instinct, where the woman has no such internal urge and that is why she knows only to want (were this men, were it clothes, were it to be discontented by everything). And if after all stated here turns out that for the man were said chiefly good things, while for the woman -- only unpleasant things -- well, and what have you expected from a cynic to tell you?
III. The Parents
The last section is dedicated to the union between these two diametrically opposed types of individuals by the bisexual animals, or to the pair of genitors, to their mutual relations in establishing of the dynamic equilibrium between them in the interest of continuation and evolvement of the kind. In the essay "About the mankind" we explain that the society still has no nervous system, and the only strong natural link between the individuals in it is the pair of genitors (we may say matrimonial couple, but existence of religious or legal marriage is not necessary). Such pairs exist by all bisexual animals (and also there, where is some kind of organization, like by the bees, for example), but it is not necessary to understand exactly by one individual of both sexes -- just that the sex cells which become inseminated (if it comes to this, of course, but this is what is supposed) are always two different, though how this situation has happened is not important. This pair, however, is the most stable unit in the human society, and this that the very word "individual" (
individuum) in Latin means "indivisible" should not mislead us to think that the smallest indivisible unit is also the smallest stable one. The questions that arise here are generally the following.
1. Establishing of the superiority of one of the sexes, or: who "runs the show"? Let us leave aside the insects and other mammals and take the humans in focus. Most generally looked there exist two variants of ruling: of one of the sexes, or else some, as it's said, vertical division of functions, i.e. of spheres of ruling of each of them. If there one rules, it remains also the question who exactly, and if there is vertical division then again some supervisory control over this division is necessary, so that this variant is also the more difficult for realization, requiring deciding of the question who will be the supervisor. By the classical variant of one man and one woman
is excluded each other possibility for voting, or building of ruling body. Besides, the very governing is rightly to be divided in two types, namely in:
strategy, or establishing of the general line, and
tactics, or immediate ruling of the actions, just as in one democratic government exists body for strategic planning or determining of the requirements (the Parliament), and ruling authorities (the Government). But it, the contemporary democracy, is one absolute mess (see "About the democracy"), because the Parliament is not only strategic body but also legislative, what means that it performs tactical activities, too (the making of laws requires higher professionalism), as also the Ministries may in principle be tactical bodies, but this without the elected Ministers (which normally don't know anything about the specific domain), so that it will be better to take as example one big company, where one group keeps the money and consequently determines its strategy, and another one executes the actual production (commerce, etc.). In this sense may be said that there is one hidden or offstage manager, as well as one who does the very ruling -- and such is the case also with the matrimonial couples. The strategy here, obviously, is determined by the continuation of the gender or the kind, and the tactics -- by its developing! This unambiguously makes
the woman the strategist of the family, and the man -- the tactician!
Historically looked at the things, in the earlier stages of human society has existed matriarchy, but later on everywhere has been established patriarchy, what ties well with out conclusions, because at the dawn of human existence was more important to fulfill the strategy for continuation of the gender, while in later ages this was relatively easy, but to the fore has come the necessity of performing of correct tactics for improving of the human race (or gender, nation). Put it otherwise:
the matriarchy has existed when the life was very
difficult, while later on, when it became easier, the patriarchy has been established! As far as it is absurdity to insist that life in current times is harder than it was in primitive communal system, it is clear that now and in the near future
the patriarchy will be the best way for governing of the families, but this does not mean that the woman ceases to be the strategist or the hidden ruler, or the "neck", as some say -- just the tactics nowadays is more important and that is why the tactician-man comes to power. This also does not hinder the man, fulfilling in addition the role of supervisor, to select some sphere of activity in which the woman to be the ruler, say, in bringing up the offspring in young age (or the household work). And it isn't obligatory for the governing to be unavoidably hierarchical, it is possibly that each level modifies the functions of the other level (heterarchy). The governing, anyway, is not an easy thing, so that whoever is afraid of this then he or she may not contract marriage, eventually.
2. The next moment is the
quantitative proportion between both sexes: either to be one to one, or one to many (and who is to be the one), or many to many -- realistically all variants are possible (and are applied time and again), so that we shall explore them in succession.
a) Let us begin with the classical and approved throughout the civilized world variant "
one to one". This, that something is widely spread, of course, should not be criterion for its rightness and expediency (just as for many centuries in the medicine was widely applied bloodletting, were it prophylactically -- with a kind of worms named leeches, were it healingly -- through cutting of blood vessels, without this being at all scientifically grounded now), so that let us abstract from the accepted in the moment and investigate a but the pluses and minuses of this proposition. From the point of view of the man this is one quite good choice, because to each man is allotted one woman, and this is better than nothing! The same is true also for the woman, although she might have preferred, possibly, to have 4-5 males, but the sex is not the single moment in the continuation of gender, and then the so called "sultan's harem" is much more unsuitable for her, so that she may put up with this situation. From the view point of the nature, or of the necessity for continuation and developing of the genus, this is one good variant, especially if combined with the possibility for divorces and with the emancipation (to which we shall come after a while). So that, on the whole, the commonly accepted variant is good enough to be used also in the future.
b) The next variant is one man for many women, or the "
sultan's harem", which is the worst variant for the averagely taken man (i.e. if he is not a sultan, or has not enough money to buy himself ten or so women), because the peculiarity of the case is that it
is not applied well with a pair of women -- they will most probably scratch out their eyes, and the man will be forced to buy later other ones -- while with ten or more, the women, in their wish to hate one another, become confused and by the by learn to get along one with the other, because the sultan, anyway, visits them quite rare! Most successfully this approach was applied by the biblical king Solomon, who, as they say, have had thousand wifes and concubines and still succeeded to cope with them. If one man has not enough money for women, and from here for continuation of his gender, then nobody hinders him to enroll in the army and in this way to lessen a bit the affluence of men in the country; or he is left with the homogeneous sex for consolation. But if this method is good at least for the wealthy men, then it is the most unsuitable for the women, because they are rarely used (in the old times, occasionally, an eunuch has helped a little, but this was only substitute, something like, say, the caffeine-free coffee -- has similar taste but the effect is not the same). From the point of view of the continuation and developing of the gender this might have been good if it was obvious that the wealthy men are also the most endowed in genetic and other aspects, but this is not the case, so that also in this sense this variant is not acceptable. It is possible some modification if in particular way (e.g. by euthanasia) is diminished the number of masculine individuals, and even better if via timely diagnosis of the sex of the future child (about the first-second month of the pregnancy) and subsequent painless abortion is maintained proportion of men to women as one to ten. If this is done randomly the nature will be more or less satisfied, the men, being very few, will remain satisfied, but the women, again, will be in the worst situation, even worse than by the harem (because there will be no eunuchs). So that, all in all, it isn't bad that this variant is rejected by the contemporary society, because it has more drawbacks than advantages.
c) The third variant is reciprocal to the latter and it is "
harem of men", if we may name it so. For the man there is nothing good in this, though is possible to be applied the time sharing method of servicing the woman by the males -- stipulated that their number and the continuation of ... her cycle are mutually prime numbers (if we use the language of mathematics -- in order not to turn out that one and the same man is always the loser), but may be used also some grouping in permanently or varying groups of men. For the woman this variant is good enough, but must be mentioned that here is preferable if the group does not exceed 4-5 men, for to avoid bigger complications and bloodshed between them. From the point of view of the natural requirements, however, this is pure
overuse of "planting material", and the nature likes elegant decisions! Here also is possible the modification with the decreasing of the percentage of women, what will make this method the best one for
all women, but the other minuses remain. So that, on the whole, this method is the worse of all discussed till the moment and maybe that is why it is not applied nowadays, but will not arise some necessity for it in the future can't be said definitely.
d) The fourth variant of "
many to many" has several varieties, because the one "many" may not equal the other one, but as far as this does not bring special changes in the observation we will consider equal (or almost such) quantity of men and women. Such communities exist by some religions (the Mormons, if I am not in error), so that this isn't pure abstraction, and besides, in this way is alleviated the question of superiority, where may exist some governing body of the community. From the point of view of the man this is quite good variant, where for the continuation and developing of the gender it is
the best from all. This method can be applied, for example, by two present-day families, and it isn't that this does not happen sometimes. There exists also a variety good for a big apartment building, or for an entry in it, where the low three floors are filled by three children ages (beginning with the kindergarten), then follows the floor with the common kitchen and dining area (there may be also small booths -- why not?), and above this follow modest apartments for each man or woman. In this way we come, in fact, to some modification of Plato's Republic, where all children must have been common and property of the nation. By this "big building" variant can easily be had also guest rooms in disposition, so that the likeness to the Plato's ideal becomes full. In this way can easily be realized at last the dream of the Frenchman, namely: going on the street to have all reasons to fondle each met child -- for, who knows, it may happen to be his own? Despite the comic character of the situation there is nothing unnatural in this case, except that it is not
yet accepted, but it may become reality in a pair of centuries, on the background of growing emancipation and eventual extrauterine conception in the future.
If the main characteristics of the male and female individual change and equalize, remain in force only the requirements for developing and bettering of
the kind, which come to substitute the classical form of belonging of the children to their mothers and taking care only for one's own posterity (for the children this variant will be worse, but nothing hinders some mother to take care also for her
own child, as long as she can find enough time for this). In one sufficiently developed society there are all reasons to suppose that the minimal unit (the family in the moment) will
grow further, comprising greater and greater part of the society (though it may also diminish to one parent, where to we, as it looks, are moving), and in this way will create prerequisites for greater organization in it, because the goal of each system is to organize itself better.
3. Let us at the end look also at the question of
emancipation of the woman, which is one, still, misunderstood process. Originally this word means liberation or escaping of the woman (from the yoke of man) and this is the right treating, but the women are not between those who will begin to think much, and also often lose their sense of proportion (as much as they have it), so that they have no reasons to be vexed when somebody (like your author) calls them emanci
patesses -- for that is how correctly must be build a noun of feminine gender from the verb "emancipate" (but the point here is that the salt of the invented word in Bulgarian -- "emanci
patka" -- is that the ending "
patka" as a whole word means ... a goose, she-duck). So these
Emanze (now according to the Germans), in the worst case (which they don't dare to admit, but nevertheless think so) imagine that this movement is for establishing of
superiority of the women or matriarchy, what we have shortly explained to be motivated with nothing absurdity, and in the better case understand this as equality of the woman with the man, but to look for equality where the nature has created the biggest possible difference (Yang -- Yin) can enter the head only of a typical woman, because this
contradicts to the common sense! It can be spoken about equality before the law, or for equal with the man
position of the woman, what is one big achievement of the 20th century, although this shook vigorously various set norms in the society, but it was unavoidable, going out of the many social changes and increased standard of life throughout the world. But let us be clear that one real equal positioning of the woman with the man can at most lead to ...
proving of her inequality with the man!
Generally speaking, when we talk about equality this means also that, for example: the woman must also be subject to military service, when the man is; the man must also learn to breast-feed, or then the woman is to give it up (this latter thing now became a mass phenomenon); that the man has to learn how to give birth, when the woman does this (what, according to the radio Yerevan, has not yet happened, but the experiments still continued), or, what is easier, the woman has also to cease to do it (what is not at all a chimera with the possibility for extrauterine conception); that by divorces the children should not be given as a rule to the mother (how it is from the Roman law) but only the girls to her while the boys -- to the father (if they are older than, say, three years), where the mothers pay their alimony on equal footing with the fathers; that the women must exercise male sports
together with the men; and other similar things. More of these things are possible even in the moment, and some others -- in the near future, but the point is that from this
the women will only lose their female advantages and the pleasures of maternity, while it is very doubtful whether they will gain something more than new obligations, more difficult for them because of their not yet transformed feminine nature. So that the question here is very much like what is stated in our saying about the frog, who, on seeing that they were shoeing the ox, also lifted her leg.
Up till now the emancipation has led only to active inclusion of the woman in social life (it, the democracy, in principle, is one "feminine" governing, but about this in the corresponding essay) and in productivity (while earlier her work was not openly seen), as also to disintegration of the families (still not entirely but with obvious tendency in this direction), and even to more often expressed homosexuality (because when the woman does not need a man, then he also can do somehow without her), and to various paradoxes here and there, but it seems that has helped with nothing for one really
relieving of the life of the woman, what should have been the goal of the activity. And in addition to all this, when equality exists (or even when there is a talk about it), it turns out that also
the emotional attachment (understand,
love) significantly
diminishes, because it
is based chiefly
on differences, opposites, complementing! It is mind not the family related "philia", which is one forced by the circumstances feeling of belonging to some group, but the real
sympathy, passion, love, need or desire, Greek αγαπη, and so on, which
never arises between equal -- for the simple reason that one wants strongly this, what one has not; it is usually related with the sex, but not always, and there, too, or at least in the classical (and till now taken for the only decent one) case, the things also reduce to "is -- isn't", "1" or "0". The equality, if it leads not to some collective feeling (and in the last times we began not to like much the collective and comradely indications), can at most lead to rivalry and struggle for superiority (what isn't, and could never become a goal of some heterogeneous group, in order not to say family or married couple); and even in the most collective group again arises struggle for supremacy. So that, if we want to obliterate the differences between the both sexes, we shall do without the love and sympathy, too, and then even the sex will not help us (as substitute for stronger emotions), because there also exists inequality.
Well, the situation is not utterly hopeless and may be expected (the hope sustains life) that, after the initial inebriation of excessive freedom passes, the women will succeed to feel how fare to reach and whether they gain something from their equalizing with the men, because, as it was said above, the family, still, is necessary (until the society has not proposed a better minimal unit), and also the patriarchy is the best form of ruling in it. The important thing is to realize that the interference in the "God's work" of continuation of the kind may cause much greater disasters than the environmental pollution and here must be handled very carefully, and even better if noting at all is touched, limiting us only to relieving the painful moments in life and leaving Caesarian to Caesar, masculine to the man, and feminine to the woman.
ABOUT THE MANKIND
The mankind is the amount of people living on our planet, but whether because of annoying blunder of God, or of divine wisdom, or then of random necessity, this quantity of people is extremely divided. The people are dispersed over the Earth globe nearly so as the space dust is dispersed in the interstellar space -- here and there are a bit more than in other places, there are some forces of attraction and repulsion between them, similarly to the gravitational, there is some level of organization and structuring, as in every kind of matter, there is dynamics and evolvement, but all this is wide away from enough for to may speak about an
organism. The ties between the indivisible units, called individuals (
individuum in Latin), are in very rudimentary state, and the people are a kind of intelligent terminals -- capable of independent actions, but tied in some wireless way in the society -- only that they most often work in "autonomous mode", and if in the body of some animal each organ works for itself, then this organism will incessantly give defects. And exactly this is, in fact, what our society does, beginning from the moment of "descending from the tree" and up to the end of the bloody 20th century, because the humanity, alas, has still not learned to live as a whole organism.
It is not needed special genius to spot that the universality of the human being is a double-edged sword, on which blades we constantly cut ourselves. The universal mechanism is convenient when there are to be performed different activities, bur it is
maximally ineffective in relation of each one of them! This should have been obvious and we spoke about this question in the essay "About the creation" (in the part about the human), so that one slightly more intelligent God should have found some way for
predisposition of the functions of different individuals from the very moment of their birth. This predisposition should have been in some limits, allowing substitution and competition between them, but not of everyone with everyone, where in the human society only in the area of reproduction exists strict division in two classes, so that two men, for example, as much as they strengthen themselves, can't produce offspring. Without some fixing of the functions of each individual in the society can't exist united functioning of all of them within the community, can't exist one organism, we can not reach perfection. And this leads us to the thought that the mankind is some pretty new thing for the nature (or God, if you like it so better) and the things are yet to be developed and bettered, forcing arising and passing in heredity of some more substantial differences between individuals (exceeding the racial and proprietary ones), which are to bring also greater harmony in the future. But let us look consequently at the: society (with its drawbacks), and the civilization (which tries to overcome them).
I. The Society
The society, torn apart by the selfish interests of its members, does not possess various attributes of a complete organism, and for this reason it does not differ much from any gathering of specific kind of animals -- wolves, hares, fishes, locusts, etc. -- or, more precisely, has the features of each one of these groups (inasmuch as the human being is universal animal). More specifically
the society has not
1. Specialization. This means that the society has not its own intrinsic differentiation of activities, by which each individual, already
from the moment of his birth to know what are his specific rights and obligations and to what group he belongs, i.e. who will be in the services, who in the technical production, who in the farming, who will create and distribute art, who will rule the masses, who will be engaged in the sciences, who in the sports, and who with upbringing and education of the offspring, and so on. If we use again the same example with the sex, then there everything is precise and clear, though some differences and exceptions obviously exist, but they have no significant impact on the growth of population (what is the goal in that case). The ideal decision here supposes some
classification on psycho-physiological types, where the level of belonging to each of them must be checked periodically (say, in 5 or 10 years) with tests that have justified themselves. If today this looks still in the realm of fantasy, after a century it can become a reality, at least on the basis of some more thorough statistics, similarly to the zodiacs, which, though they are mainly "black magic", in many cases are indicative, because they are an artful treatment of some inaccurate statistics fulfilled in ancient times (let us remind that the constellations
not at all look like their stylized pictures, what says that not the characters are defined by the constellations, but the constellations are named so because of the characters of the born under their sign people!).
This idea, as we see, is surely not new, and if the humankind sets itself the goal to solve it (at least with sufficient precision) then there are no principal difficulties, because now we don't doubt that the genes, anyway, serve exactly to establish the boundaries of possibilities for developing of each individual. In this case the task is reduced to precise decoding of encoded genetic information, what would give immense perspectives for personal development. Such tests must be used before beginning of whatever education and be taken in consideration by appointing to work, but having in the beginning just recommendatory character, till we become convinced in their truthfulness during long period of time. This, naturally, would have facilitated significantly also the healthcare, as much as the prevention of crime (in which direction were made many efforts, but from this, that they have proved to be unsuccessful, does not follow that the
direction is not right). The specialization of the individuals does not imminently mean differences in their appearance (because one rarely uses directly his limbs in his working activity), but in the
propensity of the individual to a given type of activity. The whole subtlety is for these tests to be able to work from an early children age, if not from the uterine growth.
Further on the society has not
2. Organization. This means that in the human society is not clear who whom must govern. By the animals the question is easily solved applying the right of the stronger, but by the humans, because the strength has different aspects -- physical, moral, economical, intellectual, and others -- the things stay pretty bad and cause almost all bloodshed in the human history. There are no chances for this question to be solved in a near time, due to the benefits of the power, and, naturally, its radical decision consists only in taking away the privileges of the power and rendering it to a kind of working activity, as each other. Some beginnings of decision, however, exist, because the management is exactly science for managing (as much as it, anyway, can be observed as a science), but until the manager depends on the capital and receives additional benefits from the very power (besides his salary) he will not be real manager. One such treatment has nothing to do with the aristocratic, or racists, or other similar conceptions about the "chosen" (by God) class or nation, which are preaching about once and for all and passed
by inheritance predetermined division of people in governors and governed; neither this presupposes privileges of the one group before the other. This does not contradict also to the democratic tendencies the benefits of power to be distributed by those, who do
not gain directly from them (i.e. the governed to choose their rulers), but requires dividing of the power between people
capable to perform this activity.
As much as this question at the moment remains in the sphere of fantasy nothing hinder us to offer one such decision, namely: the whole tactical management, i.e. by given laws and concrete strategical goals, to be put in the "hands" of artificial intelligence, which has no reasons to be egoistically partial. In this case each member of the society will know from his birth that he (or she)
is not born to rule, and then he will have nothing else left unless to listen and obey -- as simple as it is ingenious, isn't it? In any event, though, can't exist organism in which the question of superiority of one or another organ is not decided in advance. If we use one metaphor from the zoology can be said that
the human society as a whole
has practically
no nervous system and resembles the jellyfish or the worm, which have some beginnings of organization, for they can move in a particular direction, but it is most often arbitrary chosen, or this is the direction of the least resistance! Different smaller groups of people, like tribes, nations, or states, have
higher level of organization, can set goals and fulfill them, but the whole society, still, has not learned how to do this, by the simple reason that it lacks predetermined by its nature organization or structure. This is extremely important moment and until it finds some solution the human society (as also each other animal community) will maintain the semblance with the jellyfish, but will show nothing really human.
And let us remind that the ruling is not necessary to be always hierarchical, there can exist also heterarchy, or dividing of the power according to the area of governing, or some alternating in the time, or common voting for various questions, or arbitrary choice using some lot, and other variants. The important thing is this to be decided once and for all in the society, and not: there have hardly flown a pair of centuries and let us make revolutions (i.e. revolt the things, or put the society with the feet above the head; from this root comes the word revolver). The revolution is the harshest way for making changes in the society and it speaks only about the
incapacity of the existing system; it gives no guaranties about the reasonability of the new order, neither proposes reasonable transition to it! The contemporary democracy mainly "throws dust in the eyes" of the people with its boasting, but it is only one temporary decision, which is not new (but from 26 centuries), and is some compromise of the classical Greek democracy with the dictatorial ruling (see "About the democracy"). The fact that we return nowadays to something from before so much time leads us to the conclusion that it has have many shortcomings, so that the question is not at all solved but stays open! Still, it is easier to be solved within a given country, where for the humanity as a whole the chaos is almost the same as it was in the time of old Babylon.
Then the society has not also
3. Reasonableness. It is minded that the reasonableness in the behaviour of the society, at least up till now, has been
lower than the average level of the individuals that make it (what is one a priori and hard to be proven assertion, but is highly plausible), and, obviously, much less than that of its most intelligent members! In other words, we may state that the society satisfies
the law for diminishing of the reasonableness, or increasing of the chaos, due to which the big amount of people takes, as a rule, the most "stupid" decision! To be added that this law depends significantly on the
number of people, where such smaller group can take sometimes right decision, but asymptotically, with the increasing of community to hundreds and thousands (more so to millions), its heterogeneity leads to gradual
suppression of the voice of reason, or its "noising", using technical language. If we go in the other direction, i.e. to the diminishing of group of people, we will mark also some diminishing of the reasonableness of their decisions by very small groups (of one-two persons), but this is because of the lower average level of the individuals, not because of the effect of the group. This leads us to the conclusion that exists some optimal number of individuals, who can take right decisions, and this number coincides with the, hmm, ...
number of our fingers (possibly adding also the toes)! We may call this rule
law of the small numbers and it is easy to be explained with the capacity of human psyche, for which reason one can get used to work good only with a small number of persons (or the better level of acquaintances we want to have, in the smaller group of people we must look for it). Anyway, this is well known and because of it most of the commissions are chosen in number of 10 -- 15 persons. The society, alas, greatly exceeds this optimal number and that is why the reasonableness of its decisions is something practicably unattainable.
If we try to find the causes for this suppressing of the reason of the masses we will reach to the root of evil, i.e. to the autonomy of the individual, who, in order to be able to show free will, must have some conviction in his decisions. But this conviction can be got, either by the way of the reason, or by the way of unjustified self-confidence (i.e. of the lack of reason), if we do not mess here the instincts (or the "call of the wild"), which exist also by the animals, and we observe here, after all, the human society. This is quite elementary and, surely, right decision from the point of view of the Creator, but if we monitor the things at the level of individuals, while at the level of the whole society this produces big problems. And really, if the more elementary people, not endowed with any special thinking abilities, were conscious of their inability to take right decisions, then they would have permanently suffered by inferiority complex, and for this reason when one can not logically justify his actions (or grasp that of the others), he simply acts how he finds it suitable and denies the logical considerations. This
isn't unjustified in the general case, because the logic of the ordinary person is often imprecise, so that even if he has always set on it, the errors wouldn't have been rarity. In any event, though, the simpler one is, the more he defends his errors, for they are
his own and he insists on them (see also "About the democracy"), and for this reason the common people have always silenced their great personalities. It seems by everything that this is one insurmountable contradiction and each solution can be only compromise one, but such solution is necessary in order to make the society to something more than a swarm of locusts, for example, because if there exists some human feature which makes him differ with something from the species of animals, this
should have been the reasonableness of his behaviour, and the reasonable criterion, naturally must be
the minimal level of sufferings and cruelties in human life. From the point of view of the nature this
also would be reasonable, because
the purpose of life is to continue the life, and if this can happen with less wastes of biological matter, then this is one more economical decision, and, hence, preferable.
II. The Civilization
The civilization, in its development, has incessantly strived to overcome the explained in the previous chapter "nos" in the society, i.e. the lack of specialization, organization, and reasonableness in it, which are consequences of the lack of predetermination of the individuals, and has tried and tries to bring the amount of people nearer to some complete organism (and let us say that in this chapter we will use one collective meaning of the word "civilization", i.e. all previous civilizations). This, of course, it has failed to do, were it because of the lower level of knowledge to which we have come, were it because of the difficult for solving contradictions between the society and the individual, put in each one of us. The experiments, though, continue and will continue until this proud two-footed animal, called himself intelligent, exists, because the life is one
accidental experiment in the Universe, which only meaning is to see ... whether
other experiments have to be made.
So, for example, in its efforts to the whole organism, the civilization imposes the necessity of education, and this not only as way for understanding of the world, but also as means for specialization (i.e.
restriction) of the individuals in order to receive more profound knowledge in a given field. The civilization imposes also the necessity of some organization in the society, which must simulate the nervous system of the organisms and force the individuals to do not only this, what they want, but also what is useful for all the people. Since ancient times, though, was known the radical method of organization, which exists also between the animals, namely: the right of the stronger, or the centralization of power in single hands, or the hierarchical form of governing; as were known also the drawbacks of this method, and that is why other forms have been sought, which are not so military. This, in fact, says the very name "civilization", what means some
civil governing, with specialization and dividing of the powers, where this is possible. The civilization imposes also reasonableness in the society, which has to be, as far as this is possible, greater than the noisy reasonableness of the crowd, and to contain the experience and conclusions of the greatest minds of their time. For this purpose it discovers and spreads the religions which, using some form of delusion, succeed to make the masses to jump a bit out of their own skins and begin to feel themselves part of the entire Creation. Thanks to the civilization are developed also the arts, which propose one more intellectual occupation for the people and method for avoiding of their bare animal instincts, and likewise for beautifying of their life. There are developed also the sciences as a quintessence of human intellect, and the sports, as cult to the physical beauty and perfection, and other things.
The civilization, generally said, is the only thing that succeeds to make the human society to something different from the aggregation of all animals of a given kind, just that it has too many shortcomings to be taken for well done! If we return to the etymology of the word we have to admit that up to this day there is not a singe
really civil form of governing, because there is no one state or community where do not exist army and some forces for maintaining of internal order, which are not at all civil structures but military. In addition to this the mutual relations between the countries continue to be established from the position of strength, though this strength not always is military, but may be also economical, for example. The ideal civilization, obviously, must be one worldwide state, with its unchanging government maintaining the status quo (i.e. the
stagnation), what has to be performed with sufficient dose of intellect (not necessarily human), in which state must be precise specialization of the activities according to the genetic makings of people, and which has to aim at equilibrium for all biological kinds and harmony with nonliving matter. The main efforts, though, of the contemporary democratic form of governing are not in the direction of unity of humankind, but in the direction of its
fragmentation in autonomous units, combined with attempts for minimization of their confrontation, i.e. not to structuring, but to greater degree of freedom of the groups (states) and individuals, what is
not movement in the right direction! This is explained with the fact that the democratic freedoms are propagated chiefly by the stronger and more developed countries, as well by the rulers in a given country, in which case they, unavoidable, defend the interests of their communities, not of the whole human society.
After these more general observations of the civilization we will focus on some well-defined subject areas of its activity, discussing their concrete problems and eventual ways for their solving. Many of the theses may seem fantastic, from the point of view of our everyday life, but with such global problems we have no right to restrict us with current reality but must apply one more all-comprising and starting from the goal view to the nature of things. We will begin with the contemporary
1. Medicine. It is wide away from its goal: to eliminate the sufferings of human body, proposing one
moderate way of wearing or aging and revealing all his hidden talents. Such has to be the etymology of the very word, whose root in Latin is "medi", what means "middle", and has to be formed under the influence of old Greek view about the moderation in everything. Despite the fact that the contemporary medicine is wide ahead of its level from two centuries ago, for example, it, still, does
not propose the most reasonable way of life, according to the characteristics of individual, of course. The main power of medicine nowadays is based on the power of medicaments, but this power is double-edged sword, and the question is not: how to fight with the illnesses, but how
to prevent them, or to make the organism to fight them
alone, after we have caught them already. Most of the victories of medicine consist in this to eliminate the illnesses imposed by the civilization, or, at least, having received a wide spread by its own fault! The mass epidemics, with which we have managed to cope in the last pair of centuries, have originated somewhere in the times of Babylon, because of the unreasonable aggregation of large human masses in one place, and surely were not so widely spread at the time of the caveman, for example. The present-day AIDS also receives particular expanse in the age of mass communications and promiscuous sexual contacts (though the inter-tribal sex has had its own disadvantages). And what to say about the cardiovascular diseases and malignant tumors, which are causes for more than the half of the death cases? Earlier people have died, say, from a single cut of the finger, but today they die simply because live in the towns, not between the nature! The harmful influence of the civilization on the health of people is fully
commensurable with the positive contribution of the medicine, so that, on the whole, the people still can't live to the allowed them century life. (By the way, Russian word "
chelovek", meaning man, according to the most often folk etymology was made combining the words "
chelo"-forehead, which maybe is not present in contemporary Russian, but exists in the Slavonic languages, where has come from the Latin, because may be found in Italian and in the music --
cello --, and the Russian is very near to the Latin in its vocabulary and grammar, plus the word "
vek"-century, what will say: to each forehead a century.)
The average life span, surely, has increased very much in the 20th century, chiefly due to the really fantastic decrease of child mortality in the civilized countries, as well also to the significant bettering of labour conditions, and these are big achievements of the medicine, which we should not ignore. At the same time, though, while the surgery cuts out one damaged organ and does not heal it or substitute, the medicine will be wide away from the goal. But the lizard can grow its torn out tail, can't it? -- hence some hidden mechanisms exist also in our genes and we should be able to grow oneself new hand or foot! The same can be said also about the stomatology, which still has not learned how to make the organism to produce new tooth on the place of the sick or fallen one -- when this happens once in our life it can happen also a second time! The nicotine and alcohol are well known poisons for the organism, but the medicine has still not found substitutes for them, i.e. something as harmless as them (almost not inflicting the psyche, on the contrast with wide amount of modern medicaments), but what has almost instant effect; and this effect is
wide-spectrum, what means, that if we want to sleep, one cigarette (or cup of vodka) will make us drowsy, but if we have important work to do then the same dose will increase our working ability -- because these are natural products which force the organism to cope
alone with the situation, they don't block its efforts, as do the greater part of medicaments! The long-living persons (over 100 years) today are hardly (in percentage) more than 10 -- 20 centuries before, and they are such not because they make use of the services of medicine but regardless of it, or even
in spite of it. The main merits of medicine nowadays are in the mass prolongation of the period of life of the people, but this only increases the overpopulation of the earth globe (see "About the population"), and in many cases (especially to the end of his life) one just
suffers longer, what puts on the agenda the question "About the harms of the benefits".
2. The jurisprudence, or justice, is a kind of
misunderstanding of civilization, because its goal should have been making and applying of equal for all rules in order to protect the society from harmful for it elements, as well as to prevent the crime, but looking at the absurdity of contemporary justice one involuntary comes to the conclusion that the ancient monarchs, who have judged without whatever laws, in many cases have taken more justified decisions than those, which are observed in the current days legal trials. When one commits some offence or crime this is
not because he does not know what is right and what not -- he may not know the letter of the law, but he surely knows its
spirit (otherwise, at least nowadays, the laws would have been studied even before the children have learned how to read and write) -- but because he hopes to "pass between the drops", i.e. to outsmart the others, and then the jurisprudence is only "grist to this mill", thereby bestowing favours to the judicial system! If one judges personally, then he at least represents (or misrepresents) himself in result of this, and when he judges according to prepared in advance laws, then he, in fact,
does not judge but just receives his salary for compliance with certain (well paid) procedure.
It, surely, is clear why has come to this detaching of the judge from the very decision -- all people are egoists (or sinners, if we use the religious terminology), and when so it is better to decide what must be the punishment before knowing the concrete offense, than to judge about the punishment only based on the given situation and personality of the offender. Logically looked at the things this is a right decision (i.e. the idea is understandable and correct), but it is simply not implemented properly in the reality, because if the judge must not be partial to the lawsuit then he must also
not know who he is judging, as well as the reverse thing -- the offender must not know by whom he is judged! Themis only on pictures is shown blindfolded, but have you ever seen some judge with blindfold and face mask? At most he can put on a wig because of greater vanity, but not to remain unknown. Besides, if the truth is to be searched, then it has to be independent of material benefits. But why are then allowed the paid lawyers in the lawsuits (and paid exactly by the interested part and in connection with the concrete suit)? And something more: if each concrete case can't be included beforehand in the laws, but are provided only typical situations of offenses, while the guilt in the specific case is established during the law trial, then the decisive word must be given to some arbitrary selection of the population, not to paid officers. But even in the countries whose legislation chooses jurors for each case from the ranks of the people, they can be rejected by each of the parts, and this now isn't arbitrary choice but a parody of it; or is searched unanimous decision (in the suits for murder in USA, for example), and this is not natural situation which leads to compulsory decision. Objectively looked, it turns out that the only positive element in the present-day jurisprudence is the conception of prosecutors as defenders of the interests of people, because there the mercantile considerations are reduced to minimum.
At any rate, the ways for bettering of the things are clear, so that let us say first what can be done in the near future -- this is the introduction of some conditionally free, i.e. paid in advance
judicial insurance, in the same way as there exist medical and labour insurances, and the lawyers of both parts are to be fixed by the judicial authority by some established procedure. If the advocates-lawyers are only some kind of "translators" from the natural language to this of the laws (add +
voce, in Latin, or voice in English, i.e. a kind of megaphones), and not mechanism for gaining of personal financial benefits for each of the parts (how is the situation by the civil cases in the moment), this will be wholly rightful decision (and for the criminal cases, too). The very fact, which can be confirmed by each lawyer (to say nothing about the common folk), that the suit is won by the better lawyer, means that the goal of the procedure is
not establishing of the truth but the personal combat (in order to get benefits from this) of the lawyers, as also of each part in the suit. If the proposed here is not yet introduced as practice, this is only because the laws are made by jurists and they are not so silly to "cut the branch" on which are sitting! The judges, also, must be called simply chairmen of the court (or
ushers, if you like), because they don't judge themselves, but just monitor the compliance with the rules. Together with this measures in all cases where this is possible the court procedure must be simplified and substituted only with judges, but
without lawyers, and even with some computerized systems (what already begins to be done in some countries) -- it goes about act fines, divorce proceedings, and even financial and other civil cases at first instance. The last instance, in any event, must be some
national court, where to be chosen the corresponding number (7, 11, 15, or 21, for example) of jurors from significantly big pool, but in the day of the suit and by
arbitrary method, who exactly are to give their say on each point from the formulated by the chairman accusations, and the decision, which must be kept anonymous, to be taken as by voting, and/or via averaging of the votes (together with their eventual weighing when several options are present).
The future tendency must be towards increasingly
throwing away of the human from the judicial processes and using of some artificial and impartial intelligence at least at lower instances. The chairman of the law suit, if and where he is human, must be maximally
separated from the parts, where they neither see themselves, nor hear, nor know one another, but communicate via some terminals in different rooms, and should even not be allowed using of their real names but of some conditional names like accused, accuser, witness_No1, and so on. In higher instances, where the decisions must be taken by arbitrary chosen jurors, they also must not be known to the parts of the suit and must remain anonymous. In especially serious cases must be provided as last instance also some computerized procedure for nation-wide voting (according to the points of the accusation) via phone-cards, or through terminal net. These are things that will be realizable everywhere after about half a century, if the civilization comes to the right decision whether the courts must remain only spectacular events for the people, from which each part, and the very judicial officers, take personal benefits, or are obliged to become instruments for impartial condemnation of anti-social actions and crime.
The other variant there is to perform real judicial court, but
without laws and punishments -- for lighter infringements -- something what we called "comrades'" courts under the totalitarianism (not that they did much work, because of the total penetration in them of the guiding ideas of the Party and the deformed selection of people, or the manipulated peoples opinion). Anyway, this is not some fictitious idea and can also be performed by terminals, so that the person can remain anonymous, as well as his judges. In this way we will have some variant of
confession, that is used since centuries by some Churches, and, hence, is psychologically entirely justified for the offender, and what concerns the role of confessors we may be sure that there always will be enough people wanting to be included in that circle, because people are very prying (not inquisitive) and everything, that is some secret, will be interesting for them. Again no obstacles, except the willingness of the people.
3. The management of the society is the main stone in which for millenniums the civilization stumbles, because it is clear that we can't do without strong central government, neither without feedback from the people, but
all forms have together with their advantages also their drawbacks. It is clear that must be found some compromise, because otherwise the middle point ... again is reached, but
in the time, i.e. through the incessant
changing of the one form with the other (something that is very similar to the muscle tremor of the old folks)! The contemporary democracy is one such compromise variant, but it has too many shortcomings, on which, though, we will not dwell here, because they are extensively discussed in the essay "About the democracy". The future management of the society will be, in any case, some form of democracy, but in it should not be excluded some dose of artificial intelligence. So, and let us go now to
4. The education, which is one enormous acquisition of the civilization, but which has
two contradictory aspects, namely: enlargement of our knowledge about the world in which we live, as well as restriction of the examination in a given narrow object area, in order of its more profound studying! This isn't a paradox but elementary consequence of the limitation of out abilities. Let us remind you that the achieved long ago negative meaning word "scholastics" comes from Latin (and old Greek) word for school (or
shkola in Russian, or
Schule in German) and says just something, that can be learned at school; it is true that the first schools were in the monasteries, but the disregard to such kind of knowledge comes not at all from the positions of atheism, but from the perception about the uselessness and narrowness of many educational disciplines, and stresses that not always the "learned" is the right one. In any case, the unbiased children psyche in many cases thinks more rationally than people with some education, and the higher the education is, the more restricted and
professionally deformed become they in their ability to think, while there are not at all rare the cases of some self-educated persons with broader and truthful knowledge about life. I can't restrain myself from citing here the known aphorism of Oscar Wilde, who says that: "This, what must be learned, can't be learned, and this, what can be learned, there is not much need to learn it!". (It is meant that this, what one wants to know -- say, which ticket in a lottery to buy for to win, or which girl to marry in order to become happy, or to what party to adhere for to succeed in life, et cetera -- there is no way to learn, and this, what can be learned, it is already
known and, hence, it doesn't pay to fill his head with it.) In this sense there is
no danger at all (if one of you has become troubled about this) that the education will make people very clever (educated -- yes, but that isn't the same), what, for the most part, is right, because in a society must be maintained some reasonable proportion of the more intelligent, or wise men, to the more mediocre, even if with tertiary education in a given narrow area.
This, what is learned in the school or the university is mainly some factual data allowing to the student to unite with some professional
group, or with some "flock", because exactly this shows the analysis of the English word "student", which was formed from merging of stud + end, where one of the meanings of the first word is a flock specially of horses (which word is common Slavonic,
stado, and Teutonic, where from is their current
Stute as mare). In other words, the student is like a young horse (or mare), that has not yet learned to run together with the flock and for that reason is somewhere at its end; though the second word may be just an ending, because in the Latin he is
studiosus. Or else: if we try to translate (better in Slavonic) the German
studieren as "stadieren"-flocking we will not at all be in error! And this what people need is the ability to
think correctly, but the thinking is one enigma and mystery for us (see "About the intellect") and we can't grasp to the end its secrets, we only try to (chiefly via studying mathematics in school). For this reason the goal of education becomes to "pump" us with certain facts, so that to be able to understand given professional jargon, and to be used as
instrument for selection according to the makings of everyone; this is the way in which must be looked at each form of education, even at the compulsory. Checking of the abilities to think, where possible, is done, and will be done, but teaching in thinking, alas, lacks, because it is not clear how to do it.
5. The sciences are the core of the civilization, because only the knowledge can make our life more interesting and happy! They, obviously, are related with the education -- via the double meaning of our knowledge, as also through the educational character of the activity of scientific workers (in order to obtain resources for their work). Still, the sciences mean getting of something
new, not just applying of already known truths, where this yearning for the truth for the very truth, or as it is also said: for
speculative knowledge, is one, really, divine human feature (no matter whether we admit the existence of God or deny it). Some negative moment in the sciences occurred mainly during the 20th century, which moment is related with their very fast, i.e. revolutionary evolvement (because, naturally, the
evolutionary movement is preferable, for the lesser number of cataclysms), but the things gradually will normalize having in mind the enormous complexity of our world, with which we inevitably collide digging more profoundly in every direction. The immense volume of knowledge begins to conflict with the creative character of scientific activity, where it remains a kind of industry, and this for its part diminishes its attractiveness, so that may be expected that the grown percentage of scientific workers will continually fall down to some reasonable level of 2-3%, what will pacify its explosive rate of evolvement.
In all events, however, we have no rights to blame the sciences for our human shortcomings and inability to use the new given possibilities. It is normal that a child who gets for the first time knife in his hands may wound himself, so that there is nothing surprising in the fact that we "wound" ourselves with each new and epochal scientific discovery. Ultimately, the variants are two: either the humankind will recover and learn to use the new acquisition, or will become ill and perish from this world, but this will be because of innate defects of the human beings and society,
not because of the very scientific discovery. It is true that the sciences are one of the most dangerous aspects of the civilization (a moment maintained by all religions), but they are also one of the most reliable ways for achieving of civilized society, so that: if we want civilization we can't do without sciences.
6. The industry inevitably accompanies the civilization because it provides ways for enhancing the effectiveness of human labour in every routine activity. It frees up more time from direct obligations to the society, permitting in this way happier life of the people, only that this possibility is not at all always used by those who work in the given industry, yet this also is not fault of the industry but of the social order. Like everything immoderate, when is set too much on the industrial productivity, can be reached to not very positive situation, which will depersonalize human labour and turn the people to a kind of draft animals to the technique, what often happened during the 20th century. This is well known and we try to fight with it, but the temptation for easy achievements is too high to withstand it. Because of this now our food is almost entirely artificial, and our clothes, too, and the entertainments, and so on. The industry confused the whole nature because for very long time we have thought that the point is to make much noise and dust (where from comes Bulgarian phrase that "I work so that dust is raised up"; as also the very word "industry" is split in: in + dust + ry, what says "something in the dust"), and the industrial methods entered in the sciences, in the arts (if we may call so the proposed en masse by the media surrogates), in the sports, and even in the sex and pornography, and where else not. Still, we began now to realize that only the effectiveness isn't all, and can hope that in the future will learn to use the serially produced things only as
substitutes, in order to save time and money, but not as something satisfying the seeking nature of the human. Life will show whether the things will get better, or worse (before getting better).
7. The trade and the market are very significant achievement of civilization, though some kind of exchange of goods has existed also in the primitive tribes. The establishing of precious metals as single equivalent for assessment of all results of human activity is of extraordinary importance for reducing of the multi-coordinate space of values to one and only ordinate. This is not always a good assessment, but it allows for comparison and exchange, and the introducing of invented and endowed with some value money units now facilitates the very process of exchange. The facilitating is relative, because in reality becomes necessary also the existence of intermediate market of currencies and valuables, but there is no need to discuss it because it has the same common characteristics of every market. The money are some substitute of valuables, or "hot air", "
mentè" as jargon in Bulgarian, but this view exists for milleniums because you know that in English "mint" is both, the herb
menta-mint, and the place where the money (
monetas) are made. As far as the market is the place where the very changing is performed it is naturally that it will gradually begin to dictate also what to produce (for to change it with something else). This is natural evolvement of the things, but it is not at all the most correct and reasonable decision, because it applies chaotic methods for control, and the chaos can never be good decision in the society! So that the market is one temporary decision, for lack of better one, but this does
not mean that it is the right decision.
Let us look here more precisely, proceeding from the interests of the producers and the buyers. The third group of the merchants (dealers, or brokers) is not necessary to consider for simplicity, because they, staying between the both above-mentioned groups, fulfill to each of them the role of the other one, so that they do not give anything principally new. The small producers definitely lose from the market, because is not in their possibilities to analyze and predict it; the big producers also can't predict it
exactly, but only is rough strokes (because if they could have done this then the whole trade would have been reduced to exact analysis of the data, and on the contemporary level of techniques this would have been just a combat between two computer programs, not attractive intellectual activity), but exactly this gives space for their manifestation. Inasmuch as the small producer can't fight effectively the market his salvation is: either to unite with other brethren in misfortune, in order to gain "critical mass", where he is not so dependent on it, or then to work for some big producer (or wholesaler). But these are only ways for
suppression of the market, not for its using. In other words, the market is profitable only for such producer (wholesaler), who is big enough (one out of ten or so biggest in the branch or region) to influence it!
Similar is the situation also with the buyer -- if he is small he will almost always lose, because by subsequent verification there is no way not to find that: either he could have bought the same ware cheaper, or could have bought better ware (or both), or then, if he has strived to study better the market in order not to make a mistake, he could have spared himself the time (and the nerves, too) making rough and arbitrary choice where from to by it (because in one saturated market
all similar wares are more ore less equal in their prices)! Only the large buyer (company or person) may win by the market. The much touted market economy is a
pure deceit, widely circulated by the large scale business, i.e. trickery for the small "fishes" (to become fry for the big ones)!
The market is the most ineffective way for regulation of productivity, and it has the single advantage that is more
adaptive than the centralized planning, but because the latter also has his drawbacks it turns out that each decision can be
only compromise! The current compromise decision is not good, and the ideal decision is some form of unified planning of production for the first ten (for example) largest units in the branch, based on dynamical monitoring of the customer demand, but by
separate structure, different from the very productive units, which must give directions, in some limits, about the quantity and assortment of production types depending of their economical indicators, defining for them marketing regions, but not excluding the needed competition between them. Not that this is easy, but this is the way in the future.
8. The ownership, mainly over the means of production, is cardinal question, which the civilization, still,
has not succeeded to solve satisfactory. It is clear that here the solution must also be compromise, because there have always been things which not everybody could own, as well as there will always be things, which each one must have, but there are many speculations on the question, so that let us also say a pair of words. The principal controversy between the capitalism and the socialism (or communism) is at all
incorrectly set, because it doesn't matter whether the ownership of production means is private or common, but whether it is
personal, i.e. whether the one who works owns this with what he works! From this point of view the difference between these two ways of organization in the society vanishes, because even in the developed countries (as also under different social orders, like slave or feudal ones) only about 3 to 5 percent of the people own these means of production (but these pair of percents do
not work with them).
The ownership, from times immemorial, has served mainly as
means for exercising of supremacy of some persons over others and for choosing of rulers (something what the communists name, and not without reasons, slavery of the capital), what returns us again to the shortcomings of the society, which we discussed in the first chapter. By reasonable choice of the rulers (based on personal genetic makings, suitable tests, and statistics of their personal successes) in one natural way will vanish also the question of ownership of the production means and will remain only the dividing in personal property (habitation, means for transport, etc.) and non-personal (or necessary for the society). This, however, does not mean that the non-personal property will be free or mismanaged (not owned), not only because it will be wasted, but also because one can not work well for the others (as part of the social organism)
without some degree of
compulsion, or exploitation! As far as this question is discussed in the essay "About the justice" (as well as also in "About the future") we will not dwell here more on it, but will mention that
society without any
exploitation is simply
unthinkable!
9. The army and the police, as we already pointed out, are not civil structures, but, as far as pure things in the nature rarely happen, there is not a single period in the history of civilization when we have succeeded to do without them. It seams by all that it will continue to be so in the future, too, though the army in one worldwide state may turn to some rapid reaction force by natural disasters (and /or eventual cosmic invasions). But the police will remain, because society without whatever prohibitions is unthinkable, and, hence, there will always be people who will violate them (what, by the way, is seen by the Roman understanding about the police as derivative from the town-
polis).
10. The arts are also common characteristic of each civilization, because they propose (alternative to the religion) way for beautifying of our existence on this world, or a kind of
escapism. But as far as the author is not a man of arts there is nothing left to him but to admire them (well, if these aren't mass stuff, of course).
11. The religion is indispensable element of civilization because the people are weak souls and will always need some
delusion and support (or the needed for them "opium"). There are many things to be discussed here, but we will skip them now, for there is special essay dedicated to the religion.
12. The media are a kind of
alternative to the official religion and/or propaganda! Their power rose mainly during the 20th century, because of the possibilities for mass information, but we must always have in mind that they are means for mass
manipulation of public opinion (although in interest of the very society), for the simple reason that there have to be used all methods for opposing the law for diminishing of the reasonableness in the group, about which we spoke in the beginning. (Instead of manipulation we could have used the word "insinuation" which speaks about sticking of something in whichever "sinuses" this is possible, and if we look in the Italian then there the word for teacher is
insegnante, read 'inseñante', what stay pretty near to
insinuante, though this isn't very sound etymologically, for their teacher comes from the
segno-sign, but maybe this relation is made by the people.) The achieved decision here also isn't the best, at least because the media, financed by the big business, defend, surely, its interests, and not these of the masses (but the masses not at all always realize their interests good, what is regrettable for them).
Therefore, the civilization supplements the human society, striving to make it more humane and happy, only that it rarely succeeds in this because meets with problems when entering the reason in action. The human society can't, for the present, appear as a whole organism, and even less as reasonable one. But there's nothing to be done because such is the
material with which we are forced to work -- the unreliable, cruel and egoistic animal, which can behave reasonable, sometimes, but not until he has used all unreasonable ways for achieving of the goal!? After we have appeared on the world, however, we just
have no other alternative, except to live our live. Let us hope that each new generation will make this a bit more civilized than the previous.
ABOUT THE INTELLECT
I. Definition
Exact definition of the intellect is principally impossible, because this is all-comprising basic notion, about which is supposed that each one has some intuitive idea (in the same way as it is not defined what is this God, or matter, for example), so that we will rather remind in the beginning what is this idea. But let us turn your attention to the fact that the word "intellect" is used in different contexts, which are often contradictory, and in other cases are highly restrictive, because we are inclined to ascribe intellect only to the humans (and from here also to the God, in all religions), where different animals, as well as artificial systems, can also show intellectual behaviour in many situations. So that the best, what we can expect, is some heuristic definition, which must comprise the most significant, but without asserting that it is complete and uncontroversial, where more important for us will be not to miss some intellectual manifestation, than to exclude this, for which special intellect is not needed.
In the second half of 20th century this question become particularly important because of the trials, some of them strikingly successful, for artificial modeling of human intellect. To many readers maybe is known the Turing criterion about this, when we have one intellectual system (computer, robot, or human), which is reduced to this, that a person converses through some informational channel (computer terminal) with somebody, without seeing or hearing him directly, so that he has no knowledge about him, and if after some reasonable amount of time he can not say for sure (or makes an error) whether he speaks with human or automaton, then he has before himself an artificial intelligence. Here the accent is, on one hand, on the subjectivity of assessment, and on the other hand, on the independence from the elementary basis (live cells or electronic elements). This is a right approach, but it says us nothing about the essence of intellect (except the fact, that there is no other way for its defining). The intuitive idea, usually, is about such activity, which looks quite complicated, so that even not every human being can do it.
Something similar states the etymology of the word, because "intellect" must come from Greek
entelecheia (εντελεχεια), which was a term coined and used in ancient times by Aristotle as one of the names of energy and meaning: activity, operating and efficient energy, efficiency of given activity, or just something that may happen,
opportunity for something. In other words, the intellect is something hidden (in the canvas of the things), something which can't be seen, unless it shows itself in some way, some working principle of the matter (i.e. it is not obligatory connected with the human), what makes it to function correctly. But even in the time of Aristotle this word has not fallen from above, and, although made around the word "energy" (ενεργεια) as something active, and as something different from the dynamics, it is still quite away from the energy and in Ancient-Greek can be found εντελεω as whole, complete, intact, εντελεια as wholeness, or εντελετεω as inspire, excite! Well, not that people like much to be inspired by the intellect (they prefer rather actions and thrillers) but this is the meaning put in the word for centuries; and if we take into account that the very body (more precisely the root
tele--, which in Slavonic languages means body) is also hidden in it, i.e. when we take aside the prefix εν = in (which is very old), we come to the idea about inserting of something and uniting of the parts in one whole system, or about the
relations between the things.
In this situation it is reasonable to connect the adjective "intelligent" with the activity of a driver or football player, for example, even if this isn't some tiring mental activity. And the point isn't in the complexity of procedures or reasonings but in their
originality or novelty, in the exact evaluation of the situation and performing of the
most adequate action, so that it is entirely possible for the play of some elite footballer to be more intelligent than the solving of a given integral equation, for example. Similar is the question also with all great masters in the area of arts, the majority of which surely meet with problems by solving of tasks from the upper (and even middle) school classes, but whose activity is intelligent, it you want only for the reason that such tasks solve practically all school students of some average grade, while the creative activity of those masters can in the best case be imitated! From what follows that the intellect is mainly in the creating of something new in a given situation, not in applying of known, even if difficult, rules. This new thing was only as possibility, until they have turned it to reality.
But if you ask those people what is this new thing, which is the secret of their success, they will not explain this to you, not only because that is how they win their "bread", but because even they alone, in most of the cases,
don't know what it is. When for performing of a given activity exists some description, procedure, recipe, or algorithm for acting, then it is not counted for very intellectual, but if good rules don't exist it deserves praises and admiration, and this is the reason which has forced the Ancient Greeks to contrive the metaphor about the Muses, who whisper in the ear of the artist what and how to do. It is interesting in this relation the answer of the sculptor Auguste Rodin how he was doing his statues -- he said: "I take a piece of stone and cut out all redundant."! So that the intellect was and remains first of all one mystery, though in many cases can be proposed different rules and methods of learning. Today everything is learned, but this does not mean that the great masters have become such because they have learned the secrets of the craft during their time of education -- it was necessary for them mainly to expand their horizons and to add new methods and means to their palette, but not to change this, what was already in their heads.
And because we have mentioned once the algorithms of creativity let us draw your attention to one misleading paradox, which consists in this, that the activities, taken usually for most intelligent, turn out to be quite easy for artificial modeling, while those, which are more elementary and accessible even to many animals, turn to be the most difficult! The chess game, which is played by the humans for millenniums, is a typical example of complicated intellectual activity, but in spite of this the contemporary computers, though being still in their "infant" age (about half a century), have succeeded to beat, not just anybody, and not some average chess player, but the world champion in chess, debunking the myth about the unsurpassable human intellect. And on the other hand, various elementary human activities done with naked hand and practically without mental efforts, as also the very graceful gate of some animals, are still quite difficult to be performed by a number of robots and in all probability the creation of sufficient similarity with the humans is not a question of near future. This is so because there, where the procedure can be easily algorithmized, the contemporary technology is sufficiently powerful to do wonders, while the simple mechanical movements and seemingly elementary conclusions at common sense level are much more difficult for realizing. Similarly to the chess may be mentioned also the computer animation and music, which are developing for some twenty years, but already have many impressive results (we are not speaking about what one can do with the use of computers, but about
autonomous activity of computer programs).
Based on the above said we can give some working definition of the notion intellect, as:
heuristic processing of information, which allows invention of new relationships and conducting of adaptive behaviour in unforeseen situations. The heuristic means
incompleteness or inaccuracy of the decision, as also missing of the right decision, and the adaptability presupposes some adjustment to the environment and learning. The intellect is just unclear way for processing of information, and is this done consciously or not (and what is this "computer consciousness"?), as also is it volitional or arbitrary act, is not so important. The presumption about some
decomposition of the goals exists, but it is implied also by the novelty of situation and by the groping way of working of the intellectual system. There is no need of considering the material medium in which this processing of information is done, because important is the idea and not its physical realization. (A propos, even the very word "idea", i.e. the Latin
idea, is based on the root ...
Deo, what is old Greek Θεοσ, or God, what means that in the idea necessarily exist something divine.) This is enough as introduction, and in the next chapter we will deepen slightly our views to the intellectual processing of information and will divide it in two major classes.
II. Reason And Intellect
The reason and the intellect are often observed as synonyms, but is good to make also
difference between them, because while the intellect is something in possibility, then the reason is the ability for applying of already known algorithms. The very word "reason" comes from Latin
ratio, what means relation or dividing, and the meaning of its applying for intellectual activity comes from the difficult procedure of dividing (it is meant with Roman numerals), which in the antiquity was known to less than one out of thousand people, maybe (and today is even less known, because the Roman digits are not more used in arithmetics). Phonetically here is hidden the dividing or making of ... strokes, incisions (as also in Slavonic
razum or French
raison = reason; also, say, in old Bulgarian
rabosh as abacus, and others), what deserves to be mentioned (because the reason usually clicks), although this is pretty rough handling of the matters. Another synonym of the reason is the logic, which is Latin-Greek
logos, what means some record, or at least in this sense is used today in the English (you know: logo is an emblem, symbol, then logistic is management of resources, i.e. keeping of records for what is present and what not), and then the logic is the ability to process some written records, symbols, words, et cetera (remember the biblical "In the beginning was the word ..."), in order of revealing of their gist. In this sense is better under reason to understand the ability for complicated intellectual activity, for which, though, exist some known rules or algorithms, where the intellect is not limited only with this but presupposes also ability for getting of
new solutions on the basis of comparing of situations and generating of ideas.
More precisely in the artificial intelligence is spoken about
analytical and synthetic methods of solutions. The analytical methods are also called discrete or digital (symbolic) and are based on some decomposition of the information and analysis of the data and the relations between them, what must enable the applying of one or another partial approach for solving; these are properly reasonable or logical methods. The synthetic methods, for their part, mean some recognizing of the situation as a whole, without detailed analysis (were is of writing of letters and other images, or of playing, war and operative settings, or of musical works, etc.), and are called also analogous; they don't give so exact solutions, but can be very fast and can be easily acquired by the people. These notions very often are interwoven and is possible that analogous procedures are realized on digital machines, or logical algorithms are performed in analogous way, and this happens as in the computer systems, so well also by the people, because there are different types of psyches with their preferred activities. The important thing is to grasp that these are
two types of information processing and not one, though in the contemporary computers for the time being exists the tendency to use the digital processing everywhere, but this is question of effectiveness of the element base and can be temporary phenomenon.
The word "analogous" also originates from Ancient Greece and has to say something
different from the "logo", because the "a" in the beginning of the word (from ancient times, but at least from the Ancient-Greek, most often) is prefix for negation; the learning by analogies (situations or
casuses-cases), though, is basic method in various sciences. It is so in the example with the driver and football player, in the military affaires, in the jurisprudence, medicine, literature and other arts, and where else not, what means that we have no rights to disregard this method of solving of intellectual tasks. Otherwise it will turn out that the whole intellectual activity is reduced to solving of tasks from higher mathematics, or to playing of chess, where the computers are already better than the humans, and even will be forced to exclude from the sphere of reasonable people all so called intellectuals or people of the arts, as also those working in other humanitarian areas, only because they can't (and they
really very often can't) judge reasonable. So that we must observe both kinds of information processing in their integrity, when we speak about intellect -- were it human, were it machine, were animal, or then extraterrestrial.
And really, some people are good in memorizing of the facts, and another ones of the rules, and this is well known, though such division is nor very indicative, because these both things are analytical or discrete informational entities. But there are people with differently developed imagination and differently emotionally charged, as also such who prefer actions by analogies. Till recently at this was looked as at different ways of functioning of the brain, but in the 70s years of 20th century was discovered that they are related with different
parts of the brain, but not of consciousness or subconsciousness (what is one functional, not material division), or of cortex and subcortex, but of something much more differentiated -- of left and right hemispheres of the brain! The left hemisphere (except that it controls motor activity of the
right half of the body -- the nerve fibers "seek" every opportunity to extend themselves and cross one with the other, because precisely there are built the nodes or synapses, which are the exact memory units) is responsible about the rationally-logical or semiotic (symbolic) information processing, which is most often verbal or symbolic. In the left hemisphere is placed the center of speech, and it, although polyvalent, diffused, and imprecise in comparison with mathematical rules and formulas, is one discrete transformation of information. There is the semiotic machine of the human and there is performed the decomposition of the goals, the planning, the logical reasoning, at cetera. As far as the people are predominantly right-handed, then also in relation with the coordination of our movements the left part of the brain is, as a rule, more developed and important.
The right hemisphere, on the other hand, is the analog machine, which realizes chiefly the processing of emotional images and by the greater part of people works mainly during the sleep. There is performed the associative recognition, the judging by analogies, the spontaneous situational classification, at cetera, which are
full with errors, if one has succeeded to "catch" his brain in many incongruities during sleep, but they are much faster and interesting. The intellectuals, probably, have the ability to use their right hemisphere also while awake, what amplifies their imagination, while the logical verification of the left hemisphere is weaker and undeveloped. By each of us the brain has its specificity, but the important thing is that we have in our heads, in fact,
two types of computers, which work together, where this duality is the basis of our thinking and of the human intellect! Our brain is not simply one multiprocessor system of identical processors (though by some individuals this is also realized, meaning that there are people who can perform simultaneously several mental activities), but a complex of different in their way of functioning machines. The experiments in artificial intelligence are reduced, for the time being, mainly to modeling of the activities of the left hemisphere, though it is not that the ideas of the perceptron and the neural networks, which must help in realizing of our "right" computer, have not existed, but we have to wait for this, maybe, half or one century more. In any case, this obscure thing in possibility can be achieved also in artificial way, more so that the nature (or God) has succeeded to do this in the most elementary way -- via millions and millions of trials and errors.
III. Undeveloped Instinct
This, that we have in our disposition such perfect computer devices in our heads, however, does
not mean that we use them properly. More precisely said:
the human being acts reasonably only
after he has used up all unreasonable methods for achieving of the goal! The intellect is as if the last resort for us, and we remember about it when all other means have already failed. In this sense is justified to look at it as at one
undeveloped instinct, of which we rarely make use even in our individual activity, not to mention our collective decisions in society, where the noising of the environment is so strong that suppresses the reasonable voices (see "About the mankind"). As far as this, to have in disposition something good and not to use it properly, must look as pretty strange phenomenon, let us look more precisely at the
causes for our
unintelligent behaviour.
1. The intellectual decisions require much time and the process of thinking is significantly slower than the instinctive reactions, because of what the people very often behave like the animals. Here it goes primarily about the analytical or rational decisions, bur they continue to be regarded as properly intellectual and exactly there the human beings think that they have superiority over the animals, only that the latter very often behave more reasonable than them and even more "humane". In fact, it can be said that the human is just one
universal animal, which on account of his universality is also more incapable than any other specialized animal in whatever concrete activity, and because of this tries to
compensate his imperfection through this new instinct (or, rather, that the human being has
become universal, in the process of evolution, because he has been sufficiently incompetent and helpless in various activities). So that, in the best case, the human tries to automatize his knowledge and technique of work to the speed (and level) of the instinct, where, if he succeeds in this, he acquires then, with the time, some
intuition, what shall say unconscious intellectual activity, performed spontaneously and without apparent mental activity. It happens so by solving of school tasks, by driving, and in fulfilling of his direct obligations, but this is, rather, applying of previous mental activity, reduced in the moment of action to automatism (as, for example, if one thinks while walking which leg to heave and how to shift the center of gravity, then he will often stumble and fall). But such, now reflective, activities can be performed in known situations, while in complex life problems one is forced to think
on the spot, only that this is very tiring and slow for him, and the operational situation not always allows it.
2. The human, however, except head, has also body, what means that
he is first of all emotional and then rational. The human is higher
animal (what should not shock us because it is true), and the main goal of every animal is to have a pleasant life, so that here we have one dialectical contradiction in the goals of existence. The robots are not emotional (at least till now) because we have not decided, that this will be of some use for them, but the modeling of emotions is nor more difficult than the modeling of intellect, and if by us the emotions are hindrance it is natural not to apply them in the artificial intellect. But the emotional load of human judgements does not mean simply taking of partial decisions satisfying only our interests, because the intellect is obliged to force the superiority of the given individual or group above the others and this is natural. More than this, it can be stated that in our world one suffers mostly
not because he does not seek his interest, but because he can't establish correctly his interest (for he seeks it too eagerly)! The partiality of human thinking is expressed in
violation of the very logic of reasoning and substituting it with this, to what the individual is emotionally more well-disposed, or, in the slightest cases, in filtering of the input data from the point of view of (often non realized) individual preferences. The human being is up to such extent egocentric, that he can think logically very rare, by the simple reason, that a priory takes for true this, what wants to prove in the way of logic. So does the politician, and the jurist, and the patient, and the enamored one, etc., and as if really reasonable behaviour can be observed only by working with abstract mathematical categories.
About the contradiction between reason and emotions, surely, is spoken much, but the core of the matter is that it is not at all necessary for this contradiction to be antagonistic and the whole "trick" is in this
who will command
who. It is normal to expect that the intellect will rule over the emotions and from this will gain the very emotions (together with the intellect), but as far as the human being is not created at once, but is product of the evolution of animals, the emotions take more basic position than the intellect. This, in fact, is paraphrasing of the thesis about the undeveloped instinct, because when it will develop enough (and if it will do so, of course) it must take the whole commandment using the emotions only as "consultants" or "arbiters" by evaluation of the decisions. In the next few centuries (and more realistic -- millenniums), however, we have no reasons for big expectations because nowadays for at least 95% of the people the arguments of the intellect continue to sound dry and unconvincing and they prefer the action before the thinking, because the former brings more immediate emotions, what means that they have, still, not learned to feel emotional satisfaction from the
very process of thinking.
3. The heuristic character of intellectual decisions means that
their truthfulness is not always guaranteed, and their checking in many cases is not possible, were it because of the enormous dimension, were it because of the main criterion for truthfulness (at least in the social area) -- the verification of the future. Looking more generally, the most efficient strategy, used everywhere by the nature (or God, if you definitely want to personify it), is the teeming with so many errors trial and error method (or complete search in the state space), which, though, can be
successfully applied if one has at his disposal unlimited time and resources. The human isn't God, but he also can apply some limited form of this strategy, if he realizes his position of dust particle of the human society and history and uses the accumulated millions of errors during the passed centuries. Only that each individual prefers to make
his own errors (because this is much easier than the processing of whole accessible information) and is very proud with this "independence". Well, in various cases this turns out to be correct, because the conditions of the previous errors surely were a bit different in something. In any case, our decisions are heuristic and our criteria for truthfulness are relative, so that the exact decision is not always guarantied.
But if the exact heuristic decision is not always guarantied, then at the expense of this is possible to be found some acceptable solution in relatively short time. In similar way work also the computer programs for playing of chess (and, naturally, the chess masters, too), which never consider all possible moves, but limit themselves with certain depth on the tree of conditions, as it is said. According to approximate calculations the number of possible moves in a game of chess of average length is a number written with a one followed by 120 zeroes (i.e. 10 raised to 120th power, 10
120), what is one really enormous number, because the amount of all
atoms in the Universe, was written as one followed by
only 80-some zeroes. So that the heuristic is unavoidable in complex tasks and everything is question of acceptable balance between wholeness of the examination and time for getting of the solution. But what is the intellect, if not also a balance between contradictory requirements? Exactly this balance, though, this finding of the middle, as have said already the Ancient Greeks, is the most difficult thing for the human.
4. Another reason for the irrational human behaviour is the verbality of our judgements, or the
restrictive influence of the language. We are especially proud with our articulate speech, capable to give good description of the nature, but this, what it most of all gives, is one
virtual (i.e. seeming)
reality, which is rather misleading and ambiguous, than exact. Nobody can convince, say, a dog, that it is better for him to eat beans, soy, nuts, etc., because it does not understand human speech and thus prefers always the meat, while the humans can be convinced in this (and according to the Hinduism the use of whatever meat is not proper, including also eggs and caviar, for these were the future offspring of the animals). Our social system is based on the human speech, because no politician can manage the masses if he can't speak well, i.e. manipulate the people. We just like the delusion, which the words give us, and don't want to change it with anything else; the seeming reality of the literature is more attractive than some other arts, because their language (of the painting, for example) is poorer. By the way, it is not known which Bulgarian has first decided that our speech must be called "
rech" (and was he a Bulgarian), but he must have had sense of humour, because you know what "retch" in English means! This, of course, is just one linguistic curiosity and is not directly related with out discussion, but is indicative for the uselessness of many superlatives related with the (considered as logical) speech center of the brain, which, in fact, does what can, under the limitations imposed by the language.
The natural languages are especially inaccurate and work with very fuzzy concepts, what is the main reason due to which different people can on the basis of
one and the same data come
to radically different conclusions! Our trouble is not that we can speak, but that we believe to what was said! If we could have used some semantic language, which reflects better the meaning of the concepts, as now the artificial intellect tries to do, or if we have at least mastered the telepathy en mass, not just as some phenomenal exception of ones out of millions (and this not always and not for any mental images), we surely would have been more reasonable and more truthful. Many animals have their, primitive according to our understanding, languages, but they are good enough to express the necessary for them emotions (because their intellect is very rudimentary and on a more subordinate level than the emotions, in comparison with ours).
There are reasons to hope that, under the influence of the logic, the natural languages will become more and more precise, though this is very slow process. We, I mean the Bulgarians, for example, still use the double negation (e.g. the phrase "I don't know nothing new", which all the Slavs use -- but it is so in the Roman languages, too -- correctly understood means that "I know something new") while the Englishmen (as also the Germans) have rejected this before more than a century. But this does not mean, that they (i.e. you, the English speaking people) are significantly before us, because they have still not learned to make difference between the letter "o" and the number "0", and in many cases call the numbers "figures". Till now as if the only progress is the entering, already also in Bulgarian, of the combination "and /or", because our everyday "or" is the so called "excluding or", i.e. logical function which is true only if the both things are different (i.e. either the one or the other), while the writing with slash is true always when the both things are not simultaneously false. In any case, it is important to understand that our language, how much helps us, so much also hinders us, in our efforts to find the essence of the things, and our intellect consists not necessarily in the ability to speak. So that it would have been best of all if we could have been intelligent
without speaking, instead of the reverse (what happens most often).
5. In relation with the rareness of intellectual activity by the humans not to ignore is also the fact that
the intellect is not directly related with the continuation of the gender, what is our global goal in life, from the point of view of the nature, because for continuation of the gender we need everything else but not much brains! The intellect continues to play secondary role in all more significant social activities (see "About the mankind"), which are related, anyhow, with the achieving of better conditions for reproduction of a given social group (although this is not realized by its members). From the view point of reproduction the human being is not intellectual but reproducing machine, where the man is the sower, and the woman is the earth-womb. Some of us may like this (especially the very process of reproduction, abstracted from the result), and some -- not much (if their reproductive apparatus is a bit worn-out, or not yet completed), but surely not more often than once in
thousand times one indulges in this activity for reasonable causes.
In any case, even in our enlightened age, and in the wealthy and developed countries, the intellect is valued mainly as
subsidiary element from the other sex, because the women search the beautiful, and/or the wealthy, and/or the strong men, while the men search ... again the same, but with the exception of the strength (because the strength of the woman, as it is known, is in her weakness). The intellect usually is
not a hindrance, when it is possession of the man, but it is just one piquant nuance (something like the combination between white and black race, for example, which has nice exciting effect), while by the women it is valued not according to the merits, but because of its rareness (something like, say, egg of a pterodactyl). And in the society is looked at the intelligent people in the best case with regret, because, you see, they
have nothing else left to them, with which to become famous. Maybe on some other planet the things are different, by the artificial intelligence this surely will not be so, but by the people this is innate quality.
6. At the end we will focus also on the
lack of organization in the human society as a whole, what makes the special intellect of its members just
unnecessary. And, really, what is the need of quite optimal solution for a given individual or a small group, when their interaction is still performed in the most primitive way (see "About the mankind" and "About the violence"), and the reasonable decision has no chances to be put into practice? The central nervous system of the animals is improved in their struggle for survival, but when the human being is survived, and even is overpopulated our "poor" planet to insanity, then why should he need further improvements? The limits of our biggest dreams for public harmony don't go beyond the democracy, market economy, and "reasonable" armament, where the democracy contradicts to the common sense (see "About the democracy"), the market is one obvious deceit (see "About the mankind"), and the armament is reasonable only from the positions of the stronger. Until the society does not succeed to build some better organization than this of the jellyfish, for example, where the decisions of the central thinking organ to be put into practice without opposition of the masses, and better specialization than that of the
destructive tests, or of prosperity of the fittest (as if we are on some competition and the sun does not shine equally for all), then there will be no special need of more perfect form of human intellect. In other words, until the contradictions between the individuals will not be reduced to the possible minimum the people will continue to behave unreasonable or like animals. Well, that is it in general outlines: the goal justifies the means!
As far as the
creativity is to a great extent related with the intellect it is proper to say a few sentences also about it. Each intellectual activity is, as a rule, creative, though the reversed thing very often is not true. Maybe it is good to define the creative activity as such, by which
the pleasure is in the process, not much in the result, albeit, if the result is good, this also is not to be neglected. The antipodal activity is the routine one, by which the pleasure is after its conclusion, in the results of it (say, in the payment), while the very process quite often is not attractive for the individual. Naturally, are possible different levels of compromise between those two extremities, as also varying of the character of activity with the time; besides, such dividing is specific for each person. In this sense it is possible that a given creative activity is not related with the necessity of much intellect and one example for this is ... the sex, which surely is not practiced because of the result (exactly it most often is undesired) but because of the process! But this is
really creative activity (at any rate until one does not get bored by the partner), because one discovers each time something new in it, and for the majority of people this is the
only creative activity. In his life, of course, everybody tries to leave at least one child after himself, but this seeking of the result comes
after the pleasure from the process and is rather for personal justification; the human is wanting animal and he always aims at something -- if not at anything else than at least at permanent life via his children.
So that the intellect, for most of the people, is still something new, in which necessity they are not convinced. And they are not convinced because it does not bring them special pleasure, like the sex, for example. Those, who get pleasure out of the very intellectual process are happy in their own way, because this helps them in many life situations, and also one more pleasure is not to be missed. Only when this becomes common practice (and if this happens), then we could be able to assert that the human is thinking animal, not only capable to think (because he is capable also to ... urinate, for example, but does not relate his name with that his "ability"). If, after all, this will not happen -- well, then the experiment has proved to be unsuccessful.
ABOUT THE RELIGION
I. Support For The Masses
Well-known is the sentence that the religion is opium for the people, only that the wide majority of public has prejudiced conception on the question, due to (justified with nothing) assuming that the opium is something bad, because from this must follow that the religion also can't be something good, but the masses, as a rule, see nothing bad in the religion (or at least in
their religion). Such judgement is logical but wrong, because the opium is not necessary to be something bad (for otherwise it would not have been applied in the contemporary, as also ancient, medicine), and in addition to this everything depends on the dose and the particular case (or ailment). The people
seek the religion exactly in their difficult moments in life -- by big misfortunes and death -- and precisely then they need this psychical and moral opium, in order to carry easier the heavy burden of their individual life. Surely, the religion is welcome also in the happy moments in their life, like marriage ceremonies, births, beautiful religious festivals and carnivals, because the great joy and the great sorrow have similar confusing impact on their everyday life; but even if it is not always so (because there is nothing confusing in an Easter, or a Corban-Bairam, or some other church holiday), nobody is crazy to deprive himself of nice traditions, and even looks for them alone, because in the many centuries of their existence the various religions have had possibility to devise much successful scenarios for nationwide holidays.
So that, if we get rid of the prejudice about the opium, we could even complete the above thought pleading that:
the religion is exactly this opium, which the people need! If it wasn't so the religions simply would not have existed for millenniums, because nobody can enforce over the man (at least not for a longer period) something what he does not want. If some priests do not understand the things in this way then this is just one more proof for their narrowness of thinking (something what is pretty typical for the cult officers, where the dogmatic thinking is norm of behaviour). The religion for the masses is what the fairy tales for the children are, regardless whether they are beautiful or scaring, because the common people do not differ much from the children in their naive conceptions and in their wish to escape somehow from the reality, which they wide away from always like. In this sense the religion is a kind of
escapism, and nobody can take away from the people the possibility for such temporary "switching out", and has also no such rights.
The communist propaganda, because of the fact that it was a
new religion (on what we will linger a bit about the end of this essay), although it did not dare to admit this, forced the perception that the religions (i.e. the
other religions) are something imposed on the people, what is not needed for them, and, hence, harmful. But this is just not true in the general case, because the people alone seek some religion, and this what is imposed on them (and they don't like it) is the
commonly accepted religion and its learning in the schools (for the compulsory things rarely appeal to the people), and for that reason already in the era of Renaissance appeared many adversaries of the religion. These adversaries were big humanists and great personalities, and their opposing was normal and necessary in order to tear, or
detach, the religion from the government, to eliminate the unnecessary dogmatism in the thinking (because it, as everything in excess, is harmful), to democratize and decentralize the society, but not to throw the religion entirely from the social area of life. And as we see even today it is not cast away. The religion exists, and will exist, as one vital need for the mankind, but it is changing, and will change, with the expanding of our knowledge about the world. The religious dogmas break, and for every dogmatist this means denying of the religion, but this, in fact, is one incessant evolvement from the naive and concrete ideas about God (or the gods) with human image to one more abstract understanding of the unlimited in the space and the time nature and of the nothingness and weakness of the human.
The religion is one
necessary delusion -- obviously delusion, because there are no proofs for the existence of God (to what we shall turn our attention in chapter III, but see also "About the creation"), and obviously necessary, because the people search for it since centuries. The truth, besides that it is inaccessible for the people (and thanks God, for if we could have reached sometime the whole truth about the Universe, then what would have we done thereafter?) and our movement in the time is one ceaseless process of discovering of new partial truths from the limitless absolute truth about the world, but is also almost unbearable (because the people, as we said, are like the children). The religion is one delusion, but
everything in our life is delusion: the success, the happiness, the love, the knowledge, the heroism, the purpose of life, the alcohol, the sex, the art, and so on and so on. The Christian religion says that "all is vanity", what has the same meaning (though it does not call this delusion) and offers as single alternative the faith in God and the afterlife. The only thing, that we can do in this situation, is to choose some
more beautiful delusion and be happy with our mirage!
It is very naive to think, that when one knows that he deludes himself in something he will be malcontent -- one is discontented only when he does not like something, and the truthfulness is the last thing that interest him, and this only if he is not contented. Most of the children somewhere about the fifth year know very well that there is no Father Frost or Santa Claus, but this does not prevent them to enjoy their presents for this holiday. Each sane human being is aware that it is impossible to search all available men or women (according to the case) for to choose a partner in life, or object for his /her love, but this does not hinder him /her to fall in love, if not with the first met, then at least with one of the first 5-6 objects. Each reader knows that the fiction books (and films) are pure invention (although we, in Bulgaria, are a bit confused, for one thing because of the existing for a long time "critical realism", and for another thing -- because we speak about literature, where the English speaking people name it exactly "fiction", i.e. invention), but this does not hinder him to read them, if he likes them. In this sense the realizing of the fact that that the religion is also an invention and the existence of God is unprovable, does not at all mean that the religion is not necessary for the people, nor that this hinders them to believe in it (i.e. to delude themselves).
In the light of these reasonings it is now time to give a definition of the religion, but such that is maximally broad and non-limiting, in order to include all existed and existing religious beliefs, as also possible future religions. For this purpose is useful to search also some etymological relations, because this, what was settled linguistically in the languages, is something deeply felt (or "unconsciously realized") by the people during the centuries. The very word "religion" is Latin and means something on which one relies, or seeks support, what can easily be seen in the English. Then the English word "pater" is Latin, but comes from the ancient Sanskrit where
patera means beam, prop, and this root is present also in Bulgarian in one rarely used nowadays word,
pateritza, what is a ... crutch. The Bulgarian word for pater-priest is
sveshtenik (or
sveshchennik in Russian) and means bright or saint person (
svesht /
svecha is a candle), where the Latin Pope is in Russian
papa and means also father (understand, of the humanity), and the Russian language, though for the West might sound like Chinese, has many Latin words and roots, only that the suffixes are Slavonic and different. Interesting is also the relation of the English God (and German
Gott) with the root "good" (in German
gut), because God is the good being; as also of your evil and devil, where the latter for the English is built from "the Evil (being)". And so on.
So that our definition for the religion is the following:
integral social system of perceptions and rituals, which is based exclusively on the faith, and is designed to support and encourage people in their everyday activity and especially
in the difficult moments, giving meaning of otherwise meaningless, from the point of view of the individual,
life. About the support, which the religion gives, we spoke enough, about the meaning of life (or its meaninglessness) there are many thoughts in the essay "About the creation", and in the next chapter we will dwell more profound on the goal of religion, so that here remains to say some words about the faith. In fact, it is obvious, that in the religion the assertions are accepted
not because they are true or right, but first on faith, and only after this, when and where this is possible (and even where it isn't) they are justified in some logical way, but
post factum. More than this, not only that it is believed in something not because of its truthfulness, but
precisely the opposite -- because of its unprovability, or as states the reached to us from Roman times famous phrase:
Credo quia absurdum, i.e. "
I believe because it is absurd"! For many people this may sound as paradox, but it is the pure truth (well, not absolute one, of course), because this, what is probable or possible, it can either happen, or be proved in logical or experimental way, and this, for which there is no way to be proved (but it must be accepted on instilled in the masses), can be accepted only via the faith and without thinking. In other words, this, what is to be believed in it, i.e. is possible, provable, there is no need for it to be taken on faith (i.e. it
is not "to be believed"), where this, what is not to be believed, because it contradicts to the logic and/or experiment, it must be taken on faith (i.e. it "
is" to be believed) -- quite confusing verbal equilibristics, but such are the human languages and the logic of common individual, so that there is no way to run away from such slippery situations.
II. Morality
Each religion has its deep moral purpose, and it is this, what justifies its existence. The fundamental notions about the good and the evil, introduced even by the primeval shamans, are vital necessity in the human society, not because the man is so silly not to know what is good for him and what isn't, but because the egoistic goals of each individual contradict to the common goals of the group of people, and, hence, there must exist someone, who has to formulate some more common rules for living together, and this someone must impose them -- were it with force, were it with delusion. In the nature there is
no good or bad, and these notions are not necessary for the animals, because they don't have abilities to build in themselves more or less good models of reality, and live simply day after day, without the possibility to predict the things wider ahead than, say, one yearly season. There are not virtuous cats, or wolfs, or dogs, or locusts, if you want, but this does not hinder them the least in life, because they have not the ability to formulate questions about its meaning, where the human ability for understanding (and this is where from comes the fable about the apple of knowledge in the paradise garden) is a two-edged sword. The ability for knowledge is something more perfect in biological sense, but it imposes new problems for the beings endowed with it, because if an animal kills only to defend itself or to become fed, then the man does this by various abstract reasons. In this way this social animal called thinking becomes very strong and dangerous, not only for the other animals, but also for his brethren -- ergo, he must still learn how to live with the others, so that the bloodshed (or the losses of biological materials, said more cynically) to be possible minimal. Because of this, exactly, exists the morality.
If we try to give one short and non limiting, but sufficiently thorough, definition of the notion "morality" we could have come to the following:
system of rules destined to unite the people in the time and in the space. The common coexistence on one and the same place can be reached relatively easy (most often with the use of force), but before the time, without moral norms, the mankind just stumbles! Group of people not united in the space is accepted to be called "savages" (for they can cut the throats of each other like a pack of wolves, were it because of some female, or of some "bone", or only to show what "heroes" they are), while group of people not united in the time are usually called "barbarians", i.e. infidels (because they don't know how to behave in order to leave behind a good memory about themselves, nor are convinced that must leave such memory at all).
For achieving of harmony in life of the human with his own kind and with the environment all means are allowed! For this reason it is entirely natural the invention of afterlife (or of reincarnation of the souls), and the complete penetration of religion (at least until it is ruling) in all spheres of life, and the notion of sinfulness of the human, and the dogmatism of religious moral, backed by the apparatus of inquisition or, at least, of some censure, as also the acrimonious intolerance to the heresies (i.e. the erroneous theories), and the utopian nature of religious happiness in contrast with the real earth pleasures, and the unavoidable stagnation in the development (because the happiness, most often, is in the stagnation), and other common characteristics of a given religion. The religions are for the masses and, for that reason, they are
refuge for the weak, because the common one is weak -- as much to confront the evil, as well also to comprise in his mind the unlimited time and space.
For the unbiased and thinking man is completely clear that the bad and the goodl are not abstract but
relative categories and in each concrete case they can have different meaning, but such setting of the things does not solve the problem! One must know, for example, that the cannibalism is something very bad, cruel sin, no matter that there can be cases when it is one reasonable (say, from the view point of continuation of the gender) decision -- only that they are so rare and so questionable, that it is not in the power of everyone to judge, as it's said, on the spot, and there must be some dogma, or God's commandments.
The toleration of others' views, indubitably, is very good and useful for each society idea, but this is requirement which is pretty difficult to reach in our full with antagonism world, so that, notwithstanding the efforts of some of the religions, there is no one, which has always been tolerant to the others (even if there was such one, it would have lost its followers, because the people are those who change the religions). What will say that the religions are positive phenomenon concerning their cause for appearance, or their
intentions, but at the same time they have played extremely reactionary role during all epochs, when was come to the effect or result! This, however, is unavoidable, and the best, that one religion can do, is to detect that "the way to hell is strewn with good intentions". Nowadays almost all religions aim at ever greater tolerance, but this is mainly because of the fact that in the religious feelings of the contemporary citizens can be seen some decline and the greater tolerance creates basis for convergence of various, taken earlier for heretical, flows in a given religion, but also because in the today's communicative world people are forced to live in greater concord and require this also from the religions. If in this way the religion retains its leading place as moralizer of the society, then this can only be welcomed! In any case, we should not think that the religion has fulfilled its purpose and therefore will perish from the face of the world, regardless of the next chapter, where we denounce some of the pseudo-scientific or Jesuitical theses for the existence of Christian God.
III. Existence of God
Proofs for the existence of God are not provided, and there
can't be any proofs, if we are clear about the question what is this God? If we define God as such omnipotent and indestructible Being (or "substance", if you like it better so), which exists everywhere and always, which does not depend on the real world, in which we live and whose laws we continually attain, and which is even the primary cause for the creation of this world, we can't miss to come to the conclusion that our knowledge about this Being depends solely on His wish to allow us this pleasure. If God wants to stay away from the people and leave them, after having equipped them with free will, alone to achieve the meaning of good and bad, then He will always find ways so to hide from us, that we will not be able to find or prove His existence, neither in experimental, nor in rational way. If He, though, decides to show Himself to somebody, then this somebody will find Him everywhere: in the stone, in the tree, in the animal, in the fly, if you want, in the human being, in his thought, and will be categorically convinced in His existence, no matter what the declarations of the others are. For that reason the Christian religion insists that "who searches, finds". The whole thing here is in this, that God is not just much stronger, cleverer, and better than the humans, but is
infinitely, i.e. incomparably, more such, and He exists forever and everywhere. In order to be able to attain Him or acknowledge His existence only with his own efforts one must be at least with His abilities; yeah, but the human is not a God, so that this is impossible, or, put in Latin, this is one
contradictio in adjecto, i.e. contradiction in the very definition.
This is not at all a new thesis, but is known for about 25 centuries and is named
agnosticism. Though we, in Bulgaria, are a bit misled by this setting of the things, because the communist propaganda insisted that the agnosticism is a theory about unknowability of the real
world, not of God. In some religions God is identified with the truth about everything, or with the absolute truth, as we now say, understanding by this the whole knowledge about the Universe, but this is just another way for naming of the natural laws, or the
idea about the things. One way or another, if we state that God is really a God, then His existence, or absence, can't be proved by us in
whatever way, because we are imperfect and sinful beings, and when we think we have discovered God we can positively delude ourselves, as also when we think that there is no God. Said in more contemporary language God is a being
from another dimension, and we simply can't see Him, where He can (if only desires). From what follows that the existence of God is a matter of taste, or of
belief, and who wants can think that He exists, but who does not want -- that He doesn't. But our wish shows no effect over His existence or absence, because we are those who need Him, not He us! The existence of God is only a
hypothesis, and if we need it we can accept it, but if we can do without it there is no need to mess with it; the exact and natural sciences do very well without it, where in the social area it is often necessary, due to the naivete of the masses, and for that reason it is used there.
These reflections were necessary for us in order to know how to take the listed below "evidences" for existence of the Christian God, where the quotes are necessary, if we understand that proofs, anyway, can't exist. These are examples for Jesuitical logic, what is a mixture of logic and faith (where the logic fails), but we must not judge them especially severe, because they are intended for the masses, and the people, as a rule, apply similar imprecise judgements quite often, in order to excuse their own views in some, ostensible objective, way. Here are some of the most widespread
theses for the existence of God.
1. God is the primary cause for the world, in which we live. Everything on this world is created by somebody, because there can't arise a consequence without existing of a cause for it. One house can't be built of itself, neither a sword be fabricated alone, nor a human to be born without the act of conception, and so on, so that there must be cause also for this, what does not happen by our will -- sprouting of the tree in the forest, emerging of the wild animals, creating of the rocks, and the seas, and the rivers, and the stars in the sky, et cetera -- and, hence, they must be created by somebody. But no man can create a flower, for example, if has not its seed, or create a star in the sky, or stop the rising of the Sun, therefore all this is created by some omnipotent Being, Who lives forever in the time, knows everything, what was, and what will happen, because understands the cause-effect relations of the things, is located everywhere, where He wishes, and commands our whole world or entire Universe, because He alone has made it. He does not plant the seed for each grass, because He has said how this grass must plant its seed, or how each animal must behave and how to propagate, so that to populate this beautiful world. He has created also the human being and has made him to look like Him, but has not restricted him to do only good, because otherwise the human would not have had freedom of will, this divine quality, but has left him to suffer on this world in order to achieve happiness in the future life, when will come to Him, then without his perishable material shell, but only as an idea, soul, or emanation of the divine principle. God is the truth for everything, because nothing can arise without the idea for it, and the idea is nonmaterial, though it can be implemented in material forms. God exists, because however much we know we, still, can't achieve the divine nature of the world, and the world exist, hence it was created. If we think that some things happen simply because they happen, or casually, then we think so only because we can't grasp the divine wisdom, but we delude us and err thinking so. And so on.
All these considerations are entire speculative and can easily be rebutted also in one logical way: if God has created once the material world applying His free will, and if
each thing has to have its Creator, then who has created the Creator? In general, the thesis about the beginning and meaning sets unavoidably the question about the beginning and meaning of
this beginning and imposes the necessity of some hierarchy of gods, what again does not answer our questions! As, by the way, the separation of the matter from the idea about it inevitably raises the question of priority of one of the two things, but so long as they exist together (as the hen and the egg), then such separation leads to nowhere. The beginning of Creation must be observed only as some
conditional point for tracking of the time, not as some real beginning, as well as also the searching of meaning or goal, where they are not bound to exist, can't discover them but only invent them. Anyway, concerning these questions see also the assay "About the Creation".
2. The nature obeys natural laws and, hence,
they must be created by somebody. This is some modification of the previous point, only that it is much more contemporary and logical and that is why we treat it separately. It does not presuppose the idea of God being like a naughty child, who has done some mischief (say, has tied a tin at the tail of a cat) and has hidden somewhere to see the fun, but of Him being like a real artist, who has created something finished (a picture, or mechanism, or the like) and has left it to the people to use it. This thesis does not limit at all the scientific search and knowledge about the world, in which for God is not necessary to interfere after the initial act of creation. It simply imposes on us the unjustified with nothing relation between the natural and human laws, and if the latter are created by somebody and written on something, then also the natural laws must be created by somebody and written somehow in the matter. But the catch is the same: when something exists, it has to be created by somebody. It is true that there can't be a cause without some consequence, but who gives us the right on the basis of the consequence to
invent also the cause for it? And who can guarantee us, that the cause is one and only, for to choose exactly it? The arbitrariness of our world can be "coded" in it (by somebody or something), but can also be the only possible solution, in which case we do not need the hypothesis of God. And in addition to this the usage of this thesis again degrades the role of God, or contradicts to His definition, because if God has created all natural laws, then He also has to obey them, what says that He has no free will or is not at all God.
3. The purposefulness of our world can be explained only with the existence of its Creator. The grass grows in order to be eaten by some animal (and to saturate the air with oxygen, if we want to be more profound in the review); the leaves of the trees fall down in the winter in order not to freeze, and to prevent the roots of the trees from freezing, and to enrich the earth with nutrients; the cow exists for to give us milk, the sow -- meat, the hen -- eggs, and so on; the Sun rises in order to warm, the Moon -- to shine in the night, the river flows for to drink from it, the seas exist for the fish to breed there, etc.; the sex exist for the people and animals to breed and reproduce themselves; the man is created for to please God; and other similar things. Nothing happens just so in the nature, but with some specific purpose, and if we can not perceive it then this does not mean that there is no such purpose. If the world was not made by God then it would not have been so efficient. The sciences do not contradict to the existence of God, but serve only to
explain to us the divine goals, which He has set, and which, otherwise, the weak humans could not have succeeded to understand. God has given us the reason for we to be able to conceive Him, the notion of good and evil -- for to strive to the good, and the free will -- for we to be able to come nearer to Him. Even the fly exists for to feed the spiders and the birds (and, maybe, to teach us to live more hygienically), the worm -- for to loosen and enrich the soil, and the death -- for to teach us to value more the life and to be able to come later on in the paradise or the hell, according to this, what we have deserved on this world. But then, why not to add that the nose exists for to set the glasses on it, the little finger -- for to have something to ... poke in the nose, and the hands -- to be able to wipe our behinds (because we can't, hmm, lick us like the cats and dogs)? The life is result of propitious events and unlimited number of trials and errors (see again "About the Creation"), and all efforts to ascribe to it some goal or purpose are at least comical.
4. God exists in order to teach us what is good and what -- bad. This is the moral argumentation of His existence, but here, too, the things go from the back to the front, or we prove something only because that is how we like it. When one does not know what is good and what bad for him, and the human being really very often does not know, then must come some omnipotent power to teach him. But if the notion for good and bad has not existed before our "dear God" has explained it to us, then from this follows that the world which He has created (with the bad in it) is not at all good, and the very God neither is a good Being. The fables about the free will of the human, because of which God has left the bad in the world, because, you see, if there is not evil then there will be nothing between what one has to choose and will behave always good, are pretty nice in theory, but does not at all justify human miseries, and, in the end, when He is
God He might have devised some way so that there were free will, and also were bads and evils, but the humans could have done only good things! What from this, that in this way there would have not existed the reward of eternal bliss (or eternal punishment) in the "other world" -- then one would have lived on
this world like in the paradise. Surely this is groundless thesis. And if then the good and bad have existed before the arrival of God and the creation of our world, then God has shown no contribution to the question. It turns out that the things are easily solved if we do not mix these notions in the material world, which is such as it is, and the good and the evil are relative, as everything else, or are side products of the existence of the matter. The moral will not suffer from this, but will become what it, anyhow, is -- rules for peaceful coexistence of many individuals. Only that we shall move away from the hypothesis of God, and the purpose of the task was to confirm it.
5. God is the Saviour of mankind. Despite the misfortunes on this world God is who saves the immortal souls of the people, and He has even taken a particle from Himself, begetting in this way His Son Christ in entirely human form and with human flesh, in order to be able to experience all human sufferings and later, with His death, to defeat the death. God has created not only the real world, but the paradise and the hell, and in this way has made it easy for the human to became more fully united with His divine essence. Even if we leave aside the justified with nothing hypothesis about the existence of our Christ, because there are no historical evidences for His real existence, especially credible witnesses of the moment of conception or of His resurrection, after confirmed by competent consilium of medics physical death, but we have no reasons to think that the "other world" is in something better than this one. The human being is finite creature and it isn't at all clear whether one everlasting life (if possible) will be something good, or constant boredom, because the happiness may consist largely in the stagnation (for the reason that each transitional period is something, on the whole, bad -- as we in Bulgaria have seen on the example of our transition to the democracy, that never ends), but not the
everlasting stagnation, without whatever possibility for change (with the exception of those in the Purgatory, after which again comes endless boredom). There, where are no expectations and hopes for changing, can't exist any space for expression of the free will. In other words, as much as we twist our souls, the "other world" is one eternal exile! If God was really good and omnipotent He would have devised some painless way for destruction of the soul (or deleting of its memory, if He so much does not want to throw away something good), instead of this eternal tortures (or blisses with the same effect). So that: as this world is bad, so is also the "other", and so also the relation between the two worlds is almost the worst possible, and this isn't a salvation at all, because two millenniums after the Christ the mankind continues to kill one another as before, even in significantly greater scale. Instead of to "spoil the image" of God in this way it is better if we do not mix Him in the least in our human follies.
IV. Atheism
After our ascertaining that the agnosticism is a true thing and the existence of God is a matter of taste, we should not miss the other pole in the worshiping of the religions -- the atheism -- all the more that it is related with their future evolution or "mutation". The atheist insist that there is no God, but this
also can not be proved, as the opposite, and in this sense
the atheist is also a believer! This can sound paradoxically for the majority of people, including the
very atheists, but this is unalloyed truth. More than this, the believers and the atheists are not entirely symmetrically opposed, where the true believers are
exactly the atheists, because the existence of God, still, can be proved,
if He exists and decides to show up, while
the absence of God simply
cannot be proved (if He does not exist)! This now must be clear, because for each thing is much easier to be proved its existence (if it is present at least in one particular case), than its absence (everywhere and always), in which connection our folks say: "go and prove you are not a camel". In the most cases there remains no other algorithm for proving of the absence except, the so called, complete search, and in our case this is impossible, for we are to "search" each one point of the
infinite space
and time, and by this
having no idea how looks this, what we search!
Let us now try to predict the future evolvement of religions, going out, of course, from some common tendency in their chronological appearance and development. This tendency is not so difficult to be noticed and it is: from the concrete -- to the abstract! All primitive religions have pictured in some way their gods, where their image was dogmatically set and, of course, similar to the human or to some animals. The Hinduism also has humanlike gods, but some of them have by six limbs, and it begins to be spoken about million worlds or Universes, which can emerge from the breath of one god and be destroyed by another, where divine now becomes the truth. By the pharaohs and Ancient Greeks, as also in Hebrew religion, the gods are still quite human. But by the Christianity now appear three gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, where the point isn't in their number but in the abstract image of the Spirit, which is pictured as pigeon not because looks like it, but because He has to be pictured somehow. Seven centuries after Christ emerges the Islam, which says about God only that He exists, but how He looks like -- nobody can tell, for which reason in the
cami-mosques can be ornaments, and this mostly outside, but the walls are bare, in order not to distract the worshipers with various pictures. In the time of Mohammed there was not science fiction and that is why he does not call Allah being from the forth dimension, but the meaning of this God is such. The widespread during 19th and 20th century (though coming from Ancient Greece) atheism rejects entirely the divine image and substitutes it with the impersonal "nature" (or substance -- by Spinoza). It is true that by the atheists God disappears completely, as well as also the saints and the miracles, but there remains one His quintessence, the
idea about God, in the form of natural laws, i.e. remains the most important, this what can not be destroyed.
If one still wonders why the Islam makes significant progress, especially in the 20th century, then he simply does not realize how the rapid development of sciences makes untenable the strict Christian dogmas and the exact images of God. The people are still like the children and need fairy tales, but they want now something more up-today, some science fiction tale, i.e. some religion, which leaves more space for their own fantasy and thought. The Christian religion also changes, as much as she succeeds in this, diverging in quite different heresies since about 15th century, until the contemporary situation is reached, where in USA in 20th century arise also some, so called,
autocephalous churches, i.e. churches created by one person only, who alone is the head of it (as also its "tail", because it can't be said that they have many followers). It turns out that the icons are not compulsory for the believers, but the everyday prayers also are not something irrevocable. The important thing is for the person to realize that he is not alone on this planet, and that the life on it does not finish with his own life!
From the concrete to the abstract is the natural evolution of religions, but this is also the way through which go many of the sciences, because this is the way of our knowledge for the world. The final moment in this regard for now is the atheism, but it is not enough developed and has not many of the rituals which has each self-respecting religion, and this is the reason that it is not accepted from the masses as such, but the future is limitless (unless we alone set some limits), so that we should not reject it in a hurry as belief.
And meanwhile one
new religion emerged in 20th century and while the people argue whether this is a religion, whether it is good, etc., it succeeded to make its own way around the world. It goes about the
communism, or rather about the Leninism, which has all characteristics of an atheistic religion. It bred out of Marx's "ghost of communism", but began to exist as religion in the time of Lenin in the young Soviet state, went through periods of persecutions and prosecutions, created his own saints, succeeded to establish itself as official religion on a vast territory of the globe, and now goes around in the "third" world searching suitable soil for its prospering. It has
no gods, but has natural laws, which are no less implacable than the gods; has
no wonders, but has the wonders of the sciences, which are no less astonishing than those of the gods; has
no prayers, but has wishes, strivings and ideals, which have no weaker impact on the masses. It is true, that in regard of the rituals there is much to be desired, but its active existence is only about 80 years, and what are 80 years for a religion? It isn't now ruling religion in the ex-communist countries, but this does not mean that it doesn't still rule "the hearts and minds" of the people (well-worn stereotype, but, in general, true), because the collapse of the communist system was simply signal for
its separating from the state, as it has happened in the Renaissance with the Christian religion in the whole Western world. It has morality, has utopianism, has idea of sin, has afterlife ("the bright communist future"), has goal -- the happiness of the people, causes stagnation (as each other religion), and the stagnation is especially important when some civilization (as the contemporary) goes away, it is sufficiently tolerant to the others (i.e. genuine) religions, preaches ascetic way of life on this world, and is a real refuge for the weak or less developed countries and nations. It had even their own censoring bodies and inquisition, as each other ruling religion.
Whether and up to what extent it will exist -- the future will show. But many things in it can remain, even the five rayed star, because this is widespread and old symbol and exists on the American banner (though the Americans run away from the communism "as the devil from the incense", but this is because they are wealthy country and nobody there wants to be poor), besides the Pentagon is, in fact, one "pentagonal star with cut out rays" (or in the reverse way -- the five rayed star is an upgraded pentagon). The red colour is in nothing worse than the blue one (it's allusion to the modern in the first democratic years Bulgarian Union of Democratic Forces, UDF), for example, and about the party houses -- nobody has said that they must be built only in "Stalinist" style (or "Communist Gothic") and can be shaped also like space stations, if you want. The future of mankind is one much more tangible ideal than the afterlife, because each one, in any case, tries to leave something behind (at least some child), and the total abstraction of the god-nature does never endanger to fall out of mode because of changing of the tastes. The most precious asset of the human is his labour and this is uncontestable truth, and the highest happiness (for each sufficiently reasonable individual, who can "exceed" his mortal shell) is the happiness of the others, because this is the mutual or shared happiness, and it is something that can outlive him, leaving some trace amongst the other people. The contradiction between the faith, which each religion requires, and the reason, which the very human nature requires, is not so hardly to overcome (as, say, the contradiction between the sexes, or the generations), because the faith can be stipulated by the way of the reason, and the reason to exist based on the belief (in it). More than this, exactly the symbiosis between faith and reason in the communist atheistic religion, or in some of its descendants, including the contradiction in itself, can make this religion live and long lasting. And the fact, that it does not set any racial, financial, sexual, intellectual, and other differences (except, maybe, the necessity for the worshipers to be not significantly wealthier than the others, but this is easily surmountable), makes it entirely accessible for each weak, but more or less rational human.
So that the religion is opium for the people, but until they do not show that they don't need this opium, it will take a central place in the social life of the people. But judging by the omnivorousness and naivety, with which the masses devour the advertisements, that are offered to them, there are all reasons to suppose that they will always need religion. The religion is harmful when there collide severe two different religions and begin to fight war (because, for example, one group of people were breaking the egg from the sharp end and another one -- from the blunt one), but otherwise some measure of delusion about life is vitally necessary for the people in order to be able to live it, and, in this sense,
each religion does good work, because one will never reject the delusion, if he likes it. Until a given society is divided in contradictory structures with different interests (and this will always take place, because the humans are created different in their tastes, interests, and abilities, and exactly this variety is the most valuable thing in this world), till then it will need something uniting and binding together its members. Until one needs support and purpose in life he will need also some religion. But he will always have such need because he is not a God.
ABOUT THE VIOLENCE
I. Necessity Of Violence
The violence is
necessary element in the "game" called life! This is trivial truth, not only because the millennial existence of mankind proves it, but also because the only way to overcome it is ...
another form of violence, were it some police or army, illegal mafia, revolution, religious war, judicial investigation, et cetera. In this process, of course, it can't be said that the character of new violence is of no importance, which can be more humane (in the usual meaning of the word), but it must be
stronger, as far as it can be spoken about some objective criterion for its measurement, like human lives, or percents of one life as measure for inflicted serious physical or moral damages; or else it has to be expressed in
another aspect. The reducing to the scale of human lives is especially difficult when the influence is moral, or of moral terror, in which case the usual human reactions are changing for
fear of further violence, in which situation the given action, although it has preventing effect, is a kind of violence against the person, and in this case the magnitude of global impact is determined by the broader layers to which it is directed, while its strength in each single case may be only about 1-2% of the accepted value of one human life. At any rate, this cyclical character of the fight against the violence via applying of another violence (more so because there is no other way), is a natural phenomenon.
The violence can change its forms, where each new form usually differs in some parameter, or in the sphere of its action, i.e. in the scope of individuals, to which it is applied. In this process not only an exact quantitative evaluation is not possible, because of the relative character of the measuring unit, but almost always is not present the so called "control group", with which to compare the new form of violence with the old, if it has continued to exist by the control group, and the repeating of the things in the time never happens under exactly the same conditions. So, for example, it
can't be stated with certainty that the communist terror in the former Soviet Union (or in any other ex-communist country, with the conditional exclusion of Germany) has been a worse violence than the contemporary democracy, with inevitably accompanying it: national, ethnic, religious, and criminal bloodshed for the same period of time -- because have not existed
two equal by all parameters Unions, which were to be compared for a bigger period (say, hundred years) and evaluating the victims to make a conclusion about the more humane character of the one or the other form! All possible comparisons of different territories, with different population, and in different periods of time, are unavoidably nonobjective and can be used only by biased political powers to prove
whatever they want (and based on
one and the same facts).
In any case, the violence has existed always in the history of mankind and there are no reasons to suppose that it will disappear sometime, no matter whether we like it or not -- in the same way as, for example, we can't make olives without stones (and if there exist citrus fruits without seeds, then they can not give by themselves new life). This is unavoidable as it is impossible to have life without death, if you want. But before getting the question in proper focus let us give one general and non restrictive definition of the notion "violence" as: very
sharp form of compulsion, leading to serious physical and moral consequences, including lethal outcome, and having for goal to make separate individuals or groups of such to act against their wish. The important thing here is the unwillingness of the subjects to have the required behaviour and the serious consequences otherwise, because we can not consider as violence, for example, if somebody will be awakened despite his unwillingness to get up (even if one pours a cup of water over his head). But in the same time we don't set any requirements characterizing the object, that causes the violence over the subject (to what we shall return at the end).
More interesting, and unexpected for many people, side of the question arises with the statement that
the violence is a reasonable reaction, as from the side of the object applying it in a given situation, as well also from the side of the subject of the violence, applying in his turn new violence to the object, or succumbing to the compulsion, despite the seemingly chaoticism and unreasonability of the reaction (as far as it is possible to speak about reasonable behaviour by the humans, what we shall clarify after a while). Here is the place to mention one basic characteristic of the organized animal matter and this is
the inadequacy of the reaction, because for it the Newton's law for equal and opposite reaction is not valid (see also "About the creation"). But inadequate is a weak statement, because it can be stronger or weaker, and we will try to concretize this law following one dynamically increasing action over the living matter (were it an amoeba, leg of a frog, particular individual, or social group). By very low-level stimulus there is still no reaction up to reaching of some threshold value, then reaction emerges and it usually is stronger that the action, and with increasing of the action the reaction also increases, but this continues up to reaching of some moment of maximum, after which with further increasing of the action the reaction begins to become weaker, and after some time it unavoidable ceases, because the subject of action has simply used all its energetic etc. abilities for reaction (where the object is supposed with unlimited, or at least very big, power, for to be in position to produce impact over the subject, especially violence, in what we are interested here).
This experiment is conditional, but it is obvious that it is generally applicable, irrespective of the type of impact and the subject. The animal matter, especially one whole organism, under weak actions has strong reactions (say, if we pull the tail of a cat it will scratch us), by stronger stimuli by the by it becomes adequate to the stimulus (to the stick, according with the proverb), and by very strong -- just refuses the opposition (i.e. the cat will curl itself and at most will begin to meow piteously). But this, what is valid for the cat, can fully be applied to the human, no matter whether one is being beaten or has just cut his finger (the slightest cut hurts most, ant the pain is a kind of response by the higher animals, which determines their next reactions). In the social sphere there is no need to go far for examples and we could have reminded ourselves the wave of strikes of the workers in system of education in Bulgaria (as relatively more intelligent) just after our November coup d'etat in 1989, but also in later democratic times, from what observation is seen that under lesser difficulties, shortly after the overthrowing (of our communist leader Todor Zhivkov), the strikes were most massive, but later on, when really hard times have come, and the average working salaries were significantly less, related to the subsistence minimum, the teachers striked less and less, until at the end they gave up at all to do this actively. The curve of this reaction can be different, but its character is always one and the same and is expressed in this, that
by weaker impacts arise stronger reactions and vice versa!
Some vague analogy can be observed also by the reaction of vegetable matter, for example of bending by a strong wind, but in the moment of the wind the reaction does not differ in anything from the reaction of a slim metallic rod, which is due to the elasticity. The difference between the metal and the tree, though, is shown
in the time (where the branch simply becomes tougher), and mostly in the future generations, after some genetic modification becomes necessary, while a metallic rod will never become stronger by itself. This means that some buds of inadequate reaction (and from here also of
reasonableness, as we shall see after a while) exist also by the vegetable matter, but this question does not interest us now and we can leave it to the specialists, so that let us return to the reaction of the animals.
Well, will somebody say, it may be so, but what reasonable exists in such reaction, and from whose point of view? Ah, it is very simple: the viewpoint is
the preserving and prolongation of life, and the reasonable is exactly in this preserving, because by weak impact the stronger reaction more effectively helps the living body to free itself from the impact, while when the stimulus become so strong that it is neither possible, nor reasonable, to counteract it, then the reaction weakens, with the hope that the impact will cease, but even if this does not happen, still, the reaction only needlessly exhausts the cell, organism, or the social community. Even from the point of view of the object of action (if it is reasonable) and the effectiveness of the very action is more reasonable for it to be stronger than necessary, in order to have better effect for the suppression of the reaction. So that the paradoxical character of reaction of the living matter to compulsion, or to the extreme form of the compulsion -- the violence -- is one more reasonable form, both, of action, and of reaction, than this of the nonliving matter, where the reaction is exactly equal to the action.
It is another question, though, whether this is the
maximal level of reasonableness, which one organized matter, especially in the social area, can show, and, surely, there exist more reasonable reaction, consisting in
earlier positioning of the extremum on the curve, i.e. of
predicting of unpleasant consequences for the living organism from the strong irritant without whatever necessity for it to become really strong! But, alas, this "bringing to reason" is very slow process and continues for centuries and millenniums and is practically not limited in the time, because always can be thought about better evaluation of the moment of ceasing or lessening of the reaction, reaching to the point even before the threshold value of the stimulus, what would have led as a result to the complete absence of the necessity for violence. Anyway,
the violence is justified, if it can prevent the necessity of
greater violence, and this is
the only justification of the violence! This thesis might not have been formulated in this way, but it, positively, has been known for millenniums and is fixed in all legal acts nowadays, because the punishment
is never equal to the crime. Not only by murder, where it is not in the power of man to return the life of some person, but even for a stolen hen, for example, is paid a fine at least as for ten hens, i.e. it turns out again that for slighter misdeeds the punishment is stronger, and for severe offenses -- it is weaker, and in the toughest cases of taking of someone's life the felon most often remain alive. But what is one judicial decision, if not a reaction to a crime, and what is one criminal act if not a reaction to the set for a given place and time laws?
But, in any case, the violence exists and it is "doctored" with other form of violence, where to the minor offense is answered with more severe violence of punishment, in order to prevent its spreading, and to the severe violence of crime is answered with lesser violence (if the reaction is relatively reasonable), because the escalation of violence leads to no good, as it was remarked long ago, but just moves the moment of extremum to greater violences. We can name this law for brevity "
law of necessary violence" (or more generally, "law of necessary impact"), what answers quite precisely to the core of the said above. But isn't the main message of Christian religion, which says that when you are slapped on one cheek you must turn the other one to be slapped also on it, something else than a call to avoid unnecessary violence because of knowing of the above law? The message of Christ was necessary
exactly because it contradicts to the normal human reaction, which is not sufficiently reasonable!
II. Acts of Violence
Now it is time to observe some concrete manifestations of violence in the society, in order for our review not to sound very abstract, but this is not a classification of the forms of violence, because some of them are contained in the others or cause them, but just an overview of the most significant points, which is intended to show the effect of the law of necessary violence (or of unnecessity of violence, if the social communities were in position to propose some more reasonable alternative).
1. The first thing with which we shall begin is the
war. It is the most massively applied form of violence, but here is interesting the general delusion (accidental or deliberate?) that, at least since Roman times and to the present day, the war has been considered for the final, or most powerful, tool (
ultima ratio, in Latin), where it almost always was
the first tool, because hardly ever has been sat down at the negotiating table before some military actions have taken place, where the only exceptions were when decisions were taken based on
other people's defeats, what has to say that there are, in fact, no exceptions! In the spirit of the said above about the reasonability of violence it comes out that the war, still, is reasonable tool for proving of someone's supremacy, and that in it are done mass violations in order to prevent long-lasting violations in the next periods, but the bad thing is that this is
not reasonably
enough, for there can be proposed various other means for reaching of the goal.
As examples we can give the following: sports competitions (football, or other ball-game, fencing, horse races, athletics, etc.); intellectual combats (chess or checkers, for example); games of chance, which in all times have symbolized the intervention of higher powers; magics and auguries, which were often applied in the past (but there neither have been approved generally applicable to both sides "standards", no have they succeeded to prevent the battles, they have just created some psychological disposition for them); representative battles of equal in numbers (say, by hundred persons) fighting squads from both sides and in conditions of real war, i.e. on life and death; such fights but of only one percent of the military units; gladiatorial fights, if you want; and so on. The wars for economical reasons, for their part, could have been carried out with economical means (as we now try, but don't succeed very much), and these for religious reasons -- via religious disputes, ceremonial parades, confessions or discussions with priests, and similar things. Even less sense would have been in the civil wars, if there could have been reached one common for the whole country vision about the problems, not to act like two packs of wolves hunting in a common area. The main drawback of mentioned reasonable methods is that these would have been
weak violations, and as such they would have not fulfilled their purpose! Though, of course, they wouldn't have been weak if the masses have shown a bit more intellect and have predicted the unreasonableness of stronger impacts.
But, still, in the wars of before a pair of centuries there was bigger dose of reason than in those of current days, because then has still existed difference between front and rear, and especially in Ancient Greece the soldiers have fought only on the battlefield (how the sports events are conducted now), and it was known in advance where exactly they will fight, so that in those times the wars have not differed much from current-day motor races, for example. During the 20th century, though, the power of the human has grown so high, that he, naturally, needs much bigger violences, for to be able with their help to reach the so wanted weak reaction -- alas, these are the facts! In addition to everything else now the state's organization is much more stronger, so that the wars nowadays are like the fights between dinosaurs -- it is shed much more blood than when fight two gnats, for example. Else the people have not become more reasonable, neither intend to become such! The presumption about the sufficient armament is a nice thing from the point of view of the stronger states (because they, anyway, are strong and know what happens with the mentioned dinosaurs), but the weaker and left behind in industrial and military sense countries continue to seek some keen (and often dishonest) methods for achieving of dominance, what they can't reach with restriction of the armaments. For example, it is very good for the states not to possess nuclear weapons, but it is good from the point of view of those who
already possess it, and who will convince the weaker that for him it is better to remain more weak than the stronger?
It is very easy to rise allegations that the violence is not necessary and is fruitless and that, say, there was no need for the town Dresden to be burned down, or for one significant part of the population of a multi-million city like St. Petersburg to become dead, or the atomic bomb over Hiroshima to be thrown, et cetera. But who can prove that such monstrous violence was not necessary in order to prevent even bigger violence, until we come to such escalation of the sufferings, that all nation could understand, at least for an instant, the Christ's maxim about the turning of the other cheek? Isn't it true that thanks to the Second World War the world lives now more than half a century (help God to be more) without (at least) world wars, and if the bomb over Hiroshima has not been thrown, would it not have been thrown till now somewhere some other, or more powerful, bomb? Cruel, really, but necessary violation, because the people continue to hit their breasts that they are reasonable beings, while they are only beings
capable to think, but do this simply after they
have exhausted all other unreasonable methods for reaching of the goal (contribution, maybe, of the author to the definition of
homo sapience). It would have been very nice if the Americans, for example (as the most powerful country in the world), would have decided to give ten years or so by 5-6% of their incomes as help for the unemployed millions German workers in the 30s years of 20th century, or for the destitute population of the backward Asian country named Soviet Union in the 20s, and other examples, but they have not done it. It would have been very nice if the capitalism from the beginning of this 20th century was a bit better and has not generated conditions for emerging of the fascist and communist ideologies, but it was not. And because the mankind is not in position to show more reason than a jellyfish (see "About the mankind"), it reacts according to the law of necessary violence. This is the situation, as you see.
2. Another typical manifestation of violence is the become "modern" during the 20th century term "
genocide", but it is not invention of the century and exists for millenniums, only that earlier it was applied mostly on the level of a family or tribe, while nowadays it is applied on a greater scale and on the level of a nation. Otherwise, nothing new under the Sun. The necessity of applying of this kind of violence comes from the possibility to pass genetically the characteristics of the subject in the generations, and from the conditions, which this creates for the remained alive subject to use in his turn violence over the previous object, which violence, naturally, will be stronger than the initial one, if the initial was not strong
enough. Clear and simple, isn't it -- each pear has its peduncle (as we say in Bulgaria)! This
isn't justification, for
nothing can excuse the genocide (even not previous genocide) -- this is just explanation. And if one begins to think how trivial is the solution, which might have been applied by the Hebrews, if they have wished, in order to prevent the genocide over them already as a germ (because they have had thousands of years to come to this decision, for have been persecuted from biblical times), one wants just to weep for this silly being called intelligent.
And the solution, really, is simple, because the genocide is directed against the gene and, hence, if this gene is difficult to be discovered, than the genocide also would have had no grounds for existence! In other words, the solution is in the gradual
assimilation of the Jewish nationality or, at least, in their
rejecting the concept of the "
chosen by God people", what would have eliminated radically the necessity for applying of violence over them. Nothing difficult or cruel -- just the Hebrews should not have opposed with all their strength to the interbreeding with the other nations where they have lived. So, for example, has happened with the Thracians in our lands in the antiquity, and typical contemporary example for equal racial mixing, I think, is the Brazil. This is
not losing of the gene, but its wider distribution on more fertile soil, what is preferable for genetic strengthening of the nationalities, because it is long ago known that by more distant family connections are born healthier children, but in the Talmud (which the author does not know, but have heard) are pictured many marriages between direct relatives. So that, really, the most clever is a bit silly, though this is not directly related with our topic.
But we can look also from another angle at the things, because the concept of chosen by God race is a kind of
violation over the people around, though weak (moral) one, and being such it, naturally, forces the necessity for stronger counteraction, what has been applied to the Hebrews in many countries in different centuries, but the "top" was reached under the fascism, which applied then unmasked genocide. Objectively looked, though, the fascists have not invented something new, they just "turned the rod" backward saying that if so, then they also are chosen, because were Aryans. Anyway, it is clear that the genocide (even the most humane) is damaging to the human society as a whole, for it diminishes the so needed diversity.
3. Another kind of violence appears in the
religious and ideological fanaticism. Inasmuch as the faith or conviction are something that can elementary be changed for less than a generation here the necessary violence is, generally, weaker than in the previous cases, but it unavoidably exists in the history of all religions and state ideologies. It deserves to be mentioned that in this case, too, there is easy solution of the disputes (if there were more collective reason), because
each religion in its own way is
progressive (well, regressive, too), so that there is not a big difference which exactly one will share (as it is so also by the choice of partner for creating of family) and the difference is only a matter of taste, i.e. it is something secondary and, hence, there is no reasonable necessity of strong compulsory impact! And really, there would have been no necessity of compulsion, if the subjects changed easily their religions, or if the priests have recognized the need for religious tolerance. Little by little, this is realized in current days, and in many countries coexist peacefully quite many religious beliefs, but to this state of things has come always after many needless bloodshed and not at all everywhere. Similar is the question also with the different ideologies because, although the religion has as its goal the happiness, and the ideology -- the peace, in the country, they look alike as different forms of delusion (see "About the religion"), and because of the unwillingness of the masses to accept easily new delusions becomes essential for the law of necessary violence to be activated, in order to be possible
later on the things in the country to go smoothly. Put it otherwise: the necessary violence could have been weaker, if the human stubbornness was not stronger!
4. Another kind of necessary violence is the
civilian terror, but it is direct consequence of religious or ideological causes, though sometimes it can be induced by other domestic unrest. The capricious moment here is that this terror often becomes stronger than the necessary level, in which case it, not only has initially the effect of weak reaction, but allows for
accumulation of the discontent of the masses, so that later it happens that the strong impact has played the role of a weak one, generating stronger reaction after a time. This is very subtle moment and, as far as discontent of the masses exists always when change of some course of management with another one happens, it can't be unambiguously said where exactly is the middle point of the violence. This is in sense that, as there were in old times in Bulgaria hard laws of Khan Krum, or in the young Soviet Union was CheKa (
chrezvichaynaya komissiya, extraordinary commission), so in many other countries there were excessively inadequate to the crimes punishments, and such things happen also today around the world, because one must have "nonhuman" intellect, in order to establish the needed level of violence over the humans, i.e. this is practically impossible. In some extent in this aspect the things are related with the sadism, to which we shall come after a while, because are created conditions for massively applied legalized cruelty, but, we have to stress this, the terror often arises as reaction of the government to the disobedience of the population, so that guilty for the terror are as the rulers, so also the ruled ones.
5. The next kind of necessary violence is the
anarchism*. Maybe the adherents of this movement think that they act in this way because, in their view, the anarchy is the best regulator (or at least
one of the good regulators) of the human society, or that "the anarchy is mother of the order", because the order originates from the chaos, and so on, but they are simply in error. (By the way, this is a very old thesis, because the English, i.e. Latin, word for motive or "cause" is etymologically related with the word "chaos", which in its turn is of Greek origin, and this relation reflects the naive concepts of Ancient Greeks from 25 centuries.) And they have reasons to fall in error because the well-known idea about market economy uses exactly this thought, but our (Bulgarian), mildly put, unsuccessful attempts of the first democratic years, as also the worldwide experience in this regard, show clearly that betting only on one idea, without its counteracting, does not lead to anything good! The chaos isn't a good regulator even in the world of mollusks, to say nothing about the human society; it can work in the world of atoms and subatomic forces, or in the other direction -- on a level of galaxies -- but by the humans not the chaos is what leads to some order (as a rule, of course). The anarchism has its effect not because of the chaos, which it causes, but because of the applying of necessary violence over small number, and often totally innocent, subjects, as also in conditions of peaceful coexistence, when this is as if inadmissible. In this way
with little forces is achieved strong impact, or put it otherwise:
the anarchism is the most bloodless war! This is the reason for existing and spreading of these methods also in current days on the whole world. The anarchist is not like the sadist, he kills people who does not know, but just as subjects of his action, and the "good" anarchists, usually, have their views about humane killing, however shocking this may sound.
[ * Here we have in mind fulfilling of attentats, explosions, sabotages, and so on, aiming at creating of social disorders, bound to solve the problems, because the government can't do this. Together with this view exists also another one, which comes from the times of French Revolution and is simply negation of the "archy" or authority (in whatever form), on account of the idea that the people, you see, were intelligent enough (or were on the way to become such), for to understand what is to be done and to do it, without any force, but (the author thinks) this is obvious utopia because, even if there were no objections from the part of the people, without planning nothing can be done nowadays. ]
Said in other way, the anarchism is something similar to the strikes, only that with much more cruel results, but aiming first of all to attract the attention of domestic and international public to unsolved problems, and this violence in the case is the minimally needed, in order to achieve strong impact. The anarchism should not be confused with the organized crime or terrorism, which may use the same methods, but have entirely different goals.
The anarchism is the weapon of the weak and it is applied when existing in the country atmosphere of terror against some of its citizens does not allow using of others (peaceful) means. If in this situation, at the cost of five victims, several persons succeed to engage five thousand policemen in their pursuit, and to attract attention of five million people to serious problems in the society, then the goal is achieved! In this sense, the strong impact here aims not directly at solving of the problems, as it is in a war, for example, but only at
setting of the questions for solving (except when the attentat is directed to a concrete political personality, when it again does not solve entirely the problems but only assists in changing of the course of ruling). And again: this is not justification of the anarchism, but explanation of its appearance. And once more time: the anarchism is the possibly reasonable reaction of the weak, when the society does not propose them a better decision! The necessity of anarchism will disappear of itself, if the social reasonability reaches some level of organization higher than that of the jellyfish.
6. Another kind of violence is the
organized crime (or the mafia), which is just an
addendum to the authorized instances for maintaining of law and order in the country, although it often acts against these instances in the struggle for establishing of dominance! More that this, it acts also
through these security bodies, as there is present also the reversed process. It answers to the interests (though unacknowledged) of a considerable part of the population, serving them, because the police can't do this, nor has such goals. When the police forbids the narcotics (or the alcohol, for example, or the prostitution), but the people, no matter that they deny them officially, want them, then who else is to propose them to the people if not some strong organization, or mafia? The forbidden fruit is always sweeter than that, which is generally available, so that, while there are prohibitions, there will be also people who will trespass them. This, surely, does not mean that there should not be any bans -- such things always will exist in a society, because each organized group of people attempts to defend its interests and deny those of the others, and we can hardly imagine such liberal society that will legalize the cannibalism, for example, or will not try to protect the young and children from the mistakes of juvenescence, and so on. Though the society could be
moral enough, so that to be no ground in it for organized crime, and this is something to what we can always strive (maybe because we can never reach it?). Except the elimination of the causes for this crime remains only one way -- the necessary violation of the official punitive bodies to be such, that the reaction of the organized crime to be sufficiently weak (say, for it to be not possibly to organize itself). The legality and humanity here can do almost nothing -- the point is:
whose violence will be stronger, for to cause weaker reaction!
7. At the end we will stop for a while at the
cruelty and sadism, which are not so much forms of necessary violence, as examples for
misunderstood violence, in which is applied not the minimally necessary, but much bigger one, what causes accumulation of the reaction in the subject, or in his close relatives, which leads to consequences that are not weak reactions. In this way we come to the phenomenon that a strong impact has shown itself as weak, what is not typical for the normal human activities, but the sadism, too, is not behaviour of psychically normal human personalities. The cruelty is not just violence, but
excess of violence, what is an indication for people with mental deviations (though it is difficult to assert that these deviation are rare, because many children, for instance, like to torture the animals, but this is explicable with their small knowledge of the world and with their not quite formed psyche). This, that the cruelty is inevitably related with the violence in each of its forms and manifestations, determines the possibility for its appearing in each of the above points, but, still, there must be made difference between the two terms in the presence or absence of emotional involvement for the object exercising the violence. In this regard the cruelty, and the sadism as its extreme form, are most often individual acts, where the violence is exercised almost always in groups and motivated. And let us stress that if the violence is unavoidable and necessary in our activity, the cruelty is entirely redundant and can be avoided! The minimal core of the definition of humanity consists exactly in this, that if, by various reasons, some violence must be exercised, it has to be applied
without whatever cruelty. Contrary to the assertions of the humanists, though, this is so not because the people must behave like humans (for the humanity is very fuzzy and ungrounded notion and out of these positions we, for example, should have long ago given up eating animal flesh), but because the non humane actions do not agree well with the law of necessary violence.
Somewhere since Freud got particular propagation the thesis that the failure to satisfy some (most often hidden) impulses and desires only worsens the situation, because it leads to accumulation and to their subsequent manifestation, so that it is better to offer some vent to the passions (were they erotic, were sadistic, or any others). This, naturally, is true in general terms, but to a certain extent, and the exaggeration of this thesis also leads to nothing good, as we gradually begin to grasp. The excessive liberalism does not lead to much freedom for the individuals, because if strengthens the contradictions between them when they are not
reasonably constrained, and it becomes clear now that massively applied virtual cruelty is not so innocuous, for it leads to addiction and unavoidable desire to try it in reality. The situation is much alike to that with the alcohol and the narcotics, and it is logical in near future to be taken similar measures, i.e. to apply some necessary violence from the part of society, that must restrict the conditions for forming of cruelty and sadism. So that we again return to the question of violence.
III. Conclusive Remarks
Before we finish it is proper to turn our attention to this peculiarity in our definition of violence, that it does not require for the object exercising the violence (or, generally, the impact) to be necessary organized matter. So, for example, for the reaction of those buried by an avalanche in the mountain, and for those who have barely managed to escape, is irrelevant whether the avalanche has fallen of itself (i.e. as a result of natural laws), or was caused by some human, an outsider or some of the injured group; this may has its importance by judicial investigation, but not for the behaviour of people in avalanche areas in the winter. Similar is the situation also for other kinds of "violence" on the part of the nature, like: earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, infectious epidemics, environmental pollution, disappearing of animal species, et cetera. We may put the quotes on the violence when the object is not animated, but this does not change the character of the reaction of the subject, i.e. it is weak by strong impacts (or at least should be such), expressing itself in their avoiding, or in predicting of the strong activities even before they have occurred. For the believers in the hypothesis of God (see "About the Creation") there are no obstacles for endowing of the nature with some divine intellect and for accepting of the above-given examples as God's vengeance, but we don't need this. The important thing is for our reaction to be
inadequate to the irritant, and even
reasonably inadequate, as much as this is possible.
And one more thing: each impact,
the violence too,
is factor for our learning. If there is not necessary a violence for to make us act reasonably, then let us not wait for this violence to be realized at all: were it not to fight with stronger adversary, were it not to create ground for anarchistic manifestations, or for genocide, or for religious intolerance, were it not to build high buildings in earthquake region, or to avoid big gatherings of people on one place as source for various infections, were it to observe some moral and physical hygiene in order to prevent contracting AIDS, and other examples. No matter how many times one has explained to a child that he (or she) has to stay away from the stove or electric plate, he will not assimilate this until it "punishes" him. In the same time, when one becomes tired doing hard physical work, then it is time to invent something that will make it lighter, because the ache in the muscles is a weak "violence" and people answer it with stronger reaction, as they don't agree to do the unpleasant work forever but invent corresponding mechanisms for that goal. So that the violence is not only necessary element in life, but also
life relies on it in its evolution, and the human being, left without some form of compulsion, begins to fall in rage and to wonder what to do (something, what is easy to be seen by small children and pet animals), so that in some way to receive
the healing dose of penalty, which has to prevent him from extreme cases of violence! The whole subtlety here is to react intelligently to the various forms of compulsion and violence.
But it turns out that in regard of the reasonable reaction the social community stays
lower than the isolated individual, meaning that one will much more easier meet a person, who acts reasonably, than a nation, that does this, and for the mankind as a whole this is practically impossible! This phenomenon of the social community is investigated in the essay "About the mankind", but it reduces chiefly to this, that the society still has very
primitive nervous system (especially a free society), similar to that of the mollusks, where the human being has also nervous system and ability for reasonable judgements (though he does not much use these gifts in difficult real situations). For that reason it happens that a bigger group of people is not more intelligent that one arbitrary chosen individual with average intellect, no matter that the latter is part of the group, so that the reaction of social communities, most often, is that of the jellyfish. We may not like this situation, but must take the facts into account. It would be nice to think that after some five-ten centuries the mankind as a whole will at last jump over this debasing for the "crown of the creation" level, but this is not much probable. Nothing hinders us, though, to hope that this will happen.
ABOUT THE JUSTICE
That this world is cruel and unfair one perceives already in the moment when he emerges in it, going out of the warm and cozy mother's womb, and because of this his first business is to let out wild roar of discontent. With his further growth the things become even worse where his single "redemption" comes only then, when he leaves the life and continues to exist just as an idea in the memories of the others. Such is the reality in our world, and as far as nobody has proved that a better one exists we are forced to put up with it and try to like it. Well, this isn't so hard to do, people learn fast to enjoy the life, but this does not mean that in this way it becomes more just for them or that they cease to try to make it better. The wish of the mankind to make their life more just is the unchanging human ideal, which is really an ideal because it can never be realized in practice, but we can always aspire asymptotically to it. Here we will dwell on some questions connected with the justice.
I. Between The Righteousness And The Justice
1. One short linguistic excursion tells us that
the right is, in fact,
the right of the strong, or of the right hand, because it is so not only in Russian, but also in German, English, et cetera. As if only in Bulgarian we do not make the association of the rightful with the right, i.e. with the strength, but this is intuitively understood by all nations. So that right is this, what is in the interest of the stronger, were it physically, financially, intellectually, or with some inheritance rights fixed by birth. Strictly looking at the things
the strong one is not at all right -- he is just strong, but when there is no other effective way for establishing who is right and who isn't, is accepted that the stronger one is right, and this closes the question. In the world of animals, but also by the humans, this is not meaningless, because the strong, if not anything else, can at least impose his right with the use of power (and it is not excluded that he is really right). More than this, from positions of the nature, i.e. of the selection of the best exemplar and kind, this right is fully justified. Therefore, even if we are not from the strong, we are obliged to accept such conception for rightful.
The justice, for its part,
is complement of the right, or
the right of the weak, i.e. of the left individuals after taking out the strong ones (and exactly this says the English word "left", which means both, the opposite of right, and the remainder). From the point of view of the evolution and selection of the best this may not be right thing, but the neglect of justice leads to diminishing of the diversity in nature, what says that the nature also has interest in observing of this right. This is especially actual in the human society, because the diversity of types and characters is the most interesting thing in the life. The strong one looks after his own interests, and they not always coincide with those of the weak, but in many cases it turns out that the wellbeing of the weaker affects in turn that of the stronger, i.e. the ignoring of interests of the weak
isn't in the interest also of the strong! In other words, the things are mutually related and the neglecting of one side shows unfavorable effect over the other one. This has been known from great antiquity, so that the question for the rulers (the stronger in the society) has never been raised as: whether to account for the interests of the weak, but
up to what extent to account for them -- because the weak, having no other possibility, very often are also evil and unworthy, what is expressed quite clear in the English word "mean" as bad, vicious, but it is old Latin view, for even today in the Italian
sinistro means both, left as opposite of right, and harmful, dismal (or take your sinister) --, i.e. all reduces to a compromise of contradictory interests. Because of this the society incessantly has oscillated between the righteousness and the justice.
In this relation our people have the saying: "You have a cow, you drink milk, but when you haven't -- just stay and stare!". Whether we shall speak about milk, bread, hard salami, decent car, private plantation, or gas station, or space shuttle, for example, this does not change the essence of the matter -- the rightful thing is to use alone this, what you have, but the justice requires that also other people use your property, because in the society all people are
done in the same way and are born equal. This, that when some one coming to this world finds for himself some things more than the other one, is not expression of
his own personal abilities (strength, in a sense), and if so then there is a reason in the assertion that "he, who hasn't a cow, must also be allowed to drink milk". Even when someone's advantages are result of his own abilities, even then can be pleaded for equality in the distribution of the goods, because his very abilities are not, surely, result of some special "craftsmanship" of his father in the moment of his conception, or of his mother during the pregnancy, and even less of precisely him somewhere on the stage of insemination and the creation of zygote (for the development of his organism begins at that moment). All efforts of the individual for achieving of superiority over the others can quietly be regarded as a result of natural resources, which for its part are game of the chance, so that if the goods are to be distributed according to this allegation, then they have to be distributed
entirely arbitrary. Well, to such extremities don't reach neither the right one (the defenders of rightness), nor the left one (the defenders of justice), because this does not agree with anybody's interests (although, objectively looked at, this is true), and everybody prefers to "pull the blanket" to himself.
So it turns out that neither the right, nor the left, can jump over their own interests and look objectively at the things, but life develops in the result of contradiction between various interests, which exactly define the current state of the society. Usually both parts
are not right (what will say that both parts are right, if we look optimistically at the things)! So, for example, it is right that only who has money to pay for (i.e. his parents) his education, only he to be allowed to receive education, but it is not just, when all people are born equal, some of them not to have the possibility to study. But it is also not right for those, who have not abilities to learn, to pay the education of those who
have such abilities but have no means (because the money in these cases is taken from everybody, i.e. also from the not able ones); yet it is also not right if someone is sufficiently "dumb-witted" and can't pass the exams not to be allowed to study, if can pay for this, for he exactly for that reason wants to study, because wants to become a bit more clever, isn't it? As you see, the things are quite interwoven and one easily can be lost in them, and for that reason in the contemporary (but also ancient) societies are taken measures
in both directions: for one thing is ensured some accessible (not against payment) education for the able and gifted children (because they, after finishing their study, will receive, generally,
less than if they do not lose their time in studying, or at least will work more fruitful for the society or the employer, so that they will have the opportunity to return what was given for them initially), but for another thing is allowed (and this is met with pleasure from the educational institutions) to everybody, no matter what are his abilities, to pay for (i.e. to buy) his education. With some nuances (percentages of paid and unpaid education for various levels, types of educational institutes and specialties, different form of returning of the funds, etc.) this is an old strategy, and then, when the society can allow itself bigger investments in this direction, it always tries to do this, for this brings benefits both, to the ruling (the strong one) and to the masses.
Similarly stays the question also with the healthcare and social security nowadays, because a healthy and quiet population is again socially beneficial (i.e. both, for the strong and for the weak); as well also a nation having some elementary knowledges for the world, formed as a consequence of some average education. If in the epochs gone by this has not been realized, this was question mainly of social welfare, or of capabilities, not of non-understanding on the part of the strong. The ideas for socialism (i.e. for social justice) do
not interfere with the right defenders of the righteousness, if the question is approached correctly. The denied today communist socialism is not appropriate for the well developed countries due to its extremeness, but this does not mean that it is inappropriate for the weaker countries, or that it was unjustified and unnecessary stage in the development of these countries! These ideas have emerged already in Ancient Greece, in a developed slave society, and they will unavoidable be present in each country, where from their right (here justified) solution depends the wholeness and security in it. From political point of view this requires convergence in the views of the right and left parties, but exactly such non-antagonistic contradiction is observed in each stable country in these days, and also during the past centuries.
2. Slightly more complicated are the things in the area of managing and the
necessary compulsion for performing of socially useful labour,
or, put in other words, in
the exploitation of the masses, i.e. in taking away everything that they can give, in the "extracting of their souls", because etymologically the word is derived from:
ex--, what means extracting, taking away, and the root
plua-- (or
ploi--), what means many. The masses may not like this word, but it is clear that in a society each one must give what he can of himself, and who else is to force him to this if not the strong ones? There
isn't a society without compulsion, and it can't be (in the ideal case each one must force himself alone), but it can have different character. In the slave society it was physical; in the feudal one -- of the ownership of land and the "fables" about the blue blood of the aristocrats, or of the Church as deputy of God; by the capitalism this is the force of the capital (or rather of its
absence by the masses). The righteousness requires that the weak must work, but the justice requires that
everybody must work. But you know that one must be forced somehow to disturb his
dolce far niente ("sweet idleness"). In any case, all can't be rulers, and this also is a kind of work, so that strong nowadays are not so much these who govern, as those who "pull the strings"! The strong one today, as also in all times, can be recognized by this that he has the possibility to do whatever he likes (well, in some limits), where the weak are forced to do what the strong tell them to. But the strength in the capitalistic society is the power of the capital, and this is what defines the separation between the exploiters and exploited.
The official propaganda always shifts the accent of social contradictions and in the current time in the developed countries is much spoken about the so called middle class, but it is just
necessary to the strong, for the masses to be able to buy the produced in abundance goods and to fill the pockets of the strong. The absolute wealth of the citizens, though, does not solve the question with the unjust distribution of goods, because
relatively the exploited remain again in disadvantage, so that the enhancing of standard of life only
helps for reaching of some justice, but does not guarantee it. Only the reason, i.e. the proper understanding of the interests, both of the ruling and the masses, can lead to rightful understanding of the question.
When we mix the intellect here it could have been expected that, when it can help for finding of the rightful balance between the righteousness and the justice, then in also must rule the society, i.e. the power to consist in the presence of intellect. Yes but ...
no, at least for the moment, because the intellect is one still not well developed instinct and the people are not quite convinced that it must govern them; the masses can much easier accept the fables about God and the Church as His aide on Earth, for example, than this, that the reason, which is slow and unconvincing in the decisions, and contradicts to the instinct for multiplication, and does not tie well with the disorganization and fragmentation of the mankind (see "About the intellect") can be better than the now existing (no matter what) condition. Besides, the intellect has this advantage, which turns here to be disadvantage, that
can't be passed in the generations and one intellectual power will be very unstable substance, for to be able to take once the ruling (or to keep it, if someone succeeds to "put" it in its hands). It is much more real to assume that some artificial (though created by the humans) intellect will be able to rule us sometime, than to believe in the arising of intellectual oligarchy in the future. Not before the society has found some way for its uniting as a whole organism, if this can be at all effectuated once. But let us with this conclude these reflections and advance to the next point.
II. In Searching Of The Escapism
When everybody knows that this world is unjust, then every one tries to find some suitable for him way to escape from it in some imagined
world of delusion. The human being is weak and can't live without delusions -- were it fairy tales for the children, were it expectations of the "great love" for the adults, were it hope that the truth will triumph (in which case, usually, people don't have in mind the righteousness, neither the justice, but some purely egoistic interpretation of the reality), were it political, military, or sporting victory, were it the literature or the other arts, or tranquilizers, or the dreams, or the alcohol and the narcotics, or the sexual consolation, or the interests of the clan or mafia, or the faith in his God and in the afterlife or reincarnation, and so on. The animals (and this only for higher mammals) escape from the reality only via the dreams, where
the people are personification of the escapism. In the foreword we say that in regard of the searching of truth the people can be divided in three groups, namely: such who search the truth, such who search the lie, and such who are not at all interested in the truthfulness of the statements. Those who search the lie are obviously escapists; those who search what they find, no matter whether this is truth or lie, are also escapists because they simply apply some other criterion (their personal pleasure); but even those who search the truth are
again escapists, because for them the world of truth is better than the real one, where the truth is much mere difficult to be found and in most of the cases is questionable. But such division builds complete set of events, i.e. exhausts all people, so that from here follows that we all are escapists.
This observation surely was intuitively clear to the thinking people since the dawn of civilization, because all its efforts are reduced to offering to the people of one or another form of delusion. So has arisen the religion as opium for the people (see "About the religion"); so is justified the need of aristocracy; so exists and is advertised the market economy, what is an obvious delusion because the market is advantageous only for those who can
show influence over it and form it somehow; this is the goal of the fables about the patriotism and self-sacrifice in the name of community (not that this delusion is not necessary for a given community, but to believe that it is
nice to die for the homeland is a pure deception); similar is the case also with the moral generally, which implants in the heads of people apparent delusions, with a view of their reasonable for the society behaviour (only not with the help of the reason, but
exactly on the way of delusion); on delusion is based also the democratic choice, that contradicts to the common sense and is the best known
baby's pacifier for the people (see "About the democracy"); and other social phenomena. In this regard, it seems, nothing can be done, because the very life, as a result of various arbitrary and non-directed to a goal processes, simply can't have a purpose, but the people categorically refuse to comply with this view. Admitting meaning for the life we automatically escape from our real world, and searching for its meaning we unavoidably come to an abyss of contradictions and no proofs. The Church usually is satisfied with the assertion that "the ways of God are inscrutable", and each ideology and political platform invents some goals for itself, with which to give reasons for its existence, because when one works with human material there is no go without delusions!
Even the sciences, and precisely the exact ones, as the most rational part of the knowledge, use also widely various simplifications, assumptions, hypotheses, and abstractions, in order to be able to understand the real world, what, in the essence, is an escaping from the direct reality, to such one, where our assumptions are always valid. We at least take for granted that our world is determined and when we repeat an experiment than the result will also be the same, though even the ancient people were aware that "you can't enter twice one and the same river", because it (i.e. the time) incessantly flows. But without determinism can work neither our technical appliances and machinery, nor our scientific theories, and without abstraction (a kind of escapism by itself) can evolve no one exact science, especially the mathematics, whose methods are used in all other sciences.
Our whole process of knowledge is boycotted incessantly by the
problem of decomposition, which is reduced to this, that, in order to study something from the reality, we must take it and detach from it, to cut off some of the ties of the phenomenon with the other matter (for they are infinitely many), but doing this we can never be sure that we have not severed exactly something important. This can be visualized by the ancient fable about the three wise men and the elephant, which men were very wise, but also very old and gone blind long ago, so that they recognized the things by touching. Once, during one of their peregrinations around the world they were led to an elephant (which animal they have not yet met till then) and each of them began to study it using this part of the animal which has grasped. Later they shared their conclusions and the first one said that the elephant is like a big cask, in which must be hidden a kind of spring, and it moves jumping with it (for he fingered its leg); the second protested that this is rubbish, because the elephant is like a big snake as thick as a human thigh, which feeds through sucking and moves blowing the air out of the other end (for he touched its trunk); and the third laughed and said that they know nothing, because this animal is like a big plate of skin and it flies in the air (for he has caught its ear). In many instances our attempts for understanding of a given phenomenon are as comic and contradictory as the given example, because each special science studies only some aspects of the phenomenon. But what are we to do: without decomposition there is no knowledge!
But the most unjust characteristic of our world for the man of sciences, but in many cases also for each one of us, is the principal
impossibility to prove the rightness of a given thesis, with minor exceptions! It is easy to prove that something
is not true in the general case, when we find at least one particular case when it is not true, what is used from ancient times, chiefly in the mathematics, and is called method of assumption of the contrary (
reductio ad absurdum) -- it is proved that the contrary of a given statement is false, from what follows that the given statement is true. But the reverse, the prove of a right statement (if we can not use the above method, or some form of induction) is practically doomed to failure, because it most often is related with full search of all possible states, which usually are an infinite number, and that in all possible moments of the time. The scientific intuition often "falls in rage" before the impossibility to prove in the general case something, that in each observed individual case is true. In such situation one may be wrong if accepts the statement for true (because there are no proofs), but he may as well make a mistake if he does not accept it for true (because it, still, seems to be true), so that each takes the preferred for him form of escape from the treacherous reality.
This phenomenon have faced the lawyers, but also the common people, long ago, and that is why our people often use the saying: "Go and prove you are not a camel!", when you must convince the others that you have not done some thing (because you have never done such things). The legal proceedings "wash their hands" with the testimonies of the witnesses, but there is no guaranty that they are true, due to what, for example, hundreds of thousands innocent women (mostly) have been burned on the stakes on suspicion that they were witches. And in this cases the inquisition was even with a clear conscience, because it has applied one "reasonable" way for proving of the suspicion: if the accused one, with the help of various demons and spirits, could have succeeded to escape from the stake, then she was really a witch, i.e. has existed possibility for
unilateral proof! This, that
no woman has saved herself in this way, was not at all logical refutation, taking into account the remarkable naivety of the people in those times, who have believed in everything (as they have seen her, say, to take off from the chimney riding a broom, so also many have seen her soul to fly out the stake embraced by a demon), and there, too, nobody has known what exactly is this a witch (for, if there was some other way for detecting of the essential "witchy" characteristics, then it, probably, would have been applied). This is one flawless Jesuitical logic, and if the accused one could not have succeeded to save herself, how it always has happened, then she was not a witch (only that they have not put on the stake that one, who has convicted her, because the person might have been mistaken somehow -- it is human, after all), besides, in this way she has secured for herself a "direct ticket" for the paradise (what for those times was not at all to be neglected). Only don't think that in our days similar judicial errors don't happen -- the history of legal proceedings is literally "brimming" with such unjust decisions, based on witness testimony. But there is nothing to be done --
life is unjust!
III. In Affirmation Of The Ego
In our world one can't avoid looking after his interests, or his
ego, but inasmuch as each of us is related with the others he must also show some
level of reflection taking into account the interests of the others, too, because otherwise it may turn out that he simply "cuts the branch on which he sits". The communist ideology approached this question much restricted (mainly because of the narrow-mindedness of the masses, it seems) dividing people in two categories -- in egoists and collectivists -- preaching that the egoists were the bad ones. Sometimes is used the term philanthropist (i.e. "loving the people", in Greek) in the sense of collectivist, but we all know to which comical results the thoughtless philanthropy can lead. If you give your seat to a woman in the tram, because she seems to you a bit older, she may decide to take offense on you. If you behave too pleasing to your children and look that they have all the best then this, surely, spoils them (in which case must be cited your proverb that "Sparing the rod spoils the child"); but these "good" parents are also such only to their own children, what is again egoism. The widely spread for centuries charity in many cases does not give good results, because in this way some people come into habit always to beg and to complain; besides, it is pure delusion to think that those who give do this out of love to their neighbours -- they do this wishing to soar high: first in their own eyes, and then in those of the other people (because the anonymous charity is not much popular). And many other examples, that show that when one thinks about the others he: either does not think correctly, or deludes himself (because, really, he thinks about himself), or both -- because in this egoistic world we just can't not to think about ourselves.
The more correct approach is to speak about
individualism, understanding by this the wish for self-expression and dominance above the others, what, however, does not mean that the others cant benefit from this. As strange as this may seem, one very often
wants to do good to the others (at least if he can't dominate over them with something bad), because
everybody wants to be liked by his neighbours, where in this sense the highest expression of individualism is its reflection in the positive meaning of the people around for the given individual -- only that one does this
not because he is good, but
because is individualist! The whole subtlety is in this to judge right the wishes of the others and to juxtapose them with ours, i.e. to find the needed intersection of personal and collective interests, without impairing significantly ours. It is well known the sentence: "Don't do to the other what you don't want to be done to you!", but this is an example for misunderstood reflection, because it should have been put like: "Don't do to the other this, what
he does not want to be done to him!". A typical example of correct individualism is the sexual contact, where each partner, based on his own interests, tries to satisfy also those of the other. In similar type of "intercourse" one enters also in his everyday and labour activity, where if he looks only about his (or of the others) interests many errors happen. The sexual analogy, it seems, is useful in many life situations, as rightly finds it S.N. Parkinson in the relations between financial companies, because the situation is similar also between boss and subordinated, between children and parents, between colleagues at work, between states in their relations, etc., where each one thinks how to "screw" the other, but if he overdoes the things he may at the most "screw" himself. In other words, in the process of affirming of his ego the point is not in this not to look after his interests, but
to recognize rightly his interests.
Recognizing and respecting of the interests of the others, together with one's own, is the main method to make the society in which we live just and fair. The little children react especially tumultuous when their wish to make good (for it, seems, is inborn in each of us, together with our desire for supremacy) is not met with pleasure from the others, but this happens basically because they don't know yet how to do this, or think that their egoistical desires are good, or face individuals who have
already understood that the world is unjust and behave in the same unjust manner. The only way for building of a social organism, though, goes through the correct understanding of personal interests, and the main impediment on this way is the unreasonable human behavior. For this reason the history is full with innumerable bloodshed and disasters, where we are in certain extent even worse than the animals, which, not endowed with intellect, but with good instincts, succeed better than us to maintain the equilibrium between the species and the harmony in nature. Even in the classical example of the ecosystem hares--wolves is seen that the wolves, eating up the weaker hares, help for their selection and proliferation (because: "Healthy sex -- in a healthy body!", so to say), as also the hares, developing their hind-leg muscles, succeed to select and maintain one good population of viable wolves. While the humans (as very clever, maybe?) kill
not for to feed themselves, but most often out of malice, hatred, or simply because of not understanding of their interests. Only in 20th century are given more victims in the wars than in all other previous times, chiefly because the stronger countries (with well developed economies) have not succeeded to agree like people how to exploit the left behind countries (like Bulgaria).
In the end of 20th century has been marked some progress, with the creating of multinational financial institutions, which reduces each kind of slavery to economical one, and the distribution of "booty" -- according to the invested capital. This tactic, as is seen now, gives good results, because both, the developed countries ensure for themselves new markets, cheaper labour force, and fields for investment of capitals, and the left-behind countries receive different subsidies, effective management, and other, new for them, temptations in life. In addition to this, with the equalizing of standards of life (after some time, of course), is postponed the moment of collapse of today's technical civilization (see "About the future"), what is a phenomenon of mutual interest for all. That is how the individualism in relations between states can turn to be better than the old egoism from the times of "hot" or "cold" wars.
IV. About The Happiness And the Moderation
1. The happiness is question of
balance between wishes and abilities, and in our unjust world everyone has his rights to pursue it. This definition is suitable with this, that it shows us two ways for reaching of it: either increasing our abilities, or diminishing our wishes (supposing that the wishes are always larger than our abilities). The moderate way of live requires also moderate wishes, and thus easier achieving of the happiness. The more limited people, say, the children, are very often happy, because their wishes does not reach such peaks, as when they grow up and begin to wonder what new desires to imagine (especially if they have in their disposition enough time and means to satisfy them). The term "happiness" has some intersection with the escapism, for it is also a question of some delusion, but as far as it is primarily result of compromise let us not confuse the things. The happiness is state of
comfort with the environment, not just escaping from it and depends on our internal condition: when we are very hungry a piece of bread can make us happy, where if we are twenty or so and our "hormones chase us", as is said, we may as well forget about the usual hunger and seek the sexual contact, and when our daily needs are satisfied and we just wonder what new sensations to experience we may try to seek, either the arts, or the opiates and narcotics, or to look for expression of some of our perverse wishes for violence over the others -- all according to our tastes.
But we may formulate the ways for reaching of happiness also in this way: the happiness consists either in some
filling, i.e. of enhancing of our capacity, were it of knowledge, or of nutrients, or of money and other possessions, or of interesting social contacts, etc.; or then in some ...
spending, i.e. disbursement of funds when we buy us something, or performing of some activity by way of spending of physical and/or intellectual energy, or difficult victory over some adversary, in result of what our wishes temporarily decrease. The process of filling is slower and tiresome and the happiness from it not always is so strong, as by the spending, where the effect is almost instantaneous, but also fast passing away. The important thing, however, is that the
both contradictory processes can bring us happiness -- as to spare money, so also to spend it; as to learn, so also to use your knowledge; as to fill his stomach, so also to empty it later; as to build something, so also to destroy it (this destructive instinct is especially developed by the children, for the simple reason that
the destruction is the easiest creation!); and in the end also in the sex is exactly so (with this nuance that to the man is denied part of the happiness, or the woman is additionally benefited, because by her the processes of filling and spending coincide in the time, or at least this is her constant striving). The said here may sound cynically, but it seems quite convincing. So that, the injustice of our world, still, is partially compensated by the possibility to find happiness in it.
2. Well, but when the happiness is in the moderation (of the filling and emptying, if you want), then what is the very
moderation, and what is so good in it for to force already the Ancient Greek (and even older nations) to raise the slogan: "Nothing in excess!" (with the eventual modification "Hurry slowly!")? OK, it is clear that the moderation, or also the
sense of proportion, is the ability to find
the middle point between two extremities, in which case is good to imagine that some pellet is tied between two ... elastic strings, i.e. that
the dialectics is, in a way, "
diaelastics" or "
dialactics" (from the
lactaids, the milk fibers). This, really, is a great art, i.e. something that is difficult to learn (if it, at all, can be learned), in relation with what is useful to remind you the ancient Eastern pray, made popular on the West (as also by us) mainly via Kurt Vonnegut, namely: "Oh God, give me bravery -- to change what I can change, strength -- to endure what I can't change, and wisdom -- to distinguish the one thing from the other!". So that: the
moderation is wisdom, or the wisdom is moderation, in many cases. (See also by the medicine in the essay "About the mankind".)
But then our question sounds more definite, namely: why, when the moderation is a question of wisdom, and everybody knows this (at least have heard it many times), the people, still, very stubbornly resist the moderation (especially the women -- see the chapter about the man in the essay "About the woman and the man")? It can be a matter of wisdom to find the precise middle point, but the people, as a rule, don't try at all to find it, on the contrary: when they start from one extreme pole and stagger straight to the other, like drunkards, and from there, after some time elapses, they return to the first pole, then again rush to the other one, and so on, ad infinitum! Well, this makes the "game" named life to last forever, but it is
silly, and also
cruel, in most cases, so that some moderation, in addition to this that we usually show, is always necessary -- yeah, but we do not want to be moderate and that's it! So that, why? Ah, because when we are moderate, then we, most often, are also
mediocre, but we don't want to be such, we want to be at the top -- and very rightly, because
nothing great on this world
is ever
reached with moderation, only with perseverance and boldness (to "stick" us where we are not wished). In other words, we want to be extreme in everything, and the bad thing is not that we want to be such, but that
even in this our wish we apply no sense of proportion, for there are very rare the people, or the cases (say, 2-3%), who can reach the peaks, respectively, by whom peaks can be reached. From the point of view of "dear God" one such "leaping" is a good thing (He wants exactly this, to stay aside and look at the fun), but we are those who suffer; this, somehow, is not just, but we can do nothing (for we don't want to). With the years one becomes a bit wiser and more moderate, but even this is not true for many of us, because they become such not due to some acquired wisdom but because their abilities are not more such like before.
V. About The Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Freedom
The freedom is something that we love very much, what can be well seen on the West through the relation between German
Liebe as love and French ...
libertè as freedom, which words, surely, are from one and the same root.
The advantages are clear, they are
in the creation of equality between the different individuals, which goal, however, is
to prove their inequality (see again "About the woman and the man", the point about the emancipation)! So that
from the freedom may gain the nature (or the dear God), or else
the stronger individual, because in this situation he can easily prove his superiority, where for the weaker -- there is no use of it! In our world of the stronger there is only one way for the weaker to become stronger -- when they unite, obviously -- but this is what they most often don't want to do. They prefer to turn a blind eye and to think that they are really equal (not only in equal circumstances), and this is a question with which is much speculated for centuries and millenniums, where about equality can be spoken only in sense that the humans (as also the animals, the living matter generally) are
results of equal initial activities for their creation
and arbitrary factors forming their differences in equally probable way. Otherwise they are different, just because they
are such in practice (as results of the probability, the upbringing, the environment, and the time in which they live). The inequality of the people and the animals, in general the non-identity of reproducing of biological matter (even when the "matrix" and the "spritz-form" are one and the same) is the most interesting characteristic of life, which determines its strong adaptability.
So that the freedom is relative notion and also question of balance or compromise in the pursuit of it (an
recognized necessity according to the definition of "Mr." Lenin, with this addition that we become aware of it only when have lost it), but the
disadvantages of the overdone striving to reach it should have been obvious, because it only
weakens us -- the well known slogan "Divide and conquer!". But the treacherous moment here is not in this that, due to the interconnection of our world, the freedom for one person reduces to the contrary for another one, or that the freedom in one thing is its restriction in something else, neither in this that the freedom today may lead to some slavery tomorrow, or that very often we can't judge correctly whether we win or lose from some freedom, and when a time passes it turns out that it wasn't al all freedom, and similar things. No, the treacherous moment is that most eagerly fight for freedom
exactly the weaker, who often lose from it, and the stronger just stay and leave the weaker to "ram their heads"; this is observed in the free market, in the fight for emancipation, in the battles for independence, in the struggle for personal manifestation, and so on. The strong one, to whom the freedom is mostly beneficial, does not pursue it at all costs, because for him this is relatively easy, and even if he is not much free, he is strong, so that he will somehow impose his rights, where the weak one, who almost always only wastes his energy, exactly he
wants to waste it, because -- who knows, it may happen that he will turn to be stronger, if free. Well, if this is not recognized necessity, it is at least question of reason and intelligence, for you know that we usually consider the dog the most intelligent animal, and it (or rather "he" if you ask me) does not run away in the forest or desert, but wants to serve and obey us, not to be free. So that it unavoidably imposes the conclusion that the human beings, out of too much intellect, have maybe gone to the other side, to the silliness.
And so, life is unjust because each individual has interests contradicting to those of the others, and in his activity each one goes out mainly from his own interests. If we begin to search for the roots of the evil we shall come to the conclusion that it is in the differences between individuals. If the humans were like robots from one series they wouldn't have had reasons for complaints, and wouldn't have had contradictory interests (for if they have had, as they have also equal capabilities, they would have just mutually destroyed each other). In their contradictory interests each one tries to express himself and to prove that
he is not equal to the others, that he is in his own way unique and unrepeatable, but for this purpose he, usually, wants firstly to be provided equality. Due to the mutual entanglement of the things in infinitely many dialectical ties (as if tightened with many elastic strings) and because of their inborn feeling for justice (though from the point of view of their own interests), the humans think that this world is unjust (and that is why they have invented another one, after the death, which is to be just). But each good thing goes hand in hand with something bad (or, as the English say: "You can't burn the candle at both ends simultaneously!"), so that it becomes necessary for the life, which is, still, at least because of the absence of other choice, something good (or
the best of the possible), to be also unjust from the point of view of each subject. As far as, though, it is unjust to
each living thing, then this is equal to the statement that
it is just, i.e. the notion justice loses its meaning!
This is a known thesis in the ancient Eastern philosophies (in contrast to the created by the Christian God world), because earlier the people started from the interests of the whole nature, not only of these of the human beings, less from those of some chosen tribe. The Buddhism, for example, says that our world is a
triple negation, or more precisely that in it:
nothing is perfect, nothing is constant, and nothing is isolated! Well, that is how "our God" has devised it; you, if you can, devise something better.
BULGARIAN SURVIVAL
(Personally Tried)
|
|
Abstract:
The title is, in fact, a bit misleading, because the article is not about the survival of Bulgarian people under our incompetent democracy (because: whatever the demos such is also the -cracy) but about this how we should have tried to survive. With other words, the author here explains some main rules for living by low living standard, which are valid also for other countries, but when one just wonders what to do with his money he may make errors, surely, where we, or at least one big part of our population, simply are not allowed to err, if we want to live relatively passably under the conditions of right-wing (i.e. of the stronger) democracy. The material is motley, but it isn't abstract, and is based on checked by the author methods and techniques, where in the beginning are given some general advices for living (which have mostly philosophical character) and the main strategies for survival, then we continue with concrete recommendations for subsistence in urban environment (for in a village the finding of food is easier, and the author is a city boy), and it ends with some special skills; there is also traditional poetic appendix. The approximate circle of readers is about a quarter of the population, mainly pensioners, unemployed, housewives, and students, where the possible economy is also more or less the same (and this without overdoing). The only requirement for the person (except time) is that he really wants to economize, not only to think so, but in reality just to wonder what else to buy in order to be modern. Well, it is not much probable that exactly the Bulgarian will turn out to be the cleverest of all the nations (and this will not be fair to them, will it not?), but he may still try, if he is forced to. At least, by sticking to some of these advices, one will lead a healthier life, and one has to pay now for the health care.
[So, and because in many cases the author can't restrain himself to comment in some way the "saint simplicity" of the people, he puts the most tedious commentaries in square brackets like these.]
|
|
CONTENTS (Of This book)
I. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REASONABLE LIFE
1. Ancient Truths
2. Strategies For Survival
II. SURVIVAL IN URBAN CONDITIONS
1. Economies At Home
2. Food And Preparing Of Winter Supplies
3. Grasses, Herbs, And Wild Fruits
4. How Not To Visit Physicians
III. SPECIAL SKILLS
1. Picking Of Wild Mushrooms
2. Making Of Wines From Wild Fruits
3. Fabricating Of Liqueurs Or Vodka
POST SCRIPTUM
APPENDIX: The Wild Calls
I. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEADING OF REASONABLE LIFE
Here, broadly speaking, we don't say unknown things, but because they are very common they find wide applications in many life situations, so that it isn't wise to be overlooked (as most people usually do). The reasonable way of life does
not necessarily mean better survival, but is directly related with it, because the main purpose of human mind is to make our life better. [If you can do without much reasoning, something that many people usually do, then continue in this way as far as you can -- if not for other reasons then at least because however I insist on the contrary you, or at any rate the big part of the population, first acts and then thinks (because the action is more interesting than the boring reflections); I want to say that the intellect of the humans is, in any case, a thing to which one takes recourse
only after he has exhausted all other
unreasonable ways for achieving of the goal!]
1. Ancient truths
The first two of them have come to us before at least 25 centuries, from Ancient Greece, but they are surely older and eastern, and in the third subsection we explain roughly some basic principles of the Eastern theosophy.
1.1. Nothing excessive (or moderation in all things)
This is obvious out of dialectical considerations (to say also "dialactic" or "diaela
stic", i.e. pulling of a elastic rubber band from both sides, in the middle of which some pallet is bound), but this can be illustrated also by a target at which we aim, where it is clear that we must aim at the middle. More interesting is
why, when this is obvious and known from ancient times, the people, still, don't stick to it? Well, let me mention one linguistical proof, namely that the middle is related with the
moderate (and even mean, in English), and nobody wants to be moderate, we are aiming at the top (at least until we are young, but who considers the old people as such?). But the point is that the middle, besides giving the mean mob, and it is usually easier to live in it, you feel protected by the others, you are alike with them, in addition to this is easier to hit (the example with the target). Anyway, this is clear, so that let us give some examples, which are pretty many.
Because here is the big eating, or drinking, or smoking, or "screwing", or whatever (including the big
moderation). And what one does to himself, as our folks say, nobody can do to him (as is the case with the mess with our democracy, isn't it?). I personally am convinced (because I know such persons) that the fat and obese people are such as they are just because they eat much (and, by the way, in Bulgarian such one is called "debel", what, if you ask me, has to be from de + belle, i.e. "not nice" person). It exists, naturally such thing as predisposition of the character, disturbed metabolism, but, still, if these people have not eaten so much then they, surely wouldn't have been so obese (more so when they know that in some aspect they are not exactly like the others). And if one does not want to become fat then he (well, she too, it is clear) must eat
highly caloric food, I think, and not on the contrary (i.e. chocolates, grilled meat, and such, as the athletes usually do); and if he has enlarged much his stomach and it wants to be filled with something, then let him eat more cellulose (fruits, but with the skin, and the seeds, too), or popcorn and similar light and airy things for chewing, but also hard for digesting foods (say: raw rice grains, or beans, or small chicken bones -- surely there is nothing harmful in this because olive stones are recommended to be swallowed in order to grease the stomach, besides the dogs rarely chew and the cats don't have front teeth). So that in the end, as I have said, immoderation hinders practically everybody, but the people prefer to go to extremities, and later to be healed, when needed (say, because they smoke too many cigarettes, or drink much alcohol, or use drugs).
But the point isn't only in what we take into our bodies, but also in what we do around us, in the environment where we live. It is clear, for example, that it is better to live at up to 3-4 meters above the ground (mostly because of the ... law of the free fall, I suppose, from which follows that in one second one makes 5 meters, and in two the meters become whole 20, or about 6 storeys; but also because one becomes tired to climb high to reach his floor -- let us not forget that lifts exist for about 100 years, after the invention of electricity, what happened more or less in 1900). We know this, but nevertheless we shove ourselves in beehives or anthills, thinking that when they are luxurious this changes the situation, but it changes almost nothing. (A propos, I, for various reasons, for some years don't use
at all the lift up to the 5th floor, where I live, and, to tell you the truth, after the first pair of months of some discomfort, am feeling much better.) And to mention also, with the corresponding excuses before the Americans, that if they have not had their twin towers there would have been nothing to be destroyed by the terrorists! And take into consideration, please, that this example is
not at all particular, on the contrary, this is true for all places where many people are gathered together (stadiums, recreational complexes, air- and other ports, big temples, and so on), which become first targets for terrorist attacks -- in the same way as in ancient times the big cities have become main "goal" for the viruses and microbes by epidemics, i.e. the problems, in principle, are not new, but they remain unsolved due to the immoderation of the human wishes. (And if some of you remarks that we build up because we have become too much people and otherwise we can not fit in the towns, then it may be answered to him that this is exactly the problem, that we are too many people on the globe, what also is a question of moderation -- and here there is even nothing impossible or difficult, you can be sure about this.)
Generally, I think, it can be stated that the question of moderation is a question of common sense, and vice versa (the common sense is reduced, mainly, to the moderation). There are no problems if one wishes to be at the top in his immediate profession, to want not to be mediocre in it, but in all the left to search the middle -- in the food, in his interests, in the love or sex, and so on. This what hinders us to be moderate, in addition to the young age, with the increasing of which we, in one natural way, become more moderate (because the old people, even if they want more, they can lesser and lesser), is, in my view, in the western belief for the meaning of life to be in the incessant fight for climbing up, where the eastern view is that the human is part of the nature (
we are in the God-nature, not He is in us), and if so we must try
not to impose, but to fit into it! Not that we don't try to do something about the problem, we try, but
only after we see that have stuck deep in the mud (because of some immoderation -- say, in the armament).
And to mention also one more aspect of our immoderation -- the
cult to professionalism, in whatever area it may happen, maybe joint with some portion of indolence. For example, not to play sports alone but to look how the others do this; not to sing or dance but to see some show; not to cook us something for eating but to take it ready or go to a restaurant or a pub; not to practice our sex but to look at some porno; and so on, and so on. My personal meaning (maybe because of my advanced age, probably because of this) is that our striving for professionalism, in things for which we are not paid for this, just
hampers us to lead an interesting life, where in old times it was not so (when people have made themselves their shows, as well as their dishes, et cetera). It is true that we evolve, but maybe we also degrade a little.
And let me finish this point about the moderation with one popular (and found by me) explanation for this why the man is usually more moderate (and reasonable, as I have said) than the woman, who, as a rule, isn't, as also the small children aren't. It is clear that this can be explained with her greater emotionality, at least by the children this is so, but by the woman there is something more, something ... sexual. There's nothing difficult here (but I, still, have not heard that somebody has put it in this way), the point is that the man
not always ... can do it (and don't ask me what is it this thing that the man can, because in the Slavonic languages this is placed in the core of his name -- he is called "mazh" or "muzh" or "måzh" (where with the letter "å" I signify that sound as in you "bird", or similar to your "but"), where to can is "moga" or "mogu" or "mozhet"!), he sometimes can but sometimes can not, where the woman always can. In this way the man from an early age, from the puberty, if not even earlier, becomes used to be moderate in order to succeed in his undertakings, where the woman becomes used only to want more and more (be there one who can give it to her); when she, however, comes out of productive age, as well as when she has not entered it, she can very successfully compete with him.
1.2. Know thyself
This ancient slogan is not so much question of reason, as question of honesty, because the reason why people don't want to know themselves is that they will not like themselves. But this is necessary because they are different, and if someone, just as an example -- and I beg a pardon from the more squeamish of you -- prefers it from behind, then why should he not be aware of this? From the point of view of the reason is logically that the knowledge, almost no matter what is the nature of the question, must be of some use for the grown citizen. Yeah, but mainly for the men, and even for them not always. And why this isn't so for the women the author has asked himself in connection with the
biblical meaning of the word "knowledge", which is so not only in Russian (i.e. in Slavonic languages), but also in English, and in other languages, and this surely comes somewhere from the old Hebrew, if not from the Sanskrit. But don't think that this is only because of the "fifth extremity" of the man, with which he gets to know some "cavern" of the woman. No, here the things surely have also the common meaning of the knowledge as reasonable assessment of a given situation, what leads us to the conclusion that the woman, as a rule, of course, we don't speak about the exceptions (which confirm the rule -- with their exceptionality), just don't like realistic estimations due to their higher emotionality and partiality, or, in fact, is not much intelligent (what is well known). So that it is clear that the woman will not want to know herself, but the man also is not really "burning" with desire for knowledge (say, that he is man in the above mentioned direct meaning, probably, not oftener than in
one percent of the time -- on the average 15 minutes per day).
Said in a bit different way, the people don't want to know themselves because they think themselves for something big, because their pride exceeds their abilities, where the Russians have even a separate word for unreasonable (or not motivated) pride, "gordinya" (where the normal pride is "gordost"). But then this "gordinya" is exactly our ...
monkey feature, the well known habit of the gorillas, and this maybe chiefly of the male ones, to step forward on some open place in the jungle, when they decide that someone threatens them, and begin to hit themselves with fists on the chest and cry "uhr" or the like (where from the Slavs have learned their "hurrah", the English their "war", the French and other Latins their guerre, because of which the monkey-gorilla and the partisan-guerilla are twin words)! And this, that the monkey in all languages sounds insulting you can maybe check alone (the Bulgarian "maymuna" is the Turkish "maymun"); even (if I am not in error) in the Buddhism one tries to do the right things for to prevent his reincarnation later in a monkey, where if he becomes a pig (or a cockroach, for example) this is not so bad as to become a monkey. So that we are afraid to get to know nearer our monkey traits, but this does not eliminate them at all.
And it is not only this that we hide from ourselves, this what we also don't like to acknowledge (and to which truth I have come only after the democracy began to reign in our country, because the communists did not allow us to show also our simplicity, it was not so
respected as nowadays) is that we just "die" for somebody to deceive us! Today these are all the media, the ads, and the politicians (and the so called public relations, or PR, cadres), which come on place of the church from the recent past (because the nature does not like empty places -- she is, hmm, a lady, and always finds with what to fill her arisen
niches), in what relation, I think, is pretty clear that in Slavonic the word pastor is also the shepherd (which is "pastir" there). Well, it turns out that this, that we want to be deluded, was a known Latin sentence (so from, roughly, 20 centuries), namely:
mundus vult decipi, where, maybe, the only help that you might need in the translation of it is that "decipi" means to deceive. But still, from the point of view of the reasonable knowledge, it is better when one knows that he wants to be deluded, than otherwise, I think.
Together with the knowing of his differences, though, the self awareness helps one also to be aware of the
others, because we have many common traits, and this now is clear that helps in our survival. Here is the moment to mention also the term reflexion, i.e. the reflexion of something in our thoughts, and to speak more precisely about
levels of reflexion, where the zeroth level is that I only think something (until it turns out that how I sit and think so at the end I just sit, as the saying goes), the first level is that I think that he /she /it thinks, and so on, but usually the second level is already pretty high for the ordinary member of a given group. In any case, at least the first level in necessary, and it is used by all people working with clients, where, maybe, it would not be superfluous to give the first concrete advice:
don't think that you can outsmart one organization or system! For example, to outsmart some merchant of shopkeeper -- not only because they are professionals and you a mere laic, but rather because they have more information than you, they monitor the sales, and even if they are not very good in the arithmetic (and they surely are
more clever than a housewife), they feel what they do (as a driver uses to drive the car reflexively, without thinking). So that if they offer you something very cheap, in your view, then comply with the proposal, but buy just a little, not very much, because if you decide then and there to make the big coup you will almost always make an error! Similarly also with some bank, which will "die" to propose to you some new conditions for deposits, but with the principal goal (in addition to the wish to attract new clients) to force you to cancel an existing deposit and in this way to lose something (for the banks gain only by the differences in some margins, as is also with the changing of money, so that if they can make you to react in a hurry and make a mistake, this is a net win for them). Or to look for something persistently, say, for peppers to make pickles in the autumn -- when you search something then you will find the offer, but on a pretty high prices (the supply is according to the demand).
Well, to the question with the pickles we will return later, and now let us remark that the things, naturally, are related one with the other, so that here we touch to the question of moderation, as well as to our next advise:
be very
careful when you are part of the system (but under the conditions of real market you are
always part of it)! In this case this means that changing the demand you will change also the prices, and not only that you will nor, in a long run, help much yourself, but will also hinder the others. If you have not market behavior -- and the Bulgarian still, for whole 20 years, could not succeed to learn to react reasonable to the market -- then you will only lose; the market, for its part, will find a way to better the things. The Bulgarian continues to hoard things under the impact of fearing neurosis (that something will disappear from the market), he does not buy when it is cheap, because waits for it to become cheaper, but some time goes and it gets and turns more expensive, and exactly then he rushes to buy (expecting for it to become more expensive), and one more time becomes duped. He simply has learned to buy ... at
high prices, what is a kind of madness. On the market one must buy when there is some cheap offer, but diminish the acquiring when the prices go up -- according to the (Bulgarian) sentence: when they offer you -- take, and when they drive you away -- run! Or, for example, some company sees that it has many clients and decides that now is the moment to increase its gain (because when it loses nobody of its clients goes to it to help it with some money, right?) and for that purpose it
worsens the conditions (say, if this is a bank it lessens the interest rates -- you couldn't have missed to notice that the more sought a bank is the lower its rates for deposits are), and in spite of this its clients don't diminish in their numbers but continue to increase, so that it is left with nothing else as to continue in this direction as long as possible, i.e. until its clients at last decide to change their behaviour.
Let us expand a bit this question. By unreasonable reaction of the customers happens something like, for to give more illustrative example, when bathing under the shower you want to make the water warmer and increase the inflow of hot water, but being impatient you
forget about the inertness of the system -- one more rule -- and turn the valve more and more open, until there flows out scorching water, when you begin to turn the valve backward and come to freezing water (where there are no problems for some of your neighbours above or below you also to worsen the situation). The market, obviously, is an inertial system, so that don't impede it, but wait first a little for it to take its measures and just then act also you; if a tradesman has much of some merchandise he will lessen its price, and vice versa, but when the price goes down then take this in consideration and buy a bit, because everybody needs regular income (when can provide it). Well, there are other things to be said but maybe it suffices for the moment.
1.3. The good bad world
Here we will say something about the Eastern theosophy, but have in mind, please, that the things are expressed pretty fragmented, because this philosophy is unknown by us (and, up to a big extent, also to the author). But it is useful for everybody to have some idea about it because, as it looks in this times, it may prove to be more vital than the Greek-Latin one, to say nothing about the Christianity, which has begun to lose positions nowadays; it was also the one that has brought the ancient Greeks to their views in old times (via the Persians and Arabs). So for example in the Buddhism is stated that our real world characterizes with three negations, namely in it:
nothing is constant, nothing is perfect, and nothing is isolated! As you see, the biblical conception about the Creation looks like fairy tale for children -- you may listen to it if you like it, but God forbid to begin to believe in it. Besides, the Eastern theosophy is so called because it contains not only philosophizing and ploughing of sands (say, whether the matter was before the divine idea, or vice versa; or how God the Father looks, and, in particular, how many hairs has He in His beard), but concepts about the world, life, and gods (i.e. religion, surely, but also morality, and science too, as much as science could have existed in the antiquity, working mainly with qualitative categories, on the level of ideas, not with quantitative laws). Where the Western philosophy, to put it more scientifically (I am citing an encountered phrase in English), is "overly cerebral & inadequately addressing the non-rational dimensions of life"; i.e. it isn't suitable for common citizen, in the same way as the Christian religion can't withstand any logical or scientific verification (and even the contemporary science fiction ideas about parallel universes have started from ancient "Upanishads").
But let us return to the three no-s. This, that nothing is constant, is the ancient Greek phrase: "Παντα ρει, παντα κινειται." (All flows, all changes); this, that nothing is isolated (together with the impermanence, dynamics), leads us to the dialectical unity; and this, that nothing is perfect, can be seen in Greek religion (where the gods quarrel and fight like us, humans; but the Christian religion with its "good God" has no logical ground at all, it is entirely "sucked from the finger", as we say). In the Buddhism exists the term
adavaita, meaning literally that nothing can be taken apart or divided, all is one whole thing (and, if you like: the matter and the God-idea; or the above expressed idea that the we are in the God, together with the whole World). Or to mention one interesting Buddhist myth, about this how the whole Universe was created: as emanation of the ...
bowels of the god Thatagata (whose name can easily be split in two names: of some Θεοσ /Theos as "Tata"-father (in Bulgarian children jargon
tata is like papa-fathy), plus something that we all like to ...
get (
gepja as Bulgarian jargon, or German get /got, where is their Got, respectively English God), i.e. this proto-deity has just "left a pigeon", as we say. But at the same time this sounds scientifically and isn't much away from the theory of initial blast (The Big Bang)!
Otherwise in the Buddhism there are chiefly three gods: Brahma, Vishnu (with Krishna as one of his incarnations; also Rama is again he), and Shiva. But more interesting is that these names are present in many words around the world, mostly by the Slavs, where: Brahma makes the things to "bråmchat"-buzz, he is the main god and has made the world; Vishnu is the "vårshitel"-doer, he makes the things to "vertet"-rotate, performs the maintenance (this function is
missing at all in the Christian idea); and Shiva makes us to ... shiver, or "shibaet"-hits us with some stick when we behave badly, he is the destroyer; similarly also the name of Buddha (who is not a god, as much a Mohamed isn't) means that he awakens (exactly "budit" in Russian, or "
budya" in Bulgarian) the people (well, he tries to arouse us but we don't want it), makes us to think and to become conscious. However, let us not divert more our attention with names, but I want to stress on another important (for our life) conclusion, that
everything is just! This is so because everything is connected and contradictory, and if for one it seems bad, then for another one it is good, ergo, it is neither good, nor bad, but exactly well measured, justified. This view both, force us to be patient (which is the goal of each religion, but also of each system of rules), and does not prevent us from trying to change something if we can (because nothing is constant, nor perfect). This leads us to the known (for the former socialist countries, I think, from one book of Kurt Vonegut) pray, that says: God, give me
strength, to endure this what I can not change,
courage, to change this what I can, and
wisdom, to distinguish one thing from the other! As you see, this is a pray to God, but it is also a philosophy of life.
From the three negations we come also to the following cardinal conclusion, that
out life is the best of all possible alternatives, i.e. the things have settled dialectically so as they are, and if it was possible somehow different, then it would have happened so, or, generally, what happens, it happens motivated and justified. But when everything happens as it can and must happen, and each different variant would have been worse, then we come to some highly polemical situations, for example that: the atomic bomb over Hiroshima was the only possible decision; or the coming of Hitler to power was the best decision; similarly with Stalin; or that the communism, no matter that we renounced it, was the best decision for its time and place; and thousands similar cases. And if one begins to think it will, maybe, turn exactly so, only with some stipulations, that we must not go into details (say, the bomb could have been thrown over the Mount Fujiyama, Hitler could have been named Hans Grobman, for example, and to seize the power two years later, etc.). This is in accordance with one Bulgarian
shopsky (around Sofia) saying that "What is needed it is forced by itself". This is also in unison with the former pray, and it looks logical. In other words, although the life is very complicated and there always will be found someone to
shiba-hit us and inflict on us something bad (and if there is no one nearby, then we alone can make ourselves harm), the life, still, is maximally good.
[This is up to certain extent like the assertion that the democracy is a bad thing but till the moment we have not found something better; yeah, but it is a
bad thing, where, if one has listened to our ardent members of UDF (Union of the Democratic Forces) in their time, then we, having come to the democracy, is nearly the same as to have got the dear Got by the ... -- well, by what one can grasp a man, right? And
exactly then our problems began. And in addition to this the democracy is not of the things over which we can not exercise influence, and nobody forced us to make it so right-wing, i.e. to return in the rough capitalism of before half a century, so that now we must wait more or less another such period (because 20 years have already passed and we have come only to the "wry plum", as we in Bulgaria say, i.e. in a blind alley), in order to reach again the same (low) standard of life. Because the West, imposes on us justified economical requirements for the contemporary world, such that there may exist dynamics and evolution (the East, too, i.e. the Russians led by Gorbachev, also have seen this in their time, and in other then socialist countries likewise), and which must be common with theirs, but they will not begin to solve our social problems, why should they? The social questions are task for each of the countries, to be solved according with the specific conditions there, and this that we have not yet grasped "What is socialism and has it ground in Bulgaria? (there was before a century such booklet by the founder of our socialist party in 1891, Dimitar Blagoev) -- well, this is our problem.]
But to finish with this, that the world is not perfect -- which word, let be in clear, is
twin (in the Slavonic languages) with accomplished, performed ("swårshen" and "såvårshen" in Bulgarian), i.e. it is not yet finished, it continues, what is so also in the Latin where "perfect" means bygone and accomplished, and that is why Vishnu and Shiva were necessary --, but it is also the best of possible ones (the parallel universes). It remains only to add that the world (or the Creation) is also
arbitrary, in order to have contemporary meaning (where it isn't impossible for it to be created by whatever gods we want and
again with the usage of arbitrariness, i.e. there are no reasons -- no matter that the Christian Church fears like "the devil the incense" the idea of arbitrariness and /or evolution -- to think that we know how to make arbitrary events -- like throwing of coins, for example -- but our omnipotent God does not know such elementary things; is he a God or a "head of onion"?). Or to cite the cardinal idea of the probability theory that:
the arbitrariness is necessary, and the necessity is arbitrary!
Well, such is the world and in it we must survive, and the more poor one is, the more efforts one has to apply in order to survive, so that let us consider now the basic strategies for accomplishing of this goal.
2. Strategies for survival
They also are not so much, may be counted on fingers and are, broadly speaking, known long ago, but as far as are of principal importance we must not jump over them.
2.1. Divide and conquer (divide ed impera)
Hardly can be found an adult who has not heard about the famous Latin (and, hence, old Greek and even older) rule "divide and conquer" (and similarly in other languages), which works practically without fail in various situations. It is expressed in such useful dividing of some task in parts, so that the simpler things can be performed easier or with bigger profit, or the very parts (if they are animated) to begin to mess one with the other and in this way to help us to retain the power or to increase our dividends.
For example, if it goes about investing of money (respectively about buying of shares), then
it should not be bought all in one heap, but to be divided: on one hand by currencies (making of currency basket), on other hand by banks (in order not to lose all our money at once), and also according to the accessibility (liquidity) of the money (or of the duration of deposits). One exemplifying scheme for deposits is more or less the following: the half (or maybe 2/3) of the money you invest in two-three banks, divided in pair of currencies (now these are US dollars and euros) for a quite long term (normally an year, but maybe also for two or three years), in order to gain maximal profit, where the
dates of the deposits
diverge on smaller and equal periods (three months is the best variant); then the half of the left half (circa 1/4 to 1/5 of all the money) invest in our main currency (although here also is possible to divide the sum in a pair of currencies) in other banks for a short term (usually monthly); and the left quarter (or 1/5) you keep on demand or in a current account (or with a card for ATM, or in two accounts, because the current account is with practically zero percent interest) in another bank (for quick access). In this way you can periodically add or withdraw money from the long term accounts, and have a good liquidity for running costs; the only problems here are to have enough time to do this (say, once in a month to go to a bank), as well as to be able to divide the whole sum in so many parts (because usually for each deposit exists minimal amount). But don't allow yourself to be caught on the "hooks" of the banks that, for example: there is no need to make 4 yearly deposits by 3 months when you can make one for a term of 3 months and have the same access (because the interest will be different), or that in the moment you can get for a 3-months deposit the same percent as for an annual one (because this, surely, is only temporary and in this way you will never succeed to "weave" you basket), and other tricks. In addition to this you must always be ready, if the bank decides to change drastically the interest rates, to abandon it and go to another one, but, as I have said, not panic-stricken, but when the term of your deposit expires. And if your have a lot of money then you may buy also shares, or movable property (cars, caravans, yachts), or unmovable one, as well also [the democracy allows you this, doesn't it?] banks (or at least chares of banks), gas stations, islands in the tropics (maybe also parcels on the Moon, but I personally don't advise you to do this because you will not live long enough to make use of them), or space shuttles.
This strategy is applicable not only for banks, nothing hinders you, for example, instead of one sexual partner, as we call it nowadays, to have a pair of them, so that when you quarrel with the one then to go to the other. Or to have two cars (one for working days, the other for holidays, and maybe also one caravan -- the people on the West do exactly this), or several homes (our politicians often do so), or several parcels of land (for a garden, for a vineyard, also for the son or the daughter), and other similar variants. On the whole, the
principle is clear, but you must also understand that
it is invented for big powers /owners; applied on a small scale this often wastes your time , and in many cases you fall below the threshold of its reasonable use. Where the big owner wins
largely because of it! (Surely
not because of much brains or sales skills, because if he is a big owner then he elementary
will buy himself other capable persons who will do the work for him -- this is called proof of the contrary, if you don't know. And this, that many powerful man -- businessman or politicians, which most often then not are both things --, assert that the able always succeeded -- well, somebody must deceive you somehow in order to make you work for him with enthusiasm; the big fishes need the smaller ones, otherwise what will they eat, the poor things?)
Said in another way, the big owner profits from one thing and loses from another, but under a progressive, as a rule, in most cases and periods of time, evolvement the business goes on, so that, as a whole, or integrally looked at the things, he (even if he is incompetent) wins. But the curious moment in the case of big-scale property (and this what psychologically motivates it) is that a large number of people who are absolutely sure that they will
never own something really big (money or other substantial property) are the first who shout that they want it, and fight to make it possible; the indisputably reach ones just wait peacefully, they may even have pro-socialist convictions. And this is what makes this principle so stable: the very small fishes eat one another (because so much are their brains).
2.2. Counterflow principle
This is rather a technical principle, but I think that it also was known from ancient times. It maintains that in various cases is useful to
move against the main flow (here of the demand), or on the contrary to the mob. For example: not to look for tomatoes for preservation when all look for the same, or eggs on Easter, or, say, slender girls in the Western countries, et cetera, but to search something else which is to be got almost for nothing (say, girls with pear-shaped bodies in this countries, or then, if we are somewhere on the East, then
there to search French-type women). This is not something especially difficult, and taking into account that in most cases this is a
matter of taste, or of time and place, then we must modify our tastes according to the supply and demand, or wait for the proper time to come. (In relation to the possible shifting of some official holidays or traditions in this way: well, I don't say that we must not celebrate Easter, or New Year, etc., but rather that we should not overdo the things on these dates, besides one easily becomes fed with everything (how earlier we have become tired of all the marches and manifestations), but instead of this to
add some new, personal, holidays, when nobody will hinder us to look for whatever we want, and having in mind that on such days we will celebrate but the others won't, then we may even like this. For example I propose (and have proposed to some of my friends, but they did not take it seriously and for a long time) to celebrate
all the dates with equal day and month -- some of them are already celebrated officially, but most of them are not (say: 4.4, 5.5, 6.6, etc.). Or to celebrate birthdays (or other important for us days) each month on the given day (or at least twice in an year); or starting from certain date to add each time one and the same number (e.g. 17, or 33, or as you like it) and then to celebrate again; or just to choose from time to time some day for a holiday, or like an imitation of the menu of known holiday, or something of the kind.)
And what concerns the searching by everyone of one and the same things, which are
not in their season, so I personally can't grasp why people widely buy tomatoes and cucumbers during the winter (to say nothing about marrows, or strawberries, or something exotic in this time), and don't wait till the proper time comes, because it is pretty clear that such out-if-season goods have not grown by normal conditions, they are either out of greenhouses, or mutants, or both, and don't have the taste of natural ones (this is, maybe, as if to look for 40-year-old virgin, just because this rarely happens). Earlier, when there were not such alternatives, we searched not fresh tomatoes in the winter, used different sorts of pickles, and we have come to nothing bad (say, the
raki still tasted good to us); and, generally, I don't think that if something is possible it has always to be done, such behaviour usually is an indication for
insufficient maturity of the person, unless he has the excuse to just have not what to do with his money. So that in similar cases, when the main current flows not in the right direction (something is not healthy, or is luxurious, or even harmful -- as the narcotics are, for example) is entirely motivated to move in counterflow; even if this is only for economies, even then this might prove a good strategy, because it is not excluded that the new tastes have also some other advantages (in the next chapter I will give some examples about strange tastes).
But then, taking into account that the tastes of the masses in the majority of cases are a result of momentary delusion or vogue, as also this, that the searched thing, at least in Bulgaria, often is of deteriorated quality (because the people don't choose much but take it in a hurry), where by the promotion of some untypical product on the market it is made more painstakingly in order to conquer the market, and is also sold cheaper, then it will, maybe, turn out that if one moves counter the main flow (demand), he will
in the most cases do the right thing! But mark, only
while he is moving counterflow, because if one promoted product begins to be sought then it at once will either rise in price, and/or its quality will deteriorate, so that then you must quickly return to your old tastes. Well, you may find it uncomfortable incessantly to change your tastes, because people (and animals, too) like their habits, especially the old people, due to the fact that the stereotypical behaviour is
easier (one has not to think and decide, hence, at least for this reason, one can not make an error), but for this reason the people (as also the animals) are caught exactly on stereotypes! The market is dynamical, just as the life is, and each participant in it must try to show the fastest possible adaptation, otherwise he is a loser, so that let me give the next advice to you:
change your habits according to the conditions.
And it turns out that on this place it is appropriate to say something about the advertisements. They obviously (despite of my disliking) are useful for the business, and it is useful for the people, so that, in general, they are in the interest of the population, but, still, in some limits, where in this connection I would have raised the slogan:
the use of advertisements leads to stupidity! I am against them because they contradict to my aesthetical disposition and are exceedingly vulgar -- but each nation deserves its ads (as well as its rulers, by the way), and they, the ads (and the rulers), in different countries, really, are quite different -- but they also are paid by the client (first by the companies, but, ultimately, by the buyers, who
restore to the firms their expenses for advertisements, in some way similarly to the returning of the VAT tax to the state!), i.e.
the ads increase the cost of the goods, and because of this are not good for poor countries, more so in conditions of stagnation or crisis (and we, maybe, have still not exited the crisis since the time when we turned down our former communist boss "uncle Tosho"). Under a normal economy and well-off population, which just wonders how to spend their money (or, as another
criterion for prosperity, spends on food only 10 to 20% of their income -- and for us this figure surely is above 50%), they may not be so bad, they enliven the life, but not in countries as ours. Though, as the folk says, there is a blessing in disguise, so that (due to the dialectical connecting of the things) from the ads can be derived some
benefit, if one has enough brains to use them accordingly. What I have in mind is that there are advertised only products which are
not demanded (otherwise nobody would have made efforts to increase their cost, for to diminish with this the demand), and, as I have said, they increase the price, hence,
the advertisements may be used as
excellent indicator for this,
what one should not buy -- clear and simple, isn't it? Put it in another way, if we don't know where the main flow is, so these are the ads, and, hence, the counterflow is against them. Until we all begin to react in a similar way to that rubbish, till that time they (the companies and the ads) will make us crazy (when we like this), so that everything is a matter of taste.
2.3. The unity makes the power
This slogan surely has been clear to the ... monkey before it has descended from the tree; we have it above our National Assembly (our Parliament) but don't pay any attention to it (but maybe
that is why we have it as a slogan, because we don't pay any attention to it), we have also the parable about the bunch of sticks and our khan Kubrat (in the 7th century, who had shown to his sons how easy it is to break one stick, but how difficult it is when they are many, to teach them not to oppose one against the other), which was very old because here is the ... fascism, for
fascis in Latin means a bunch of sticks (which burn and then say "fss"), but while for the West these sticks just burn and the people are enjoying this (they fascinate themselves, made fiestas and
Fashings), for us they are, maybe, symbol for clubbing the buttocks, I don't know, but we never think for uniting under some idea (especially now, in the democratic times). Well, the bunch of sticks surely isn't always something good, the fascism, for example, turned out to be one big ..
fishek, as the Turks say (a firecracker)! But to jump to the other end also is not a great merit, is it? And the idea for uniting really is very old because we live in a world of the strong, and the
only possibility for the weaker to become stronger is to unite with another human, feeble as himself and having similar views to the things as he has. This (as if communist) idea, but in another form and with other words, turns out that have existed also on the ... American one-dollar bill, where is pictured a Masonic pyramid and is written in Latin "E Pluribus Unum", what surely means something like "to make unity out of plurality".
So that everything is clear, only that we don't act properly. We don't like to unite not because this is a communist slogan, no (for we are such people for a ling time, since centuries before the communism), we are just a bit wilder tribe -- sorry, sorry --, or, put it more properly, we have no social feeling. This may have its advantages, sometimes, because we have a powerful gene, and this may be good in a planetary scale (i.e.: for the world it is good, but for us is bad!), but we like just to harm one another. But divided the people can survive harder, i.e. we pay greater social price. This social feeling, in my view (but I have heard such definition also from others), is not so much matter of eastern or western view, as of dividing north - south; I want to say that on the north, where the living conditions are more difficult and the survival is harder, there the people help one another better (have you, occasionally, heard about: 15-years-long Eskimo War, or the Great Aleutian Battle, or Chukchi-Eskimo War -- well, I haven't, because there were not such things), where on the south (under, say: Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Georgians, Arabs, Persians, Hindus, Gypsies, and others), where one can feed oneself only tearing some fruit or killing an animal, and sleep in the open, there one does not much help to the other people around, because this is not especially necessary. Well, this is so, but if we have problems in our survival then we are forced to help one another.
And we, since the coming of our democracy, have even more neglected the social cares and simply instances, where one can fulfill something important for living, say: to eat up a cheap tripe soup (or onion soup for the West), to sleep the night in a cheap hostel, to wash his clothes in some public point, et cetera. We have not more even public baths! Precisely since someone bought our central mineral bath in Sofia and it ceased to work more. To say nothing about the
10-fold increase of the prices of public transport , or the central heating, or the electricity. [Now one transport ticket in Sofia is 1/2 euro, and in Europe it is one euro, but the minimal salary in Bulgaria is 130 euros, in 2010, where in the European Union one can not find a country where it is less than 500-600, and in the normal countries it is about 2000.] Yet these are known things.
But can we alone do something? Well, in principle we can, for example: a pair of neighbouring families buy together
one washing machine, divide its price in correspondence with the number of people in each family, use it for 4-5 years, till it does amortize quickly, and in this way each economizes about the half of its price (because an appliance wears also if it is not used, just aging; especially the washing machine begins to crack if it is not used for more than a week, and goes out of fashion when there pass more than 10 years; I would have proposed to use in the same way also the wives, respectively the husbands, but there have left no more families, so that I don't know to tell this to you or not to tell); similarly may be proceeded also with the cars (for those who have them), or (what I know is done on the West) several people go to work with one car, dividing the expenses (for two persons it, still, turns more expensive than the public transport, only the third person makes it suitable for use), but it isn't right to have a car and use it only to go once in summer to the sea, or to drive it a pair of times in month to go to the village; and surely other ways for economizing, but, of course, it is better if there are some common premises in the basements of the blocks (and they usually are present) and to use them for washing and drying machines, maybe for sterilizing pickles, an so on (but they are
not used in Bulgaria; in the other countries, though, it is mot so).
2.4. Search the alternative
This isn't some special strategy, but it is good to have it in mind in order to provide rapid reaction, i.e. one has always to have a "plan B", alternative product to buy when this, what he is looking for, is missing, or it is much more expensive in the moment (say: meat, chickens, sausages, and eggs; or rice, noodles, and potatoes; or cabbage, marrows, green beans; or common oil, olive oil, lard, butter, margarine; and so on). We know this, usually, but despite of it stubbornly try to find this, what we have decided to buy, no matter what are the prices. And to explain also that the very word "alternative" starts from the Latin
alter, what means another, but also older one (in different languages, say in German), i.e. the new variant is just one (well forgotten) old. This, in its turn, tells us that we often have here a cyclical process, what simplifies the choice, because we just return to something old.
Well, let us say that with this we have exhausted general life truths and strategies, and to proceed to some concrete advises.
II. SURVIVAL IN URBAN CONDITIONS
But let me warn you from the start that here it goes not about this how to find where to sleep in a town if you have not money for a hotel, or how to travel gratis in the tram, or how to cheat somebody or fake something. It is first of all about some methods and tricks for economy in the house, for feeding and preparing supplies for winter, as also about using of untypical foods and wild grasses and fruits, because, as I have said, when one has low standard of live his primary problem is his sustenance, and even in a town (or around it) may be found what to gather that can be used as food (the Russians name this "gathering of what lies in the feet", switching to feeding like in pasture, as the wild pigs do; but this must not mean that one can't find something tasty in this way, or at least useful, as you will see); at the end there are also some pieces of advice about leading of healthy life. In other words, we take for granted that the readers have a home, yes or not as regards the paid work or pension, but have enough free time and want to economize in what they can (because they must do this, or even to fill their time), or, alternatively looked at the matter, want to eat something natural, not from "chemical-and-food" industry.
1. Economies at home
About the economies, and because this has become lately a major
trick in advertising, let us warn the readers that at least in 95% of the cases when someone (with the exception of yours truly, of course) speaks about economies, then this means exactly the opposite, new expenses! (In general, no one ad must be taken in its face value -- at least until the opposite is proved.) For example, many are the people who now renovate their homes from the outside so that to be seen from afar that
they can allow this, but the neighbour around, above, or below them can not. Well, if you just have money in excess, which if you will not spend for something lasting then will eat and drink them up, then, of course, good cheer in the sanitation, but don't think that you save something in this way, because you can put interior insulation wallpapers, which are only 4 mm thick and do the same work, and they will cost you about 10
times less (because the price for a square meter outside sanitation is about 20 euros -- I will translate all prices in euros, in the year of narration, also in other places --, and of the wallpaper is maybe one and a half euro, anyway, there are rolls of 5 m2 for 5 euros, if I am not in error). In addition to this do also another arithmetic: when you give about 700 - 1000 euros for such renovation, and if it will spare you by 30 - 40 euros in an year (because I don't think it will be more, you'll see) then this gives repayment for about 25 years (if not more), and to that time this thing will hardly last, or you will want to make something new and better, or will not live to that time, or, God forbid, the building may fall down -- in fact,
nothing is planed for a period longer than 10 - 15 years ahead.
Or a similar economy of circa 10 percent (questionably) from replacing the window frames with aluminum, which costs (roughly) for one window more than the central heating for the whole apartment for an year (or the entire glazed area will give a bit more than the above sanitation. Or installing of floor heating (especially in a central heated home, where you always pay something, even if you have cut out the radiators), and similar bamboozling (say, that the energy saving light bulbs, which are 10-15 times more expensive, but nobody guarantees you that they will work longer then 2-3 common ones, and economize per about 1/2 eurocent per hour -- calculate: if it saves you 50 watts, i.e. if it is 12 watts instead of 60, and if the price of the electricity is 10 eurocents per kWh, and in the moment it is 9 cents on the average, for a whole day it gives more or less the same --, so that for 3 years the bulb will be roughly repaid if you use it for an hour per day, but if you switch it on only for 15-20 min., then this gives again 10 years or so; had it cost as much as 2 common bulbs one might have tried it, but the situation isn't such). But if you want to live in a modern home and can afford this -- well, that's another matter.
So, and now about some of the communal expenses.
1.1. Central heating
We begin with it because it is the most expensive (150 - 200 euro in an year for a two-room flat of about 60 m2). Here it is right to start with this that, want we it or not, but the very method of calculating of the consumption, approved with normative acts and undisputed by anybody, is ...
rotten, because it does not conform with the personal devices for measuring of the consumption! It does not conform because there is a big part (about 55%) of the consumption, which goes for the whole building, but there pure and simple is
no other
heating equipment for heating of the structure, they are the same devices (the radiators in the rooms and the riser pipes in the bathrooms), that heat the building and give the heating of the whole structure (there can't be spoken about common premises, because at least in the building entrance where I live in such places -- in the staircase areas -- the radiators were cut out and taken away for many years). Such double counting might have been a big mistake but it
isn't so -- just the
method is erroneous -- because the electricity is counted for 0.038 euro /kWh (it varies a bit each month, I don't know why), where otherwise its average price in the moment (of writing of the material) by me is around 0.085 euro /kWh (so that, if the actual consumption for the whole structure is 45% from the given, then 0.45 * 0.085 = 0.03825 euros, or again the same value that they use for the electricity price); the calculations in general turn to be the same (and the expenses of those who heat their flats only by electricity are not twice cheaper, surely), but this is not the correct calculation (it is as if faked, in order to produce the same expenses for the various ways of heating).
Yeah, but this sabotages the individual measurement, because if the half of the expenses (roughly speaking) come from the cubature of the dwelling and can't be personally changed, and from the other part for heating of the property again about a half (usually a bit more then this, but let us not be so precise) goes to the riser pipes, which also can't be individually regulated, then it turns out that this, what can be regulated, is just 1/4 of the whole consumption; put it in another way, this means that if someone (like me, for example) saves about 40% (what is not at all little, I'll tell you, but I live alone and during the winter stay only in the kitchen and don't heat the two rooms) then this will express itself in 10% economy of the whole consumption (what in its turn is not at all much). In money equivalent this means that hardly somebody will gain (respectively spend more) than 20-30 euros per year for the same 2-room flat. Having in mind that by individual metering something must be paid also to the firm doing this (it is not charitable organization, and the company providing the heating does not want to do this measuring), which sum for the present is about 10 euros, then it seems that the people are right raising the question, why was it necessary at all to go to this individual measuring? And the curious moment is that this time, too, the answer is paradoxical (because nothing in Bulgaria is like in other countries), namely that this measuring
was needed in order to make us to
economize, how it really happened (because otherwise everybody would have forced the heating to the maximum, to avoid being a loser).
But these were things mainly for information (of those for whom the knowledge is of some use). Now some more concrete (though not new) recommendations. First, make you window frames thicker, from this job can be saved from 5 to 10% (there are different types of sealing, or you may seal the frames with common adhesive tape, which in the spring have to peal off -- in the "unbreakable Union of the Free Republics", USSR, before some 40 years, they sold special paper tapes that were glued to the frames with usual flour starch), and most importantly:
don't open the windows! In any case, I don't open them at all, there is an air hole in the bathroom, as also a chimney in one of the rooms that may also be used as outlet, so that there are no problems. Well, if one wants to smoke in the room, especially in the bed, then it is more difficult, but he can do this in the bath. And in addition to this keep a pair of flower pots with good leaves (ficus, lemon, laurel tree) in each room, and in this way, at least when the sun shines, you will have purification of the air. And maintain
constant temperature about 18º in the rooms, and where you sleep even 16º, using sleeping bag or warm blankets; this means also that there is no need to incessantly turn the regulator back and forth -- you will not save much in this way, but can even lose more (if you forget to turn it down when going out), neither will have one and the same temperature, and may happen that you jump to the other end, i.e. you increase because it has become colder, but in the substation also increase the heating because they have automatic regulation, respectively when you turn it down, in short: unneeded headaches. The only inconvenience is, that 18º is not very comfortable temperature, but it is healthy! [The democracy, in some cases, has its advantages, when makes us do something useful for us, say, to give up the cigarettes, and similar things.] If you build now your own home then, maybe, it will be better to install floor or wall heating, or local gas heating (as they do around the world), but if you live in a home with central heating then better keep still and adjust to it. And make your calculations, because the heating company gives that one degree was equal to 6% heating, so that if you live by 18
o instead of normally accepted 20
o you will save at least 10%, but if you can endure by 15-16
o then you will reduce the consumption with 1/4.
Ah, one more thing: If out of the central heating we can not escape, then
the hot water we can economize as much as we want. At the moment the heating of one cubic meter (and as cold water separately) costs about 2.5 euros and by an average consumption per person by 2 m3 this gives 5 euros monthly (summer and winter) per capita, so that from it
may be saved. Well, I don't say not to bathe, but if you
only bathe once in a week (by 30 l, or 3 buckets of warm -- hot by me it never becomes -- water) this makes about 150 l per person, or (if you add some more for to wash a thing) nearly 10 times less. And is this possible -- well, I do this several years now (wash the dishes with cold water). Though here the things depend on the neighbours and the size of the family, i.e. if when you turn the hot water on and after 1/2 - 1 liter it reaches at least 40º, then it may be used for washing of dishes, but when you are forced to drain at least 10 l, then --
no passaran. As far as I remember there were once talks about installing of double-tariff water meters for hot water, that are to measure it as hot only if its temperature was above 36º (how it was somewhere on the world), but the things did not move, because we are Bulgaria, so that judge for yourself. But let me mention also that using, as much as it is possible, of cold water is
healthy, especially for washing of the face and hands in the morning (and the right way was even to wash and rub your face with a bath towel, what I personally have seen once in a student dormitory in Germany). So that here also one can benefit from the inconvenience, if one looks for a benefit.
1.2. Electricity
It is supposed to be less than the heating, but not much, if you count it for an year (as it must be done), so that here also can be made some recommendations. The simplest is:
act according to the seasons, i.e. cook more meals during the winter, especially in the oven (stews, casseroles, pastries, cookies, breads, and so on -- for example baked potatoes), because it has a large volume and is difficult to warm; where in the summer do chiefly with lighter food: our so called
tarator soup of yogurt, cheese, tomatoes, sausages, what, anyway, people usually do. Whatever you cook then, ultimately, the used for the cooking energy goes to the environment, it surely is not absorbed by some chemical reaction with the food (or at least I think so). It is natural also to economize using pressure cooker, or heating of the water in the middle (easier with water heater), or using microwave oven for what it is suitable. (I have to tell you that sometimes I make my morning tea ... on the sun, but this is rather for the sake of experiment. It would be nice to use also alternative energy sources, such as wind power -- at least to warm, without maintaining some stable voltage -- but for the moment I can't see a real use of this in Bulgaria, or some system with a mirror -- parabolic, I think -- for warming by the sun, but it is hardly worth the "gunpowder"; where using of solar panels is something positively good, especially if they are flexible and one can stick them on the windows during the summer -- they both, shade, and give current -- but for this we will have to wait until they become cheaper enough.)
Also to tell you that in the summer the biggest consumer at home becomes ... the refrigerator! I personally have measured (with electric meter) that an average refrigerator of 250 l and with freezer spends usually (measured for a whole month, for to eliminate the fluctuations) about 0.7 kWh daily but in the winter, where in the summer it reaches 1.4 kWh or twice much; in money equivalent this gives for us 6 eurocents in winter (or ... half an egg) and 12 cents in summer (a bit more than an egg). Together with this, however, the refrigerator also
heats the room. From what follows that, if you are alone (or even for two persons), regarding the economies, is better to turn out the fridge at least during March - May, and September - November (because in this time the average outside temperature is about 5-10ºС, or how much it is in the fridge), in the winter (December - February) keep it on to heat your home (for comfort, but also not to open a terrace, if that is where you store the food), and during the summer -- if you want then stop it, or if not then don't (because then is when you most need it).
1.3. Other communal expenses
Another cost in your home is the
telephone, where is clear that who can must
close his stationary phone, but the point is that the system is to wait: when many people close them then they, more that certain, will become cheaper (because there is no reason why I have to pay by 10 eurocents per min for calls within the same city, and if I walk 200 m away from home to be able to speak with USA or China for the same amount). [Well, in Bulgaria almost in
every democratic change there is no reason, but that's the situation. For information, let me remind to the readers that in totalitarian years was paid by 2 cents of that time for a
call, however prolonged it was (the norm being 15-20 min), and within the limit of 50 or so calls per month even by
one cent per call; and don't think, please, that the prices are incomparable because at that time, for example: one egg was worth 13 cents, a kilo pork was 5.60, one bread was 40 cents, etc., where on the average this gives that the prices of the food products now (but in new
levs) are circa 1.5 up to 2 times maximum higher (and one
lev is 0.5 euro, so that this gives that now the prices in euros are a
bit cheaper than in totalitarian times in totalitarian
levs), but at the same time the communications now are
20-something times more expensive (say, a bus ticket was 0.06
levs and now it is 1.0
lev).] Together with the telephone may be mentioned also the letters and the city transport, but there all is clear:
don't write letters (the Internet is more useful), and about the transport: find a company that will pay your transport (because with monthly pass is not good, but with ticket is also bad, and if one has a car then it is even worse, i.e. more expensive).
It remains also the cable TV and/or Internet, where I am not to advise you whatever (because up to my mind there is
no one decent Bulgarian TV, but the other people watch all of them, especially the dumbest shows; and the Internet is simply a necessity). There is an interesting moment with the
water, which is the most important (because just imagine that you have to stay each morning in a queue across two blocks around the third for to wash yourself, to bring two buckets of water for cooking, and to use also the toilet -- how it is, say, in some camping sites), and it is the cheapest (about 5 times cheaper than the electricity). But maybe it is still early, when we wait some 10 years or so it will jump twice up, ah?
2. Food and preparing of winter supplies
Well, here I will not give you recipes about what to prepare for winter, not for these things that you do, maybe for something extraordinary, but about this I will speak in the next point. Here I will say first
when to do this. Good, when you can do it, and when you find cheaper raw material. For example tomatoes may be put in jars at any time of the year, and in many cases in June - July you may find cheaper tomatoes, that are ideal for preserving (say, soft and juicy, not like the sort "for canning"); similarly also peppers, cabbage (with a pair of months earlier), or something else. It is not that the people don't know this, but there are two reasons why they don't behave in the right way: one is that they can't adjust themselves quickly, they stick to the tradition, and the other is that they think the jars can be spoiled and will not last till the winter. For the first, however, we have spoken, that it is useful to fight as often as possible with traditions which come out more expensive for us, and about the spoiling, this isn't true at all, because sterilized jars last very well up to
4-5 years. More than this, it is even
right to keep canned things for 2-3 years (and I personally do so) because, as a rule, there do not happen two adjacent years with equal prices (especially in Bulgaria, where the aspirations of every producer is to "fill the throat", so that, having seen that the last year something was high-priced, he rushes to plant this year almost only this, and it both, in this year the yield is higher -- because two adjacent identical years in climatic terms also don't happen --, and all producers think like him -- moving with the main stream -- and in result of this the prices fall twice; and the next year they don't plant and the prices go up).
Besides, although there are sold now many out-of-season foods, there is still better to can jars because in this way one will save up to
4-5 times, and the difference in taste (in my view)
isn't in favour of what is out of season. For example: during the whole summer (at least from May till July or so) can be found cheap marrows (for 25 - 30 eurocents, or, say, 2-3 eggs per kg), which in the winter will be sold for 1.5 euro, right? And the canning is not expensive, I have measured it and have got that for one big jar (0.8 l) is spent circa
2.5 cents, or as much as the price of one jar cap (it isn't difficult to be calculated: if you sterilize in an usual deep tin of cheese (20 l) then in one level normally can be placed 4 jars, the water heater usually is 650 W or 2/3 kW, the water begins to boil for about an hour and will be sterilized for another 1/2 h, so that the entire time will become 3/2 h, or, as studied in primary school, 2/3 * 3/2 = 1 kWh, or about 10 eurocents).
What you do with tomatoes or marrows can be done also with cut peppers with little tomato sauce (adding to practically all dishes), with green beans (maybe boiled a bit before), with hot peppers with tomato sauce (or boiled a little in hot oil and closed
without sterilizing, just how are heated), with the things about which we shall speak in the next point, with compotes, non lasting marmalades, and so on. Even if you decide to stop the refrigerator and in this way not to fill much the freezer (because otherwise, without switching it off at least for a day, you often forget what have put there, especially if several persons put in and take out things, and it becomes spoiled after an year or two), then you may sterilize food also for near use (as I said, only one day work of it in summer costs as much as the sterilizing of 4 jars!), or alternatively to salt vegetables (with salt and vinegar; I know some keep so parsley and dill). Generally, there surely are various ways for preserving of food because otherwise, having in mind that the refrigerators are from about 1/2 of a century, the people would have perished long ago.
So, for this, that in the shops you must buy when they offer you something cheap, and not when you have decided to search something, we have already spoken, as also about not overdoing whatever. Also don't allow yourself to be caught (or at least
try not to) on different catches that you will win some prize, if you buy the products of certain company, or will accumulate some points (as the totalitarian interest-points for buying a home, which I still keep heaved but nobody gives me anything for them ), or that only in this shop they have launched something cheap (it is almost certain that if in one place something has fallen down in price then the same thing will happen in other one, too, only that it may pass some time for this to happen), and so on -- when they offer you to win something more it is clear that somebody like you has to pay for it, and the probability for gain is surely less than, say, in the Lotto. Further, prefer to
see the main ingredient of the product, not only to guess about it, at least in Bulgaria this is an important requirement -- i.e. if meatballs and fresh salami (God forbid also pates) come out the same in the moment then give preference to the mincemeat (and if they are cheaper than the minced then they are even bigger fake; not that minced meat can't be faked, but then mince the meat yourself).
It is true that about the butter I can't give you advice (because the margarines have to be 4 times cheaper than the butter -- it is so on the West, it was so by us before, too, -- and they are only 2 times cheaper, besides, it turns out that with them you buy oil on
three times higher prices -- for they usually are with 40% fat, and if 1/2 kilo of such margarine costs 0.63 euros, than with normal content of 80% fat it has to be 1.25 euros, and respectively 1 kg makes 2.5 euros, what is about 3 l cooking oil; as also the lard must be cheaper than the oil, but in Bulgaria this is not so), but at least for mayonnaise I can give you an easy recipe, which surely makes it 3 times cheaper. It is the following: for one middle size egg is added 100 ml oil (if more than it may get botched) some grains citric acid, a pinch of salt, and run the blender for about 1/2 of a minute (the trick is to do this in a jar, where for 0.8 l you put 4 eggs, and leave 3 fingers place for not to spill over); I even prefer this one because it is sour, where the Bulgarian ranks of oil (or else some companies add something in order to make it cheaper, say, yogurt and starch).
And now let me do some philosophizing about the strange (untypical for us) tastes, because if you consume some alternative products you may gain by thus. For example, supposedly circa 90% of people (and I, too, was between them) think that if they do not add tomatoes to some meal then the dish will not get palatable, but this is not so. It is not so, if you want, only because of the fact that the tomatoes have come from America and up to 5 centuries before folks has used alternatives; but even not so much earlier, for two centuries ago tomatoes were sown only here and there with decorative purposes. This, with what they can be substituted, is clear, it is something else sour, like vinegar, especially natural obtained from fruits (and homemade, as I will explain at some time), or sour fruits, what for out climatic conditions are mainly ...
wild plumbs (
dzhanki in Bulgarian; otherwise this may be lemons or oranges). Another peculiarity is to put apples (grated or in chips) in some dish, or in pickles. Or to make raisins of ... mulberries. And some similar things, for which we shall speak in the next point, but which will cost you nothing.
3. Grasses, herbs and wild fruits
3.1. Nettle
The nettle, surely, all eat occasionally, but I am afraid that not enough often, and don't know how exactly, so that let me say a pair of sentences. For soup (or in the oven with rice), also of other green things, is important to have enough: oil, acid, onion, white cheese and/or yogurt, and ground nuts. It was impossible to be sterilized (I have not tried but believe in this), but it is easily dried (preferably roughly cut), where in this case it is not necessary for it to be barely grown, might be also one-two spans high, it is cut with knife and gloves, then the shoots are grouped in tufts and cut until the leaves ended and the stems are thrown away. Dried in this way nettle is good for a soup in the winter, but when there go even
10 years (it is not ... rusting) it may be rubbed with hands and made to
flour. With adding of this flour one can make good soda bread (I have heard that the Germans make such bread but have not tried it personally), where I put also ground nuts (for more proteins), an egg is also welcome, and for raising use baking soda and vinegar (even don't add yogurt, although it will not make it worse). You can't imagine how palatable for one is this in winter (a pair of times in month), because the organism obviously knows what it needs. There are no problems to add from this flour to other dishes, too, like minced meat, curds, porridges, et cetera. (Do not forget that many animals eat nettle, and the peasants give it to the pigs, chickens, or what they keep in the courtyard.)
3.2. Dandelion
Now, such thing the Bulgarian does not eat (he is not so poor, ah?). The Greeks eat salad of dandelions, the Germans use it for soups and for what they can, only the Bulgarians stay "above the dandelion"! But it is not that we don't know that it is healing herb (hence, surely is not harmful), contains much vitamin C, strengthens the gums, and helps to digestion. The salad is made just cutting it, with green onions, maybe lettuce, too, a stalk of rhubarb or wild garlic (there is one called
levurda, a Turkish name if you ask me), or whatever green and not poisonous thing one can find, but this if it is March and the herb is very young (then it is gathered by cutting
to the root, with long knife and is cleared like lettuce); around April, or when it begins to bloom it becomes a bit bitter, so that in that time one can add only a pair of leaves, or to pour hot water above it and when cools then it is added to the salad; when later it can be steamed with hot water and drunk only the decoction (with the needed salt is really dainty, in addition to being very healthy). Soup is made in the same way as out of nettle, where for a change one may alternate them, once out of nettle, then of dandelion, or sometimes with both things (for stew with rice it isn't so suitable). There are no problems, however, to add a squeeze of it to each soup (out of chicken, veal, mushrooms, beans, or whatever) for greenery; in addition, it is good for sterilizing (circa 15 min) but for this purpose it must be still very young (if there happens a flower bud or two there is nothing alarming in this). It can be preserved (like also the nettle) raw in a jar with salt and vinegar, or in a freezer. In principle one may make also dandelion ...
honey, but about this we will speak later (exactly this honey is
not something unsurpassed in taste, but it is healing herb and if so I think that it is better to use some such herb even when one is not ill to have an explicit need of it -- in order
not to become so that he will need it, i.e. for not to become ill -- because the herbs are broad-spectrum mediums, which may not help much, but they also don't harm).
3.3. Wild rhubarb
Also here I don't discover America, because the wild or monks rhubarb (
lapad in Bulgarian,
loboda in Russian) is even old-Greek λαπαθον, where (in my view) are two associative lines: the one is that it is good for ... gulping (
lapam in Bulgarian, in jargon use), for filling of the throat or of some hole (for there is Greek λαπαρα as stomach, there is Latin
labia as a mouth, and first of all
not this one with which we eat, and other words); the other is that its leaves are big like a paw (
lapa in Bulgarian, but the Germans have also heard the word because for them
Fusslappen is the sole of a foot; also
Lappen is a rag, tatter, but there the idea is that the wrist of the hand of the foot is torn -- let us not indulge into details); besides, there is Russian
lapsha as noodles (they are also ragged) and this word has come from Tartarian (where
laksha meant small fragment of dough). Be it as it may, but this rhubarb is good for gulping and is alternative, or v.v., of the spinach. Not everybody will recognize it (there are other similar leaves), but having tried it a pair of times you will know it (the nettle also, come to think of this, can be confused). Well, it performs slightly loosening effect on the stomach, but sometimes this also is useful. And how to use it? All right, it is possible like the previously discussed green soups, but with more white cheese and to boil just for a pair of minutes; another variant is something cooked with rhubarb (also chicken, veal, turkey, maybe a lamb, too, and other good meats -- it is not for pork); but maybe for pies (for our so called
banitzas, as also the nettle, but is better than it) with cheese, milk, eggs, maybe boiled rice; or maybe to have a ready green mass (you first fry chopped onion, then add or not some dandelion, nettle, wild onion, grounded pepper -- black, red, hot, sweet -- and at the end the rhubarb and the salt), from which to take 2-3 soup spoons, and break an egg or two above. It may be sterilized, if you find that it is worth the effort, because it grows in abundance for 3 months in the spring (and a month in the autumn); and can be also put in the freezer, if one decides to honour it so.
3.4. Other green grasses
Well, there is the mentioned
levurda-wild-garlic, but it grows higher, not in towns, and there is one wild onion (as also real wild garlic, because the
levurda looks not like garlic). This last onion is like the green onion (and the garlic is like a garlic), with hollow tubular leaves, but under the ground has very small (with diameter of 2-3 mm) garlics, not onions, yet it is met here and there in our parks (the garlic, too) and can be recognized by this that during the winter (it does not freeze), when the grass everywhere is withered, you will see in some places fresh greenery. The point here is not in the economy but in its specific sharp taste and guaranteed purity (i.e. it has no nitrates, nobody will become to throw them in the parks). (I even succeeded to see this winter in one of our supermarkets to sell "wild onion from Greece", but surely at enormous prices.) There is also some wild cabbage, that has practically no flavor (but it is important not to be bitter, because the grass is bitter), and which somewhere was used for our
banitza-pies (with cabbage) in the spring. Can be gathered (and eaten, don't forget this) also the ... primrose -- its leaves, but the flowers are gathered, where there are many of them, say in the Rhodopes, for herbal tee. It shoots first in the spring (that's why is called so in Latin, or primula), with the snowdrops, where for the Bulgarians it is like a small needle (
igla, and the flower is
iglika), but for the Germans like a small key (
Schlüssel, and
Schlüsselblume), contains much vitamin C, dries green, and may also be added to every dish as healthful (although nearly tasteless) greenery. There are, certainly, other edible herbs, but the important thing is that all this (with the exception of the
levurda) I find in the housing complex where I live, in the nearby park.
3.5. Greenery from trees
The main green woody thing that I mean are the leaves of lime tree! It is clear that the
lime tree is not harmful, so that they can be gathered, but for what they are good? Well, like alternative of vine leaves, for making of stuffed cabbage rolls (the so called
sarmi), only that you have to look for limes with bigger leaves (like the palm of a hand), because there are also such with small ones, and are gathered usually from offshoots at the root (or small trees), because there the leaves are bigger. You walk in the spring and, if they have grown enough, tear off a piece and chew it for a test (because if you have missed the right time they will be tough). It is easy to freeze them rolled in the freezer, but may also be sterilized (with some salt and a pair of spoons of vinegar), as long as you do not overboil them and they begin to tear (but then you may fry them with an egg or two and eat them in this way, because this is a pure greenery).
Well, about other exactly leaves of trees that can be eaten I can not think, but maybe it is right to mention the beverage from
blossoms of elder (around 24 of May, our holiday of Slavonic alphabet), which is known to many people but done by few of them. The recipe slightly varies, but is reduced roughly to this: in a bucket are mixed: 20-25 medium sized clusters of blossoms of the elder tree (which is older or elder -- from here your name in my view --, because there is also a similar bush that, though healthful, is very bitter and not used) and without long stems, 0.5 kilo lemons minced with grinding mill, 0.5 (to 0.6) kg white sugar, one teaspoon citric acid, and 2.5 l water, what must be stirred often and stays so for 3 to 3.5 days (it depends on the temperature, but not more than 4 days), then the juice is filtered and poured in bottles (this is a concentrate), which may be kept even without refrigerator about two months; after this with the marc is made 2nd harvest adding: 0.25 kg sugar, 1/2 teaspoon citric acid, and 1.3 l water, what stays for 4 days, again is filtered and this time the marc is thrown away (though I have put from it to green soups, or nettle in the oven). The good thing with the elder blossom is that it can be put in a freezer and in this way to make again of this beverage a pair of times later. In addition to this soft drink you may make also syrups from: cherries, raspberries, cornels, etc., in order to have for the entire year, so that
not to buy at all
soft drinks form the shops, because they are only essences and sweeteners (and that is why they are between the mostly advertised things), and if you want natural juices then make them alone.
But there is something else fresh, that can be torn in spring. For example a ...
blossom of acacia. The only important moment is that you must prowl and check, because there is only about a week time, around 20 - 25 May, when you may gather it (the flowers fade quickly), and it is preferable if before this was rained, for all to be washed good (well, if you have the luck for the sun to be shining, then in such nice May weather it is simply pity not to walk a bit in the park, and then walking to gather himself some acacia blossoms). For what it may be used? Well, in one word, for eating. Some gather entire flower clusters and then ... bread them (fry them covered with bred crumbs and eggs, in Bulgarian it is called
paniram, what just must be related with the
panis-bread and god Pan). I personally apply another system, by which I make out of them three things: liqueur (or vodka, infusion, cordial) of acacia, for making of which I will speak later (in the special skills), addition to minced meat for meatballs or sandwiches, and honey of acacia (to which we nearly came). So you do the following: choose one brighter (say, light green -- the colour is a matter of aesthetic pleasure), of middle size, and clear, plastic bag (and one more to put outside in order to strengthen it) and go in the park, where you look for acacia which is accessible (not very high, in order not to carry a ladder with you, right?); then you gather only the blossoms tearing them from the flower stems until you fill the bag; then return home and pour the contents of the bag on a newspaper in some crate which place on the terrace (for to provide opportunity for all misguided flies and bugs to escape from the blossoms); after a pair of hours you pour the blossoms in a big pot and fill it with water until it covers the flowers, but slightly pressed above with a plate (depending on the bag you will need between 1.5 and 2 l water -- if this is not so then you have made somewhere error), and keep this so for two, but not more than three, days(it depends on the outside temperature, not to allow the fermentation to begin but just the flowers to release their fragrance).
Good, then you first put aside 600 ml of the liquid (filtered), which goes for making of (one liter) vodka of acacia (which, by the way, is slightly afrodisiac -- nectar, you know); then put on the stove the remaining in the pot mixture to boil for about 1/2 hour, out of this, when it cools a little, you fill 4-5 jars of baby food with the blossom (but there is no need to squeeze it very much) which you sterilize (or, alternatively, put in the freezer), plus circa 200 g for immediate use, which blossom is added to minced meat (you see, the blossom of acacia is more or less as big as minced meat, only that it is tender in taste and aromatic, something like alternative of grated onion); and from the left filtered decoction you make honey of acacia by the following next recipe. This is called non-waste technology.
3.6. Jams from wild fruits and artificial (Ersatz) honey
There are no problems to make
jams (we distinguish
sladko-more-sweet-concoction from jam-something-for-spreading-on-bread, but let us not go into details now)
of small wild
fruits like: wild strawberries, cherries (only that you have to take away their stones with some small hook), raspberries, brambles, blueberries, and others. But this is usually known: one adds sugar and water and boils this (where if the fruit is a bit tough it may be boiled for some time without sugar), and the sugar is normally in equal parts with the fruit, only that they are by
volume, not by weight (though I prefer to put in the beginning some sugar, and then add more until it becomes very sweet, and then add citric acid, more or less by a teaspoon for a kilo sugar, so that to adjust its taste). Also in some cases may be made marmalade instead of jam -- say, the brambles are with big seeds, so that I boil them a bit without sugar, then make quickly to puree (well, the seeds remained, but till now it has not happened to ... grow brambles in my stomach), and then boil them to the end with some sugar (for the marmalade it must be less), but my contribution in this case is that I add also ... berries of elder in ratio of 2:1 for the brambles (the elder is also healing plant, and I mean again the tree, not the bush, which is also healthy but very bitter; in folk medicine these berries are given to nursing mothers, they are acclaimed as blood forming; in fact, this is what the name of elder in Slavonic means --
busina in Russian, where
bosaja, this time in Bulgarian, is to suck, what the babies do).
Marmalade may be made also from usual (let's name them semi-wild) pears; very delicious is jam out of grated quinces; also jelly of quinces (from the seeds and peels, which otherwise are thrown away); it is healthy also jam from grated carrots (for their vitamin A; it is made like from the quinces, with possible boiling for some time without sugar, but it becomes rapidly sugared); a very nice thing, too, is the so called
rachel out of pumpkins (which name is somewhere from Persia, but is related well with Bulgarian jargon "
racha" something, meaning to wish eagerly, i.e. everybody wants
rachel; for this purpose, however, the fruit must be soaked for some time in lime milk, i.e. highly diluted with water hydrated lime, and it is better to be combined in addition to the pieces of pumpkin also with apples, quinces, pears, big grains of grapes without seeds, plumbs, walnuts, and maybe something more); jam can be made also out of orange peels (rolled in helixes), but I prefer to make from grated oranges, what is the typical English marmalade; can be used green walnuts, too (but soaked for three
weeks in water, and then peeled); also of watermelon peels; and many other variants. All this one may make alone, and in this case it turns to be
2 to 3 times cheaper (in Bulgaria it is so; on the West might not be profitable for one to lose his time with this but for us it is justified, more so when something is not sold, like marmalade of oranges, for example, or jelly of quinces, some of the honeys, etc.).
And the
artificial (substitute of)
honey is made mainly as pine honey, in which case is proceeded as follows: tips of pine trees long between 5 and 10 cm are gathered (in the beginning of April), or also whole small pine cones (later on, if one has missed the right moment, but from the tips is better), they are gathered in such way that at least 3-4 tips must remain where you tear them (because these are future branches, so that it is like to cut the "arms" of the trees), then they are boiled only with water for
5-6 hours, till they begin to became pulpy when you squeeze them, then the tips are pressed with hands and only the juice is filtered (you may also sew them in advance in a cheesecloth), which juice is boiled later with sugar (to your taste and as much as it takes) until it becomes dense (it is good to add citric acid, too). This honey is very important remedy against cough, for children and adults, also for smokers, but is very tasty, too. By the same technology (with initial boiling without sugar, even with sinking the row material for a pair of days in water, and subsequent boiling to the end) is made honey also out of acacia, dandelion, if you want of something else (maybe of mint, I don't know); it might be combined pine honey with something else, but I prefer to make them separate (at lest because the pine tips must be boiled very long time).
3.7. Wild fruits and berries
Some of them are not entirely wild, i.e. they may be cultivated, but are not. For example: apples, pears, cherries, wild plumbs (first of all,
dzhanki in Bulgarian, and not in Russian, this is something Balkan, Turkish maybe) in the residential complexes, but also some others; their main difference from the cultivated is that they are not sprayed against pests and for that reason they have many worms, but for some things (say, for wines, to what we shall come at the end) this is of no importance. Let me begin with the simplest, with the
dzhanka-
wild-plum. It, surely, is good for making of
raki (our, i.e. Turkish and Arabic, fruit vodka), but the point is that one can not make
raki at home -- it requires intensive use of energy (and because of this I prefer to make liqueurs or cordials). But this plum is good for eating and preserving as compotes, though this is trivial and known by everyone. That, what people don't know, or if know don't do, is that it is
ideal acid as
green, i.e. ideal alternative of the tomato, and is preferable for green dishes (from grasses like nettle, dandelion, etc., from green beans, with cabbage, fresh or pickled, and in other cases -- at least combined with some tomatoes).
I personally boil a bag of
dzhankis-plumbs in a pot for about half an hour, until they are well boiled and the stones begin to separate, rub them through a strainer or some mesh (say, for frying of potatoes), and then sterilize them (10 min are enough) in small jars -- when they make tomato paste, then why me not make
dzhankis paste? But at least boil some and put in small buckets or cups in the freezer (not that they can't be with their stones, but without them is much refined), because this acid is more sugary than that of tomatos (they put in the tomato paste sugar, where the
dzhanka has its sweetness, though one may add here also a spoon of sugar); I have even tried this year to keep such puree also
without sterilizing and outside the fridge -- just put a tablet of aspirin in a bottle with it (well, some salt, too) and it remain in ideal condition for more than a month. Many nations know about this wild plumbs, in Bulgaria in rural areas people probably use them, but our citizen can be made to do something useful for him only when he pays for it.
Then there come the
cherries, for which is well known that they are good for jams, compotes, syrups, cookies, and what not (especially liqueurs); in fact, on the West people even prefer sour cherries (we have separate word,
vishni) before the sweet ones (
chereshi; but in Latin both things are called
ceresia, or
Kirsche in German), though in Bulgaria this is not so, by us the sour ones, if you can find them on the market, are twice cheaper than the sweet, or if not so then they are to be very sweet; the Bulgarian, as a rule, is not interested at all about the taste, he likes that something be just sweet (a typically oriental taste, where the folks drink
sherbet /
sorbet of sugar and water and even in great heats -- read
1001 Nights -- where the right thing in such cases is to drink something sour, or to bite in a lemon). So that from sour cherries very good jam (rather
sladko) can be made, when you take their stones away, you may combine them with strawberries (cut in pieces if they are very big -- I personally prefer always to combine, if this is possible, different things that grow at about the same time), you can make syrups, or you can preserve them
raw and without stones adding plenty of sugar (I have tried this, if they begin to ferment then you just add more sugar till get more or less equal weight amount of fruit and sugar), only look to have left some place at the top of the jar and keep it, just in case, in the bathroom, in order not to stain the place; in this way the cherries last till the winter, when they may be used for cakes or pies.
Then let us mention the
mulberries (white or black, but the latter are better and contain more vitamins), which (I read this in a book about Afghanistan and have tried it) can, besides for eating in fresh form (if you do nor drink much water after them, for they are a bit laxative), to be dried in hot sun (on a backing dish or tray, it doesn't matter that they leave much juice, something remains of them), in what way you get a kind of raisins! Then they may be added (possibly combined with other fruits) in fruit pies or cakes, in a bread, or where you like; they, certainly, are not better than the natural grape raisins, but almost surely they contain more vitamins).
Thereafter come the
apples, eventually the
quinces (if you find free growing quinces, but even to buy them is not a big expense). I mean not only the compotes, neither the jam of grated quinces, nor the jelly of quince seeds, nor the apple pulp (jam of apples becomes not very good, and for marmalades it is combined with something, usually with rosehips), nor also apple wines (or cognacs, if you are a company, but this is not typical for Bulgaria), but this that you may make ... pickles out of apples and quinces, well, at least to add to sauerkraut (but it is possible also separate). This also is known by country folks, I have tried it, and such pickles are quite decent, and in whatever dish you add sour apple it will
not make it worse -- it can give it strange taste, but maybe this is exactly what lacks it (because you surely have heard about turkey with apples; and I can't see what so bad may be to stew a rabbit with onions, carrots, and apples, for example, or make a beef stew with quinces, or something of the kind -- try it!). The only thing that you must know is that one should not make brine out of salt only, but putting salt and vinegar is equal proportion, even more vinegar (two parts) and less salt. But for such pickles the usual wild apples that rot everywhere in the autumn do very good job (correspondingly cut and cleaned from seeds and "animal" additions).
Anyway, there are other fruits, that are not necessarily wild growing, they can be found on the market, but are second quality, and in this case the people don't buy them. For example the usual apples
for baking and cookies (the cooking apples in English); in the same way can sometimes be found oranges for "cooking", or kiwis or lemons again for this purpose (what is recognized by this, that they are sold on half price of the normal ones). I, for my part, use such fruits without problems for making of wines, but also for vinegars, though for cooking, too (say, veal with half of an orange, maybe taken out from a vinegar, as you will see at the end), or pieces of lemon to stew with chicken or fish, and other variants. Well, get used to such things, ladies and gentlemen. When the world makes this why the Bulgarians must stay behind? I will add only one
linguistic proof (in fact, two) for this, that fruit and vegetable are very near things: the Bulgarian word
ovoshka, what is fruit (tree), and the Russian word
ovoshchi (usually in plural), which means vegetable (because the fruits there are
frukti); the other thing is that in my view these
ovoshchi must be the same as the German
Obst, what is a fruit, and which word was old Teutonic meaning just something for eating (something
über /ober us, what we may tear from above, if you ask me; where the
ovoshki-fruits we may relate with something like "
o, vot", i.e. "look here" -- what a tasty thing this is).
3.8. Homemade spices
In addition to what we may "steal" from the nature there are some things that we may keep on our terraces. I personally (since, maybe, 20 years or so) instead of flowers plant some spices, like: parsley, celery, dill, anise,
dzhodzhen-mint (because there are other mint plants), basil,
kalofer (specific herb for beans and other legumes which does not freeze in winter and I leave it in the open), hot peppers (but from the very hot ones), savory, lovage, from this year also wild thyme, and others (if sometime I decide to try something new). Tomatoes and peppers (marrows, etc.) probably may also be grown, but there is no point in this (according to the prices you will not succeed to cover the expenses for watering), while with the spices there is a reason, they are always fresh (and not nitrated), and in some cases there remains enough for to dry for winter. (Together with this personally for me there is another important motive in their tearing leaf by leaf, as a kind of religious rite, during which time I sunbathe long enough, for what activity I usually have not enough endurance.) It is clear that the celery and the parsley are to be sown anew each year, but in the winter I leave some plants in the staircase where is warm enough, because if they succeed to remain till the spring they grow stalks with seeds (being biennial); similarly is sown also the dill and the anise, where the dill always sprouts, but surely is very tasty for the plant lice because they attack it in mass, and the anise I cut nearly to the earth when it grows enough, because else it grows with very high stem, and after a month it gives fresh shoots for the autumn (with the dill this trick doesn't work). It is clear also that in shallow caskets can't grow "real" celery with heads, in rare cases the head grow as big as wild plum, but so much more tender are its stems and leaves. And something more, in order not to leave snug places for the plant lice, but also for aesthetic reasons, I tear each leaf in direction to the root (don't cut them) and do this often enough, because otherwise the bottom leaves wither; in this manner the stems turn bare and grow up, but are clear from lice (as much as this is possible without special chemicals). And for fertilizing use processed dry tea.
Well, this is enough till now about the greenery, but see also the lyrical addendum at the and.
4. How not to visit physicians
As far as the medical treatment in conditions of the Western democracy is considered for the same
business as, say, the carpentry, and many people just
can't allow themselves to become ill, then I feel myself obliged to share with you some of my elementary (but effective) pieces of advice. The things are given sporadically, for I don't know in what order to organize them, but they are personally checked.
General healing procedures are the frictions with
cold water in the morning, but chiefly at the end of bathing, after you have warmed yourself well with almost scolding water, you leave then
only the cold one (where the point is to do this in the winter, with as much freezing the water is). I have done this for many years with big success (this, in fact, lies at the bottom of the sauna), but I neglected it lately for economies of hot water (and if you do not warm youself well enough beforehand this should not be done), but I apply another variant, the
quartz lamp (the so called "home-sun", which has dimensions of span by span and can be put on the table). This is widely used method for hardening of the body and prophylaxis during the winter, but hardly 5% of the people in Bulgaria do this, but not because they go to solariums (as it is around the world), no, just because they think that this is superfluous, where it is very healthy. I personally practice the following: from 15 of November till 15 of March I do 5 to 10 min exposure under such sun once in a week, after bath, from about 40 to 80 cm (for I have not enough patience to stay farther and for longer time), but do not forget the throat (by opened mouth), and everywhere, where I can; if I notice that begin to become ill, or some flu tries to catch me, then I expose myself to the lamp even each day (the worst is for my face to begin to peel a little). Add to this strong hip tee (with other herbs) in cold weather, possibly also a tablet of aspirin (in older times also quinine), and this is almost
all for healing of colds that I use (the folk medicine recommends also rubbing with brandy, and intensive sweating as a result of this, what is also very effective); in the latest 4-5 years, though, maybe because of the
low heating that I maintain, I can't remember to have taken
even aspirin (so that it is highly possible that a package of it will remain by me after I pass away).
Another very good commonly strengthening activity, and perfectly well known, is the running, or rather jumping, the
jogging. I, for my part, have laughed at such people, but when I jumped over my 50, and when began to have aches in one knee (and in one elbow joint), and to have difficulties in going
downstairs, and 2-3 times in an year to have unexpected piercing aches in the region of heart (as if a nerve is tearing), and other minor complaints (of which one can not die but they are not pleasant), then I decided to take measures. I done several things together, so that I can't tell you exactly which one from them is the
most important, but the one thing was that I stopped to use the lift to the 5th floor (in both directions, and with whatever luggage), and the other thing was that I began to jump in the
corridor of the apartment (some 3 or so meters and with a turn another meter, and back). And after a pair of months I began to feel much better, and after two years I as if became younger; and must be mentioned that I have begun with just
50 jumps in the beginning, and raised them with 50 in a week, and long ago am on 1500, where I stopped (for I don't intend to go to olympiads). I want to say that the important thing is when one exceeds its 50 to begin to think about his health and to take measures, just
not to go physicians (because they always will find some illness by you -- that's why you pay them); and what is significant are not the records, but the small and not tiring exertions. Well, together with this I make also by 30-40 lousy pushups (with curved backbone, but still straighten the arms) after bathing (also once in a week), just to delude myself, but this has its effect, I am feeling better. Ah, I have given up the cigarettes, as also have increased the calcium, to what I am coming now.
This about the
calcium I also have not invented personally, I just recalled some things, considered the matter and tried, and am now glad, so that let me share with you my experience. Because: why one drinks milk (fresh or sour) and eats cheese? Well, because of the calcium, which I don't know exactly how much percents is in the milk, but it contained circa 7% salts, from which the chief ones must be those of the calcium. The cows (and the bulls, but they are not interesting in the moment) surely find it from the grass, the hens (and the cocks, which are also not interesting) peck pebbles (to allow their gizzards to grind the food, but to "pack" their eggs, too). And what are people to do? Well, to eat the ...
egg shells (when we can't feed on grass). I have heard this from a physicians, have done it before, but have forgotten about. But with the age [and the democracy, because, as our folks say, one must pay for the cheese] one begins to have greater need of calcium, which builds not only the bones and the teeth, but the blood vessels, too, so that it prevents arteriosclerosis. Well, I prevent the sclerosis, arthritis, and whatever can, with egg shells, from 5 to 10 eggs monthly (even less), which I bake on the grill along with my morning sandwich, and for 3-4 times they are ready (though there are no problems if you gather them in a heap and bake later in a plate, also in the oven, where they may be also from boiled eggs but later again baked; as well as you can crush them, or crunch them like cookies, if you have what with). This is a mean that I recommend to all children and elderly people, together with and independent from the milk or cheese (I have not heard that much calcium is harmful); unless you prefer to go to the physician and, having paid him the needed sum, take the recipe that he will write and go and buy some medicament with calcium as main ingredient, but which will cost you, say, 10 euros per month.
Now to tell you something about the
cigarettes, because I have smoked them a long time (not very active but stable, by 26-27 packages per month), and have given them up twice, so that let me tell you at least the method for abandoning them, which is mine (though I am not pretending for authorship here). Well, the method is nasty (but I don't think the others are better, they are maybe only faster) and it is the following:
gradually reducing to zero! This will say that I count my cigarettes and begin from 15 (say) daily and so the first
week; then 14 and 13 daily (because they are very near) during the next week; then 12 and 11 daily for one week; then 10; then 9; and so on until I reach to (I suppose) 2 cigarettes daily, after what for a pair of days go down to one and to zero (because a whole week by just one cigarette a day is a horrible ordeal), and be very careful till there pass 3 days without cigarettes. That's it, but if you have a wife to make you angry during this time (about 3 months), then you better get divorced first, and if you become nervous at work, then take leave for at least the last month.
So, and at the end let me tell you something about the smoking itself, something
untraditional but true (at least I insist that this is true), namely that
the cigarettes first ... help, and then cause harm, because they have already accustomed your organism to receive help (in whatever it may be)! Not that people are entirely unaware about this, this is the idea of English fixing to the narcotics, but I specially emphasize on the first help, because they have very broad range of impact, they are like the folk medicine (where one herb heals a big amount of diseases). The cigarettes act directly
contradictive, come to think of it, because, for example, when you are sleepy, then burning one cigarette you awaken yourself; but if you are very restless and can't fall asleep, then smoking one cigarette helps you to calm down and fall into slumber, right? Or when you are hungry, but have not time for eating or some food at hand, then one cigarette kills your appetite, but having eaten your full then the cigarette accelerates the digestion. How can you explain this effect? Or to add also that one smokes in two (polar) situations: either when he has mush to do (and must concentrate himself, irritates that has not enough time), or else when he has practically nothing to do (feels bored and wonders what to do). Well, in this case I personally can't see another possibility unless that the cigarettes are psychotropic (i.e. they affect the psyche) helping you to do what you
want, or support the will. So that, if you don't want to be treated like small children, who can't do alone what they must do, then better don't begin to smoke. Clear and simple, isn't it? Only that the people are precisely like the children, they have no will -- at lest looking on which elementary advertising tricks are caught 90% of us then this, obviously, is so. Therefore the simplest advice is: either don't smoke in Bulgaria (where one pack of cigarettes costs 1/3 of the minimal daily pay, with tendency to reach at least 1/2 of such salary), or go in a normal country (where a pack of cigarettes amounts to
1/20, or 5%, of such salary).
Well, these are my recommendations for good health, together with the natural healthy food, about which I have spoken and will speak, and even if they don't help in all cases, then I simply can't see how they can harm one.
III. SPECIAL SKILLS
These are not some difficult things, for which special education is required, bur are also not for entirely ignorant persons, some experience is necessary. But with some desire and persistence there are no problems for each of you, who has enough time to spend, to achieve results in this undertaking.
1. Picking of wild mushrooms
This is something that for me personally is traditional skill in the family, I have not learned it in democratic times, but it helps me now, because the mushroom is a food, but it is also healthful -- contains some micro-elements, that, in my view, come predominantly from the macro-"elements", which are dropped by cows, horses, and other big (essentially herbivorous) animals. This, that I dare to tell you something about this topic, does not mean that you can learn how to pick mushrooms only from these pair of pages, no, for this purpose you must in all cases have some praxis and a person whom to ask if you are in doubt, because the mushrooms, as you know, may be also poisonous. Besides, on the question are written books, so that you first read one of them, then find yourself a consultant (in the worst case go to the market and ask those who sell wild mushrooms), or else use some person for tasting -- the best choice is the ... mother in law, or the wife, but as a last resort a dog can also be used (and I suppose that the women may use correspondingly the son in law or the husband). So, but this what I will tell you here may help you as initial impetus, and also as set of expert rules (which may not always work properly, but are simple, and in most of the cases helpful).
- Do not pick mushrooms which you don't know well, and when you master certain types then begin with a pair of types only.
- Do not pick small (for their type) or undeveloped exemplars.
- Learn good first the poisonous twins, at least the fly agarics.
- Avoid mushrooms that have poisonous twins.
- Avoid white mushrooms (people most often become poisoned with twins of champignons).
- Do not give mushrooms to small children (at least till 5-6 years) without you having eaten from them the day before.
- If you are in doubt then taste a bit (even a raw mushroom) and wait till the next day; just in case have some fresh milk at hand.
Now let me give some short explanations. To know some type of mushrooms means that you personally have gathered it and eaten at
your responsibility, not that you have picked it with somebody and think it is the same (here is useful to make a parallel with looking for an address, when somebody leads you, and when you alone look for it -- you may have gone several times and, still, when you begin to search alone not succeed to find it). Also do not rely much on the colour of the mushroom (it may vary firstly because of the very type, secondly because of the place where it grows, and thirdly because of the dry or humid weather); set on more secure signs like: cup (volva), ring (annulus), gills (what kind, way of fixing to the stalk), cap (is there something on it, how it feels on touching), size, consistency of the flesh, milk (if there is), taste sometimes for flavour or smell, too, and other elements. Further, as each mushroom starts from small ball or button and just when it grows reaches its normal dimensions, don't pick undeveloped exemplars, they may be easily mistaken (like the babies).
About the
fly agaric and other poisonous mushrooms. The most poisonous is the green fly agaric, because it shows its effect with great delay, then there are some white ones, also the classical red one, but there is also one "panther" (amanita panterina); the green and the white have cups below, the other haven't such, but all agarics have white flesh, which looks good and hard (and maybe tasty). There is also the satanic mushroom (boletus), false champignon (it has to smell of carbol), and 2-3 others more dangerous (as well as some which, even if they are poisonous, are not twins of edible, so that people don't gather them), and there are also such that in Bulgaria are given as poisonous only to be on the save side (downy milk cap and small puffball). The white champignons are of several types, and they have the fly agarics as twins, so that for the beginning avoid picking them.
Mushrooms must not be given to small children not only because they may be poisonous, they may not be such, but are hardly digestible food; besides, I have heard about poisoning not with poisonous, but with
poisoned mushrooms, i.e. that have grown on places where some poison (for example, against wolfs near to a cowshed, where often grow champignons) have been thrown. And about the tasting is clear that from a small amount you can at the worst throw it up, where by eating one's full comes the trouble. Also to add somewhere that each wild mushrooms, even the little one, must be cut before use at least in twos by the middle, but better in four parts crosswise, in order to see whether there lives "somebody", and if so then to try to cut out the bad places.
And now let us list as shortly as possible some types, beginning with those with which a beginner can make a start.
Scotch bonnet (marasmius oreades): small mushroom, many people know and gather it, has specific piquant taste (the Russians call it "
garlicin" in direct translation, because for them it smells of garlic, but one should not give much credit to their tastes when they don't make difference between bitter and hot as chili -- your "hot" also is not exactly said but is much near), it has not poisonous twin, but has edible twin, something that is not the typical bonnet (has thicker gills and the cap stays more open), though it may be mistaken with one kind of winter armillaria (which is also edible); well it may be mistaken also with something poisonous but one must look how the gills connect to the stalk. It grows in early spring, but in the autumn, too, is easy to be dried, and is good for cooking.
Portobello (agaricus silvaticus): the only champignon which can't be confused with whatever; on taste is not exactly like the white one, or that one that grows on meadows, but is, still, champignon and is good for cooking, frying, and baking; good choice for novices.
Parasol Mushroom (macrolepiota procera): big, very beautiful, and very tasty mushroom; best of all is for frying covered in bread crusts, but more closed exemplars may as well be used for cooking; it is easy to be dried, too (whole, or in pieces).
Saffron milk cap (lactarius deliciosus): the most tasty from all the milk-cap mushrooms, it is good for frying, baking in the oven, marinating and salting (
only with salt, without water, but you may add little vinegar, also parsley and cut slices of garlic, and in 3-4 days it is ready for consumption); it is said that it has a twin, but this is if one looks at it only from above, otherwise one will hardly confuse red milk (and turning of the colour to green when broken or eaten through by worms) with white milk.
Butter mushroom (in Russian) or
slippery Jack or sticky bun (suillus /boletus luteus): they are several types and are ideal for marinating (the classical Russian appetizer), but the skins must be peeled out, also is recommended to gather mainly small exemplars (up to a coffee cup); it is good for adding to some dishes or for frying but has no special taste; from it can be made minced mass (by lack of boletus mushrooms), too. There is one similar type (Jersey cow, or suillus bovinus) which has wider pores under the cap and is not tasty.
Birch bolete (leccinum scabrum): two (or more) types (including the red-capped scaber stalk), they have no poisonous twins and are good for cooking, frying, mincing, and drying.
Shaggy ink cap or shaggy mane (coprinus comatus): unlike other ink caps (corpinuses) this mushroom is very delicious, but has to be gathered when is still white under the cap (or the black parts to be cut out) and cooked immediately; it has no twins.
White milk cap (lactarius piperatus): also has no poisonous twins (though there are many other milk caps, say, the weeping milk cap, lactarius volemus -- if I am not in error with the English names -- which is not to eat with bread, has a taste of bread); it is boiled and a pair of times the water is thrown away, but I put mush salt (at least one full table spoon on one kilo mushrooms) and don't change the water, or it is baked in the oven with salt and little water;
later it is good for marinating (with vinegar, garlic, parsley, etc.) like appetizer for vodka, or else for ... breading (with "tipsy" breading, which is made when one beaten egg is mixed with flour to thick pulp and then are added just some table spoons of beer), what now is appetizer for beer or wine.
Wood blewit (clitocybe nuda): the typical such mushroom is blue-violet the
whole and there is no way to confuse it with whatever else; it is good for marinating and cooking, but is better to throw away the first water. There exists one autumn variety with almost white cap and violet
only the stem and even this just below to the earth, the first water also is better to pour out.
Golden chanterelle (cantharellus cibarius): has no official twin, but must be looked from below, it is very tasty, smells of apricot; good for everything.
Shingled hedgehog mushroom (hydnum /sarcodon imbricatum): grows high in the mountains and becomes very big, the top of the cap is covered with brown shells and from below it has
needles, can't be mistaken with anything, can be gathered with sacks, seems a bit rough but when fried (on chunks) becomes very good; can also be dried and ground to flour.
Tawny grisette (amanita fulva /amanitopia vaginata):
if the cap is orange can't be mistaken, but otherwise (in other varieties of colour) looks like the fly agarics; very delicate and delicious mushroom for soups and cooking.
Giant puffball or path-ball (calvatia gigantea): it is not necessary to be giant (they grow in medium-high mountains), the usual small puffballs are also good for eating, the important thing is not to be yellow or especially black; they are very nice for breading.
Oyster mushroom (pleurotus ostreatus): the best known winter mushroom, I have not heard that somebody confuses it with something; grows on tree trunks and live trees; it is good for cooking (mostly with rice).
Russulas: they are many types and colours, have no poisonous twins (unless you look only at the colour), but are not something special, some types are a bit bitter; may be added to other mushrooms for frying.
Pheasant's back mushroom (polyporus squamosus): grows on stumps in the spring, looks a bit scaring, but is good for frying and has no twins.
There are other mushrooms that has no twins (like: one "bun" in Bulgarian or polyporus confluens, morel or morchella, witch's hat or wax caps or hygrocybe conica and puniceus, and other ink-caps, etc.), but they are of not very high quality and for that reason we shell not deal with them here.
And now let us list some mushrooms that can be confused, but, on the other hand, are tasty.
May mushroom (in Bulgarian, tricholoma Georgii): has no poisonous twins but also no special features, except that smells of flour and grows only around May month; its best use is for porridge, but also for cooking.
White champignons (agaricus family): they are of several kinds and have not volva-cup (where the white fly agaric has); there is one that grows in forests and meadows and below the cap becomes brown, and when it is brown one can not mistake it with fly agarics (but when is little it can be), besides, it has nice flavour of raw almonds (the other champighons also have it, but it is not so typical); there is also one on meadows, which becomes below the cap pink and later again brown (when can't be mistaken), but when rosy there is a poisonous twin known (at least in Bulgaria) as deceiving champignon, which has to be blood-red and smell of carbolic (but I think I have not met it); and there is a lemon-champignon, which has yellow spots where has been slightly pressed; all champignons, but especially the first one, can be eaten also
raw and can be added to salads of tomatoes at cetera.
Edible boletus known as penny bun, porcino or cep (Boletus edulis): this is the real boletus mushroom which is as big as a stone (and this has to mean its Latin name, or at least so is in German where it is
Steinpilz), and which has no poisonous twin and is good for everything, but most often is dried (because it can be, but must be caught by the sun in the first or second day; if this is questionable then dry it in the oven or put it in the freezer); because this is very precious mushroom and not to be easy thrown out at least I cut out all bad pieces, of some of them take away the pores if they have become old, and after boiling mince it, which mass can be used separately (with additions like: potatoes, cheese, egg, spices, etc.), but is ideal for adding to minced meat; there is also a queen bolete or boletus aereus, which is in the brown colour range and is also good; there are other boletes, two of which become blue, where the most dark is the devil's bolete or boletus satanas which is poisonous (but maybe not very), and the other one (boletus cyanescens) is edible (at least for mincing, just is a bit bitter).
White or meadow
parasol (lepiota excoriata): delicate and tasty mushroom, very good for cooking, as well as for breading, but may be confused with white fly agaric.
Caesar's mushroom (amanita caesarea): the
queen of the mushrooms, with tight and thick flesh, which is good for everything (primarily for cooking), but is much like the red fly agaric (amanita muscaria), only that the cap below is yellow (but when it is small as egg can easily be mistaken).
Honey fungus (armillaria mellea): grows on stumps in bunches, is gathered with whole bags, has poisonous twin but it is greenish below and bitter on taste; it is good for frying and marinating.
Coral funguses (clavarias): they are several types and have poisonous twins, from which differ only in nuances of the colour; it good for salads.
Blusher mushroom (amanita rubescens): very dangerous mushroom (just for mothers in law), which easy can be mistaken with the poisonous panther mushroom (amanita panterina) and differs from it only that its flesh becomes red (blushes) when the skin is peeled, so that better don't gather it.
Well, maybe this is enough for a beginning.
2. Making of wines from wild fruits
Here also is nothing contributed by me personally, I only use well known (for thousands of years) things. In contrast with the wines out of wine grapes, however, where the berries are squeezed, here they are
soaked (because usually they can't be squeezed, or are gathered with big efforts and this would have been excessive luxury, and/or they are very strong in flavour and aromatic); in this case the process of fermentation goes in two stages: open or turbulent fermentation, and closed or quiet one; after making of the wine may be made also vinegar. The classical proportion (because there are many variations) of the ingredients, and this that I (in general) apply, is the following:
1 kilo fruit, 1 kilo sugar, 3 liters water, out of which after the processing are obtained
4 liters wine. What I change is to increase a bit the part of the fruit, if it is more accessible and ordinary (say, apples, pears), and also to overlap
several harvests (not only for economy of the fruit -- because I gather it alone --, but also for its better processing -- for example, the wild rose hip is difficult to make to give its juices) adding also some fresh fruit (so that maintain the same volume of wine in the next harvest); usually is said that only a second harvest is made adding the half of the sugar and the water, and after this the wine mark is thrown away, where I make normally by 3-4 harvests (or vintages but in one year), and after this also vinegar.
The turbulent fermentation proceeds in an open container, usually in a bucket or deep basin, where the volume by me varies from 5 to 10 liters wine (a but more with the marc); there is no need to use bigger tanks or barrels, because they must be heaved and turned over and in this way is easier, besides, I use plastic bottles from mineral water for the above volumes for the
quiet fermentation, where is one peculiarity. It is that during this phase must be allowed to release out the produced gas, but
not to leave air in the wine (for not to become on vinegar), so that the cap is bored with a drill (earlier big glass bottles and rubber stoppers were used, but the plastic is much more convenient) and small tube is insert so that to enter tightly (there is no need to glue it if the tube is elastic -- and if it isn't then it is not good), and this tube is submersed in a container with water (small jar from baby food, with one hole for the tube and one for an outlet); best of all are the tubes used by blood transfusion because they are transparent and very resilient). The classical technology is for the turbulent fermentation to continue 10 days or so (from one week to two, it depends on the outside temperature, but also on the berries -- for example, the hip must be kept at least 20 days), where during this time the mixture must be stirred (when you remember about this, or go by it) several times daily (and there has to be some special paddle), and in addition to this from time to time to be tasted (you stick a finger and lick it) for to establish the moment when this phase must be completed, where initially the mixture is very sugary, then the sweetness decreases (the sugar transforms itself in alcohol), and at the end begins to become sour and you stop before it becomes very sour.
Later the mixture is filtered good via cheesecloth (even in two layers) and is poured in suitable bottle (according to the expected volume of wine), because is not good to leave much air in the container, and it stays so at least a month, though in many cases the process is finished in about two weeks. It is not meaningless, though, after a week (when you pour in the next harvest) to transfer carefully the wine in some other such bottle (or in a bigger one, merging it with the next harvest), because (however strictly you filter) it always gives sediments on the bottom and they facilitate its further fermentation to vinegar; by this transfusion you gather the sediments on the bottom and use them for adding in some dishes. I personally keep the wine in this way even more than an year (if it remains by me), because there is no danger for the bottles in which I pour it to burst, and it also continues to work and raise the degree of alcohol.
About the question: out of what can be made wine -- well, literally out of
everything! Wines are made out of: blackcurrant, raspberry, brambles, blueberries, sloe (blackthorn or prunus spinosa), sour cherries, wild rose hips, apples (grated), and what else not; I personally have made from strawberries, oranges, kiwis, berries of elder,
dzhanki-wild-plumbs, pears, sour cherries, mulberries, usual semi-wild grapes (using this technology), applying also various mixes from things that ripen simultaneously (like: sour cherries and mulberries --the black ones are better --, brambles and berries of elder, then apples, pears and hips, and other variants); surely good wines (if you can find cheap fruits) could be made also out of: pineapple, pomegranate, melon, and others; it is possible, too, something like mead (not authentic, where is put mainly real honey and hop) from different artificial types of honey, say, from acacia, dandelion, pine honey (I have put sometimes a bit syrup or honey to the last harvest and this gives very nice touch). And don't forget that after the wine is made also vinegar, adding to the squeezed marc only water (as much as to cover the fruit remains), and keep this for another 1.5 -2 months (again stirring them and open); such vinegar is ideal for salads, for addition to each dish as alternative of the tomatoes, but I have begun to use it (especially this from brambles) also for adding to my ... tea (and if the tea is more ordinary, as I usually use, then this vinegar significantly betters its taste).
Generally said, this is an interesting pastime for elderly people, and this natural wines (without any preservatives -- but the point here is that in Slavonic this word usually means ... a condom) are something
entirely different from what you can buy, even from would-be homemade (where the water is more then the wine). These are, how is said in Bulgarian, "
ruyni" wines, what in my view must be rather "
royni" (where
royak is a swarm), i.e. when you take a swallow of it and shake it in your mouth then the wine begins to fizz, as if you have a swarm of bees in the mouth. These are natural, ingenuous acids, which has nothing in common with this, that can be found in shops, and differ also from the true homemade wines, because it is clear that the wild fruits are more aromatic and have more vitamins than the usual grape (but nobody hinders you to make in this way wine also out of grapes, what I, as said, tried -- only that it will be cheaper for you). Such wines you may drink as wine, light or heavy, sweet or sour, according to how you want it and how it becomes, but may strengthen it with some vodka, if they are with powerful taste (from raspberry, strawberry, elder, blueberries, etc.), or can dilute them highly with water (also carbonated) and make yourself healthy (not so much sweet, but aromatic) soft drinks (even just to disinfect the water from the tap this is again meaningful).
So, but let me give some
actual recipes, according to my last and best combinations. The proportions are for obtaining of 5 l wine (in the first harvests), so that for the turbulent fermentation is enough one 10 l bucket, and for the quiet, respectively, one 5 l plastic bottle.
# Wine from sour cherries and mulberries. This is light wine, which I make also to a kind of wormwood wine adding (but very little) something for bitterness (either one kind of wild cherries, as big as grains of pimento, bitter-sugary and when ripe becoming nearly black, or a sprig of hypericum or milfoil). The cherries prevail (in proportion of 2:1), and the mulberries (which are a bit diuretic, but have much vitamin C) is better to be from the black ones. I do the following.
1st harvest: 1.4 kg berries (0.95 kg sour cherries, 0.45 black mulberry), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.7 l water, 1 sprig of milfoil; around 15-20 June; stays open about 10 days.
2nd harvest: + 0.8 kg berries (0.55 kg sour cherries, 0.25 black mulberry), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.7 l water, the milfoil is thrown away, but are added 100 berries of wild cherries; stays open 7 days.
3rd harvest: + 1.0 kg berries (0.65 kg sour cherries, 0.35 black mulberry), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.7 l water, 50 more of the wild cherries; stays open 6 days.
Vinegar: + 1.5 l water, stays for 1.5 months.
# Wine from brambles and elder.
1st harvest: 1.3 kg berries (0.90 kg brambles, 0.40 berries of elder), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.8 l water; around 5-10 August; stays open 7 days.
2nd harvest: + 0.8 kg berries (0.55 kg brambles, 0.25 elder), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.8 l water; stays open 6 days.
3rd harvest: + 0.95 kg berries (0.65 kg brambles, 0.30 elder), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.8 l water; stays open 6 days.
4th harvest: + 0.4 kg berries (0.25 kg brambles, 0.15 elder), 0.7 kg sugar, 2.2 l water; stays open 6 days.
Vinegar: + 1.5 l water, stays 1.5-2 months, becomes strong.
# Wine from wild hips, apples, and citrus fruits.
1st harvest: 1.4 kg berries (0.60 kg hips, 0.50 apples grated, 0.30 oranges also grated), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.8 l water; around 20 October, stays open 15 days.
2nd harvest: + 0.8 kg berries (0.30 kg hips, 0.30 apples, 0.20 oranges), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.8 l water, stays 13 days.
3rd harvest: + 0.95 kg berries (0.20 kg hips, 0.20 apples, 0.20 oranges, 0.35 kiwis), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.7 l water, stays 10 days.
4th harvest: + 1.1 kg berries (0.20 kg hips, 0.90 kiwis), 1.25 kg sugar, 3.7 l water, stays 8 days.
5th harvest: + 0.35 kg kiwis, 0.50 kg acacia honey, 0.50 kg sugar, 2.2 l water, stays 7 days.
Vinegar: + 1.5 l water, stays 1.5 months, middle-strong, the orange can be added to various dishes.
And last additions: I wait usually quite a lot and begin to drink from the
last harvest (or yield), in order to leave the best (and most enduring) at the end. As also this, that it is good to have several plastic bottles (of 1.5 l, 2, and 3 l), for to be in position to pour from one bottle to another when remains less wine, because it isn't good when in the bottles is much air; or you may recalculate for 6 l. bottles (or for bigger ones, but then also the bucket has to be bigger; it will be better to make it in two buckets).
3. Fabricating of liqueurs or vodka
For making of liqueurs (cordials or vodkas) special skill are basically not needed, but I include this topic here for to go in packet with the wines. To make the liqueur you must first put something aromatic to stay in pure spiritus (at least for 3 months), in which manner you get concentrated essence (which endures for years), with which to flavour the vodka produces from the spiritus; alternatively may be boiled some fruit, leaves, or blossom, and use the obtained decoction for diluting of the spirit (but watered so much it will hardly last long time). It is normal to make portions of 1/2 to 1 liter vodka and to drink it up. If you add also sugar (say, you put sour cherries without stones only in sugar; or add it later) then you will get a liqueur (for the Bulgarians the liqueur is always sweet, otherwise it is a kind of vodka); in similar way is made rum (I haven't made but think that this is done with caramelized sugar), and possibly also whiskey. There is also the variant of putting of something aromatic (some herb, or lemon peel, or ... hot pepper) directly in the vodka, in which way it stays there longer (I personally put
stalks of anise, which otherwise are good for nothing, in the vodka that I buy in the shops, and after a pair of months this gives wonderful anise vodka, really natural, not like what is sold). (For information, in Bulgaria /Russia we say
nastoyka for this liqueur because something stays -- also
stoya /stoit -- in alcohol, or
nalivka because we
nalivaem-pour it in our throats, or in a cup; then if it is good for ... licking the French call it liqueur, where this act is
lecken in German. The whiskey in its turn comes from the whisk-stirrer for driving away flies, or whipping eggs, in general, something with what we make a swift hit, from here is the whisker of the cat, i.e. this is the phrase "to pour something fast"; the Bulgarian
rakiya is Arabic
raki which has come from their
arak meaning sweat, i.e. this is the product obtained drop by drop during the distillation; and the
vodka is simply
voda-water.)
If you use medicinal spirit of
95% (spiritus aethylicus, and it is better to search big bottles of 1 l = 0.8 kg), and if you make by
0.5 l vodka (as I do), then to obtain the standard
38º in the end must be mixed exactly
200 ml spirit with
300 ml water (the water, naturally, is more). If you use essence then it is counted to the spirit (but this is usually of no importance because normally is spent only about half to one table spoon of it); if you make decoction, though, then this gives the water (I personally boil in portions also the fruit out of which make the essence because it is still very strong). The methodology is the following: the water boils in a deep container (there must be twice much space in it than the volume made), where you put in little, maybe
0.5 g,
citric acid (20-30 grains), sometimes also a tee spoon of sugar, then it is taken away from the flame and fast and carefully the spirit is poured in (which then in the instant bubbles up and falls down), where are put (preferably) also
10-15 drops glycerin (all additions are for softening of the taste, otherwise the vodka feels very coarse to the throat, but the spirit is clean enough, this isn't imitation).
As to the type (and taste) of the drink you may make cordials from what you like. I have made essences from: sour cherries, (grated) orange peels, lemon peels (again grated), wild (bitter) cherries, berries of rowan (in Bulgarian is said to be a bit poisonous, but it is healing berry, the Russians eat it and make also vodka out of it), raspberry, wild strawberry, pods of cypress (for imitation of the gin), small green walnuts (cut in pieces), stems of anise; then via boiled decoction make also from: stems or leaves of wild mint (and this is not mint at all, I'll tell you, we name it
dzhodzhen and it is good when cooking beans), strawberries, the mentioned acacia vodka, and it can be made also, I suppose, from skin of pineapple, or real mint, or grains of pomegranate, or (?) from barks of melon, or from whatever is your whim in the moment (including with
nothing, i.e. just vodka). Having in mind that now more and more alcohol drinks (at least in Bulgaria) are made out of spirit (the natural fermentation turns to be very expensive, adding the price also to the excise duties, i.e. vice versa), this isn't much different from the various things that one can buy in the shops, except for two moments: the one is that you aromatize your drink how you want, and the other is that it becomes for you
three times (with tendency to become even more) cheaper than the vodka (not that this is something improper and you do not pay excise duties in this way, no, they are included in the price of spirit, which for the producers definitely costs 10 times less, but you do not pay to the firm that uses or makes its own spirit, and hardly with better quality). With what we have finished also this topic.
Well, that is, honourable ladies and gentlemen (though I, writing this material, can not know exactly who of you deserves to be honoured and who does not, but I hope you will not be cross with me counting you all for honourable), if you have time and desire you may easily economize with the explained here methods and tricks
at least 1/4 of your expenses, because: here 3-5 euros per month, there a bit more, and just look how they have become 30-50 euros monthly (and let us not forget that we, as the most poor country in European Community, have average salary in the moment of writing of the paper of just 130 euros). Calculated for an year this may come close to half of a thousand (for I personally live on the basis of
"a dollar a day" for food, plus twice as much for communal expenses). But this is for an
alone living person, and if you are part of an average 3-member family (not that there remained many such families, but then of a group of people living together in one apartment and dividing between them the expenses for living), so then you will economize trice more because will economize also for the others. But adding here also the sum for the medicines (for now one can't enter a pharmacy if he is not ready to spend there as much money as, say, for a liter vodka, or for a kilo dry salami), then the sum grows even more. And to say nothing about the cigarettes, because they have long ago become matter of
luxury for the Bulgarian -- by average consumption of a pack per day and with the prices in the moment of writing this makes 50 euros or about 40% of the average monthly salary [I don't know how look at this the part
ies and the Governments -- allusion on the popular phrase from totalitarian times about the "Party and Government"]. So that the economy leads to more healthy life (I, for example, long ago have become, as some say, "vegetarian by compulsion"); though there are not problems to look at the things vice versa, that the healthy way of life leads to economies.
You see, one has, extremely speaking, two alternatives: either to live reasonably (read also healthy), or to spend his organism and later to give away money for healing (say, for fitness club, or psychoanalyst, or course for narcotic withdrawal). Or looked otherwise: either to ride a bicycle going to work (as do many people in many countries, but this is a matter of tradition), or to drive his car, but to fix a bicycle on the roof of the car (to ride it at lunch break). Or to smoke the cigarettes in a chain (and this still good if filled with tobacco, not with something else) and then go to fitness clubs (or on treatment), or, given as an example, to go up and down by 5 floors a pair of times daily, to jog in his corridor, and other variants. Or else also: to drink with each meal (without breakfast, naturally) 100 grams of some natural acid (not cola, surely), or to take pills for different stomach problems. Or to add: to eat what may find in the shops and supermarkets (i.e. products for the
plebs,
not for the wealthy ones), or to find a person who will cook for him (the French cooks are for a long time not in fashion, some Malay, Chinese, or Cuban will do a better job) and buy from the shops only
basic products (flour, sugar, cooking oil, meat, milk), and even this better to get from special providers, not from the supermarkets (as more well-to-do people do; or grow their own vegetables in hothouse, for to know what have put in the soil; and similar things).
Well, it is true that a person on 20 - 30 years is apt to shiny things -- either a car, or a girl, or an import beverage, nice cigarette, fancy restaurant, famous resort, etc. -- but neither all of us are on this age, nor this is proper (the proper thing is what is healthy). On the West people (at least more clever ones) long ago have learned to avoid technologically produced foods and beverages (hamburgers, colas, ready meals, etc.), but we just now begin to appreciate them (notwithstanding the fact that they are of bad quality); similarly also with the mutant foods, which may sometimes turn cheaper but exactly then are of quite inferior quality. But the westerner feels that he must search the natural and nowadays in almost every modern thing (for eating or not) is added something natural, which must
raise the cost of the product, making it in this way more desirable for the client (because there people have often much money and don't know how to spend them).
If for some of the Bulgarians this, occasionally, is also so, then well, good cheer to them, first to poison themselves in whatever way they can, and later to heal themselves with extracts of natural products (only not with real such things). But the major part of the Bulgarians are not prosperous, nether the young ones are, so that they may begin to look for the natural (to gather what "lies in the feet"). I am perfectly aware that one will not drive in his car to the near park only to gather there some dandelion, to give one example, but in this case to look for it on the market or the shop (because if it is not now sold on the market then this is because there is no demand for it -- though I have already seen something of the kind from Greece --, where the nettle is demanded and it is sold). So that the point is for the people to begin to search the healthy stuffs, someone (say, a media guru) has to tell them this, deluding them with something, or, alternatively, someone (or something) has to force them to do this.
But then, if the situation is such, to what this boils down to? Well, it turns that the Bulgarians were
again fortunate -- with the coming of democracy the major part of the population is just
forced to lead as healthy life as possible Not that our people do this, no, we have not so much brains, but having in mind that for 20 years we are ceaselessly in economical crisis, it is high time for us to begin to do this. [Where earlier, in totalitarian times, what was the situation: I, for example, kept my window always open, two fingers wide, but during the whole winter never closed it, because the central heating was so strong that my wallpaper was tearing, in the direct meaning, and in such conditions there passes no one winter when I have not caught the flu.] With other words, every cloud has a silver lining, and our democratic misery can be used somehow. Then use it, ladies and gentlemen!
March 2010
POST SCRIPTUM
PS. Oct 2012.
I intend to complete this brochure from time to time with new things drawn from my personal experience, but will make this at the end, in order to edit easier the different copies. To the common first part there should be added nothing important, but still, to the strategies of survival, the counterflow principle (I.2.2.), may be added one concrete advice when is most suitable to shop at some stores (this can't be thoroughly universal, each shop has its own and
changing strategy), namely: best of all in
Tuesday, eventually in Wednesday, and in the evening,
one and a half hour before closing time. Why it is not good in the end of the week, from Thursday evening and up to Sunday including, is clear, but in the beginning I did not understand why also on Mondays the market (and the cooperative one, too) is more expensive, but having raised the question it become clear for me that this is because during the holidays the people have eaten and drunk everything and in Monday they go to buy at least bread and milk, and with this also other things; i.e. many people shop in the holidays, but many others are lazy enough to go even then, in the biggest crowd, to shop, so that almost all, for one or another reason, empty their refrigerators in the weekend. And in the evenings before closing time is good in big supermarket chains (though some other may do this in the morning of the next day -- you have to check how the things are for a given shop) because for some goods the period of storage expires, and the shop may decide that it is better to sell them cheaper a pair of days before the term, because in the last day hardly somebody will buy them (will take something alternative but fresher); this applies to vegetables, bread, meat, in general, to perishable products (not to cooking oil or sugar, for example). But on Tuesdays (possibly also Wednesdays) the merchants may choose to make some additional attractive discount, for to have more or less regular influx of buyers and money.
This, however, is not always obligatory (because the market has no global patterns) and may happen that a pair of adjacent times they don't do this, because when one goes to the shop he has intention to buy, and does it. Other shops, in their turn, have the habit to make discounts according to the
days of the month, and for Bulgaria this usually is the period from 21st to about 28th -- because the salaries are paid at the end of the month (29 - 31, but also later), the pensions are from 7th to 19th, advance payments are in the middle of the month, and then only this week remains less loaded. But if there are some official holidays then all prices not only remain high but jump up even higher. In addition to this the prices by us are, as a rule, as I surely have mentioned, higher in more unfavourable periods, like: winter, hot summer, dry weather, rains, etc (in which times one must open his closed jars), and they are the cheapest in the spring and autumn (but not for things which people use to can in such moments, of course). Anyway, with similar "tricks" of shopping I personally have begun to buy about
30% cheaper (on the average for a year), and quite valid goods, not beginning to decay rubbish.
To II.1.1., surviving in urban conditions, economy from central heating, I wish to emphasize that the flowers in the home are very important, because this autumn, when it became a bit colder, I decided to gather what might get cold from the terrace and put in the room where I slept in the moment only three small pots with pelargoniums (two different plants with entirely different smells, and in Bulgaria they are called, respectively,
indrishe, which is put in some jams, and
mushkato, which doesn't smell very nice, but they are given from one family), and a stalk of basil. As I have closed the window for two days the air was very heavy and dusty, but two hours after putting the flowers inside it was already quite nice, so that now my "airing" consists of ... opening the curtain of the window, because in the evening I close it for the light not to awake me very early (i.e. before 9 in the morning), and in this way, when there is a sun, both, the air is cleared by the flowers, and the temperature in the room is preserved. Well, it is clear that these are flowers with some fragrance, but I don't feel it, it is below the threshold of my feelings, but the air is cleansed.
To II.2., surviving in urban conditions, making of supplies for winters, may be added also this moment that it is not devoid of meaning to close some jars by the
raw system, without sterilizing, but with more salt and vinegar, some aspirin (about a tablet per kilo vegetables), and with a finger of cooking oil above, and in this way a big variety of things may stay not one month, but a whole season (say, my favorite
dzhanki-plumbs pulp stays during the whole summer and open, even without oil, and there is nothing bad with it; there may only happen that the mixture may harden at the top and, if is kept in a bottle with narrow throat, you have to poke first with some tiny wand for to bore it, but when it begins to flow it's perfect).
To II.3.6, jams and honeys, I would have liked to add that the honey out of dandelion, when I put also some leaves of
indrishe (and here surely is very important not to put some other of pelargonium plants), which boil together with the dandelion, becomes very tasty, and, besides and also obvious, is very healthy, no matter that the one from acacia is much more aromatic, but I make myself different honeys, for assortment.
May be added point
II.3.9.,
making of tea at home, what I tried for several years with
jasmine, because it is often met in the parks. At first my experiments were not successful, but now I began to like it, because have acquired some ideas from the Internet, where it treats the so called Russian
ivan-tea. Now, the ivan-tea surely is better, but around my habitat I have not seen it, although I suppose that know it, and it was nectariferous plant, so that it must not be something harmful. The idea about drying of the teas is -- generally speaking -- to allow the leaves to ferment, i.e. to oxidize
while they are drying, and if they ferment more then they produce more caffeine and become darker and stronger. But if you cut them in fine pieces then they stick one to the other and begin to get mould (I have tried this, have added also a bit of vinegar) if you don't dry them fast, but if you are very quick in the drying then they will have no caffeine at all and will become like the herbal teas (only will have not their aroma), and that is why the Chinese have occupied themselves (for whole days)to roll them -- either in parallel with their filament, or perpendicularly, or once so once otherwise --, and to ... burn them in big pans, and to keep them in shade, and then in sun, and similar tricks (for each sort there are its tricks).
The simplest recipe for making at home of jasmine tea is the following: the leaves are plucked in the morning (before noon, and after a recent rain) only the top 4-5 leaves (maybe a bit more, if the branch itself is juicy and soft, it depends), before they are in full bloom, i.e. in the beginning of May (a pair of small buds or a fine stem are nothing bad), there is filled one big plastic bag, then at home it is poured in a basin or tub above newspaper in the open for 1-2 hours (to allow to whatever bugs you have "picked" with the leaves to run away), then the leaves are left in shade till the evening, after what are
pressed and bruised not very hard and put in plastic bags at thin layer and rolled like ... carpet, wrapped up in a towel or tied, and stay so till the morning; on the other day before noon you take them out of the envelopes and ... grind them with meat grinder, what gives some small pellets, greenish, which are dried in the sun, or in the oven at about 80
oC, but it has to be slightly ajar and to work in impulse mode, i.e. to heat 1-2 minutes and then rest for 10-20, so that to be enough time for some fermentation to take place.
This I have tried personally, only that have not pressed the leaves specially, because of what, maybe, the tea does not become much strong, has nearly black colour but with greenish hue, i.e. this is a kind of green tea, but have put the leaves through meat grinder. It is relatively weak, but has pleasing aroma, and is of that kind of teas which as more you drink as more you want to drink of them, and I have drank it the last two years in the two most summer months. To this, maybe because it is weaker, I may add that I have poured water over it already from the
evening and left it on place where the first sunshine rays may shine over it in the morning (if I sleep longer), and in this way it leaves what can (boiling it later for just a pair of minutes, but this is not compulsory). Surely with
ivan-tea will be better (it was gathered in July - August), which may become also stronger. Anyway, try it, this is an interesting occupation and what one makes himself alone he likes better.
As to the point II.4., how not to go to physicians, I may confirm one more time that the jogging, really, is a big deal, and at least for everyone in age over fifty it is imperative, and my system with running just once a week in the corridor is elementary for applying by each one of you.
To III.2., special skills, wines, I may add that usual semi-wild grapes, really, can be put
after brambles, tearing only the berries and washing them, and becomes quite acceptable sour wine, what costs you practically nothing, when to one kilo fruit is added one kilo sugar and three liters water and this gives four liters wine; only from wine grapes in this way is not so aromatic. And let me stress once more that the produced in this way vinegar, especially that from brambles or raspberries, has nothing to do with the vinegars that you buy and is really good for adding to tea, where this that can be bought can't be used at all (I tried it once -- it gives a slop).
To III.3., making of liquors, I wish to insert that as if the best ones are made from rowan berries, stems of anise (which otherwise are good for nothing, but lying for half an year in spirit give very nice essence), raspberries, wild strawberries, sour cherries (where to these out of berries is added a bit sugar), but the others are also good.
And as to the medicines, honestly, for the last several years I doubt whether I can count up to 5 tablets aspirin together in a whole
year (more aspirin I use for conserving), and no other medicaments. You judge for yourselves where this is a healthy way of life, or is not.
PS. Oct 2013.
Well, I have not decided to add each year something to this material, but this time it so happened. The additions are mainly to the special skills (because of which, I suppose, some readers by Internet choose this brochure).
About the
ivan-tea: at last I have found in my park one spot with it and gathered some. As far as the point with the teas is like with ... the sex, in this to prolong the pleasure, and here the fermentation, at least to a couple of days, not to be dried at once, then my technology (snatched from the Internet) is the following. The leaves are gathered in the morning, best of all around June, are left for a bit to ventilate in the open and to allow to all bugs to run away, after what are put in plastic bags in relatively thin layer and rolled as a roll, but the leaves are previously
beaten with a mallet or rolling pin, for to force the leaves to begin to ferment. They are kept in this way till the next day, but then the fermentation proceeds pretty fast and there is a danger that they may begin to rot, so that it is good to be taken away a pair of times, to be mixed, crumpled, eventually beaten, and rolled again in the bags, where they stay generally for about 30 hours, or, in some limits, from 24 to 36 hours (if they stay for two whole days this is too much for them, and if you don't stir them then they begin to rot in some places, but in others the fermentation has not yet begun). Then they are ground in meat grinder, where it is better to put them first just for 1-2 minutes in the oven at 100 degrees or so, and are ground still hot. If there is a good sun they are dried under it, but one may help them a bit in the oven at 60-80 degrees; this process can continue for a pair of days, during which time the tea darkens further. The very
ivan-tea, having begun to ferment, smells sweetish, something, maybe, like beer yeast (for what reason, I suppose, it has been discovered initially, left mowed on a meadow). It is more genuine tea, more yellow-reddish, but it, still, is a substitute, don't think to give up buying real tea at all, be it even Georgian. But it is as if more refreshing, has another composition and it is good if one drinks for a pair of months in the year also from it; but is for cooler weather, where the jasmine tea I use in the summer, it is quite greenish. And something else, the tea has to mature for some time (during which it continues to ferment and becomes a bit stronger), so that wait at least a month before beginning to drink the newly made tea.
As regards the
wines: it is not said that they must always be made from several fruits, and to make 3-4 harvests; the classical variant is to make two harvests, for example, so: 1.6 kg
sour cherries, 1.6 kg sugar, 4.8 l water, with possibly a sprig of dried milfoil (but look not to overdo), keep this 10-12 days open, they give
very much foam (especially if are not very ripen); for the second harvest to the same fruit you add 0.65 kg sugar (about 0.4 part of the fruit) and 2 l water, and keep them 7-8 days. Third harvest comes out either weak, or very sweet, and you better don't do it, what will give you very strong vinegar (which stays at least 1.5 months, and with about 1.2 l water). Similarly you make also from
brambles (there are places where they grow in abundance, beside rivers, for example, only that they scratch much), putting: 1.75 kg brambles, 1.75 kg sugar, 5.25 l water, keep them 8-9 days, the fruit almost dissolves itself and for that reason for the second harvest is added only 0.6 kg sugar and 1.8 l water, keep them again the same time; the vinegar (with about 1. l water) becomes really fantastic in flavour.
More than this, I have begun to apply
no-waste technology, by which I somehow ... eat up all the fruit (that can be eaten) after the wine, and even after the vinegar. I mean that of the cherries, for example, I take away the stones (by hand, they are tender and is easy to take them out) after they have given the vinegar, put them in a jar and they stay so 2-3 months, in the summer, and without refrigerator (they contain in themselves remains of vinegar), and use them for adding in what I cook -- sour berries, quite original. The brambles can't be treated in the same way, I am forced to throw them away (what is left from them, because they are only seeds and juice), but for the winter wine, from hips, apples, then oranges, I eat them taking them out of the vine. More precisely, in the first harvest I put as much as I have written before hips and grated apples, only take care the hips to be whole, they can be dried, from 4-5 years, such are also good, and when I put the wine on quiet fermentation I gather the hips by hand and the apples insert (exactly fermented) in one jar and eat them in a week time (eventually with addition of some sugar). The second harvest I make again so with apples, but with the same hips (they have to stay as much as possible, for to give their strength and vitamins), and later also eat them up. Third and fourth harvests I made with oranges, peeled and cut widthwise on rings which later dissolve themselves but may be "caught", so that when they go to the vinegar I take them away little by little and add to what I cook; only the hips are thrown away at the end. Adding together with these sour things also pulp of
dzhankis-plumb, possibly also some vinegar or one tomato, I cook myself very tasty dishes.
What regards the concentrated
alcohol, I just wonder now how I have drunk before something bought from the shops (what nowadays surely is a fake), where in my new way I drink each week something different (and differently coloured), using all possible
stems, which can't be used for cooking, from what grows on my terrace, where to the dill and anise (not to touch the acacia and the fruits) added also: wild thyme, coriander, basil,
dzhodzhen-mint, and what else comes to my mind, and mixed, in different proportions, for a change. And not to forget also this peculiarity, that when one drinks such medicinal spirit (correspondingly diluted by the explained method), which is not much soft in taste, then one does not drink in so big amounts, where the nice vodka just pours as if by itself in your throat, and is drunk more, surely, so that I both, drink "strengthened" decoctions of healing herbs, and lessen the alcohol a bit, and in addition do not get tired of one and the same things because alternate various items.
Ah, it may turn out that the
calcium taken from the egg shells is even
better than those contained in the milk, because I have glanced somewhere that the calcium from the milk was not in good for absorption by the organism form and contained much lymphatic fluids (leading to overweight etc.). Now, surely, one must not give much confidence to anybody and anything, because everybody advertises himself in some way, or works for those who pays him for his labour, but in any case this calcium is easy to take, one gets used to it and begins to like it, and does not hinder whatever other intake of milk or milk products, only that the organism does not want them, because receives what it needs in another way. And in order to see that I am not speaking here about something strange and abhorrent let me tell you, rather as a funny curiosity, one ancient medicine, maybe mainly against cough, named
album graecum or "the white Greek thing", which consisted from ground ... dog droppings (which are whitish, due to the calcium that they contain), mixed with some honey (and maybe also some "know-how" of the firm). And people have taken them in those times, and what is to be said about some clean and baked shells of eggs (most often unfertilized). So that I can with clear conscience raise the slogan: "Take the shell of one egg and you will not for a liter of milk beg!".
And why not to tell you something also about the
honey, which by me turns quite watery but in many aspects is better (more aromatic, or more healthy) than that made by the bees (which main advantage is that it is gathered from various flowers, i.e. it has some bouquet)? I mean, why the bee honey is thicker and durable? Well, it is obvious that this is because of the wax (with the hope that it is mainly from the bees, not artificial), but what is this a bee wax? Well, it turns out that this was chiefly ... condensed
sweat, grime of a kind, of the bees! So, the deal was the following: when in the beehive becomes pretty hot, in the summer, when the sun shines mighty, some of the bees in their "critical age" began to feel very heated, to gasp for air, to flutter with wings, for to cool themselves a little (but the movement also heats them, so that this does not help much), and then some young bees, hearing this noise, rushed quickly toward and began to scratch the "crone" at the bottom part of her body, at the abdomen, with their paws, which ended on some nails, and in this way, little by little, they gathered under the nails this hardened sweat, which they rolled later to small balls and stored in some depots, where from to take when needed. And as far as the honey is kept in such waxy "containers", then it unavoidably acquires some more volatile components in itself. Yeah, but because I have nobody to scratch me by the "belly", my honey becomes more watery, right? But is delicious and healthy.
So, ladies and gentlemen, that is for the moment.
APPENDIX
The Wild Calls
It's pretty nice in every dish
To put some netºtle -- you know this.
But being bright and very clever
I ... dandeliºon add -- you'd never.
Wild onion pluck from time to time,
Lime leaves collect -- they cost no dime,
And when the rhubarb wild shoots out
I ponder not, put in the mouth.
It happens primrose leaves are good
For some dish, and if so -- I put;
And apples, quince, I also can
Put in the pot when cooking hen.
But the extreme temptation form
For me green wild plumbs, as a norm,
Because they substitute tomatoes,
But sweeter are, what means, are better.
I add to this that mushrooms pick --
Some big, some small like eggs of chick --,
I recognize some twenty types
And eat with gusto when are nice.
Then I make wines from sundry berries,
For I am competent, use: cherries,
If sour, brambles, wild plumbs, sloes,
And raspberries, wild rose hips, more,
Use peºars wild, and appºles, seldom
blueberries, oranges, then elder,
Blackcurrants, kiwis, strawberries,
Pineappºles, and you name it, please.
So that I all of you advise
To spit on palms and make your tries
Collecting what has given God,
Else live in th' state you just could not.
Dec 2008, translated in Mar 2014
Cares for your health*
[ * This is only point 2. from "Miscellaneous in the year 2016", from "Now, Look Here (Publicistics)". ]
Well, this is simply my topic, because I, forced by our democracy, which (not that deliberately, but so it happened) performs
genocide of intellectuals, although more civilized, of course (without GULAGs and cultural revolutions, but purely leaving us to die of our own death in situation of semi-starvation). So or otherwise but I personally have come to a number of conclusions how one can live not only cheaper but also healthier in city conditions. I have explained pretty detailed these things in my "Survival", and also in other papers have clarified what to eat and how to use the market correctly, but some moments are quite important, and people simply don't want to do this (nowadays the population has begun even less to collect what is possible from the nature because in the shops already can be found everything), so that I think that a little repeating will do no harm. And this will not be exactly a repeating but stressing on more important moments, with adding of new arguments, reduced chiefly to my personal experience, i.e. to checking in practice.
So, let me begin here with the
dandelion. I personally already almost year round put leaves of dandelion in everything what I cook (because there were left no teeth to chew it -- the nasty democracy has led to this, that all my teeth have fell out, while earlier, under the totalitarianism, they were good and sound, so that the guilt of democracy is proved with this, right?). I use also this wild onion, which they have begun to sell in some shops in pots (even in one place under the name "Himalayan", although I pluck it in the nearby park). Because of the fact that one my colleague has become such drunkard, that has earned cirrhosis, I decided to look in one book about the healing herbs and it turned out that the dandelion is applied chiefly for healing of liver diseases. And the liver, either because people for long time have been gulping it -- I'm sorry for the expression -- even raw, for the contained in it blood, or because they have somehow grasped that it is important for the health, yet this has been fixed in the languages, and I by old habit continue to search for relations between the words as proofs for the common sense of the nations. In this case in Bulgarian (the Russian word "pechionka" says only that it is good for roasting it, what it "pech", so that it is not interesting) is known its Turkish, which has to be Arabic, name "
dzhiger", what is something very alive ("
dzhivoe", where "zhivoe" is alive in Slavonic), or more precisely (by Myrski) the "dzhiger" makes the ...
dzhigit (what is a horseman in Eastern languages)! And mark that I don't exaggerate, because the last word is derived from Armenian "
dzhi", what means a horse, i.e. something very fast, like a ... jeep, in order to give contemporary sounding to my conclusions.
So, hence the dandelion is very useful, this is known amidst all nations, yet to the young you give various snacks and colas, etc., and the old are lazy to pluck it. While at the same time now have begun to sell some arugula (or rucola, or eruca), which has similar leaves and maybe is something similar. But the thing is that, as I hinted, those who have money do not collect whatever from the nature, and those who have not much think that it is below their dignity to collect herbs between the lawns (where the dogs have shitted, sorry, by their words, and this, what the today's chemistry "shits" in our food, they do not mark, or don't want to). So that even when there is not fresh dandelion I salt it (with vinegar and salt and practically without water), this wild onion, too, and add to every dish. Also I have begun to use the
remnants of cherries (without their stones) from which I make myself wine and add as sour fruit; also wild apples, quince, cucumbers (in the dish that I cook, not only as salad), and so on. Also I never finish my lunch without drinking a pair of swallows of natural wine and not from grapes but from wild fruits (say from: brambles, wild-rose hips and apples, cherries, mulberries, elderberries, etc.). This, surely, is healthier than the bought wines, and because all this is not enough to me then I make myself various jams and honeys (or syrups), where I value especially: honey from dandelion, honey from acacia (all this from the blossoms), jam (or maybe some sugary kind of preserve, in Bulgaria we use different words for different kinds of such things) from cherries, from mulberries, from elderberries, and many others. All this are vitamins, all is natural, and in addition to this is about 3 times cheaper, and there is natural sugar in them, not sweeteners.
Also the
eggshells contain pure calcium, and for this reason are very necessary for young and old, and the most important -- they substitute the milk! Hence I already ten years eat all eggshells and simply
don't feel any need of milk, and the milk by itself is
not very tasty if it is fresh (I recall myself that when I was a child I have not liked it). I eat curds, sometimes white cheese, but milk, even sour (or yogurt) it happens to consume
in an year not more than a pair of kilograms. The eggshells are simply collected, they may be from raw eggs or from boiled ones, they are roasted a bit, and are eaten (there is no need to crack or grind them, they can not cut you). The average consumption is the shell of one egg for 5-6 days. Obvious, my dear Watson, like is said. And mark that the calcium is basic building element of the organism, it is necessary not only for the bones, it is necessary also for the joints, and for the blood vessels, i.e. this is also a medicine against atherosclerosis. To me this helps perfectly, and I am thin, old, and have had problems with one of my knee joints.
Well, and then it is the
movement! I don't think that only the woman is movement (the proverbial Italian
la donna e mobile, what means not exactly this, it means that she is changeable, yet the root is the same), but that all life in general is movement. It is necessary not only to walk, it is necessary to jump, to jog, then one is for some time in the air, one flies, the muscles are strained. But to walk, too. I personally not only ascend and descend from the 5th floor, I have begun to boycott at all the city transport and to walk at least 10 stops on foot, and as many back, this is one and a half hour (but not less than an hour) of good walk in one direction, this is useful, and this economies much, by the prices now, in 2016, in Bulgaria, this is about 8 eggs for one ticket, and for me this a whole day's board,
together with the drink, only one ticket! That's how it is. And in addition I am jogging only once in a week, before bating myself, in the corridor of the apartment, forth and back, or on right angle, but now, in my 66 years, I am making 2,000 jumps, about 20 minutes (and when I have begun I made barely a hundred). And I have long ago given up smoking, for economical reasons, and feel myself already like in my
50 years (well, with the exception of the "girls", but they have abandoned me before decades, when I have no money). This is called rejuvenation or restoring of the youth, i.e. I am turning nearly into some ... Juno, only of masculine gender. Ah, and I make also push-ups; when I have begun they were maybe 10, and now I make, also once in a week, before the jogging, 40 (forty) pieces. Well, you prove me that this is not right. Yet to increase the load more I do not intend, I have even decided firmly that reaching 70 I will begin to lessen everything -- after all, I will not appear on Olympics.
And if you ask me good for health is also the
drinking, especially for elderly people. But if in some norm, what for me means 60-90 grams of vodka, and 100-150 grams of wine daily. The wine is natural, like I have said, for the digestion and for vitamins, and the vodka is all kinds of liqueurs or tinctures, i.e. up to some extent this is also a medicine. As I have mentioned in another place, and as some of you maybe know, on the West, in Germany, for example, where is written "Apothecke" are sold liqueurs; also the Italians when say "cordiale" understand some kind of vodka or tincture. My liqueurs are from, say: lemon or orange peel, anise, wild cherry (the grains are big like those of bahar, or then of pea, and are a bit bitter), raspberry, cherry, wild strawberry, ashberry, from stems of dill and coriander /cilantro, and from whatnot else (I have not done, but think that will be suitable also from ananas /pineapple peel, from pomegranate, from blueberry, and others). And pay attention to this fact that I am using non-potable spirit (in Bulgaria potable spirit is not sold and it has to be smoother), but usual bought from the pharmacy ethyl alcohol, 95%, which I dilute in the necessary proportion (3 parts water, 2 parts spirit), having first boiled the water or the tincture. This also has its advantages, because there are no softening additions in it (I put only citric acid, and half tea-spoon sugar on half a liter of ready vodka), and when the spirit is felt then this is
better, for one wants to feel something in one's throat, not just to pour there (like, for example, petrol in the tank of a car). And in addition to this I paint it with confectionery colours, change its kind each week, so that it is simply a pleasure, this is the so called night cap.
In view of all this I have decided that will live at least till 83 years, and better till 86, and it will be just nice if till 88, what is a very good number (eighty-eight sounds nearly like 'ey-ey'). And till 83 I have calculated that must live because have gone at last on pension with only 16 years of service, and a pair of months, and when so then I have to use this pension at least as many years, and when you add this to 66 then it turns that we come to the 83rd year. I am simply
bound to live so long, because my pension payments earlier, in totalitarian years, were 20% from my gross income, and now my pension is about
17% (only) of the contemporary average income, what means that there will leave a pair of percents more for the very pension institution. And I move further to 86 and 88 because these calculations are for an average salary, and my was on the average about 1.2 of the average, what gives increase with 20%, or 20 years of receiving of the pension. Well, till 86 this is correct, and 88 is just my plea to the Almighty. But to leave something to the state I think is absolutely unmotivated, I have suffered enough for 25 democratic years.
Ah, I have almost forgotten: I have
no illnesses at all! So that I will be forced to ... die healthy, but there is nothing to do here, when this is so necessary. For the last time I have bought from the pharmacy a medicament (if one does not count by one liter spirit each month, what isn't medicine strictly speaking) somewhere about 5 years back, this was a package of aspirin, and when I heard its price I was horrified and decided not to buy even aspirin, and it lies somewhere by me still unused. So that I do not take any medicaments, and don't visit any physicians, when is necessary to pay for this. Such things, related with the cares for the health.
THE RIGHT WAY TO GET OLD
(advices to the pensioners) -- Social Essay
| |
Abstract:
This is a popular article about the proper way to get old, which includes some introduction, concrete chapters about the right look at the medicine and moderation, the dangers of fast transitional periods (here to the old age), cares about the body and its organs (based on personal experiences of the author), then about the brain, and philosophical conclusive remarks. It is intended for people after the middle of the life, about 40, but deals chiefly with pensioners, of course. The traditional poetical Appendix is also not forgotten.
|
|
CONTENTS (Of This book)
0. Introduction
There are, in some aspect, two kinds of knowledge, in whatever area, yet I don't mean here factual (like, usually, in humanitarian disciplines) and procedural (like, generally, in the exact sciences), but one more general division of real, professional knowledge, and some common sense reasoning, which, however, can be of big importance nowadays. I mean that the common sense reasoning can make sometimes (even funny) errors, but it is much faster and generally looked right in the majority of cases, and it must be present in the heads of people, but this is not the case, most often, because such knowledge seems unprofessional or dilettantish or amateurish. The classical (at least for me) example here can be that of the rotation of the Sun around the Earth or vice versa, where for the life on Earth the rotation of the Sun is quite a good acceptation, no matter that for several centuries the erroneousness of this is proven. Historically in all spheres of life firstly have appeared some inexact observations and statistics (like .. the Zodiacs, for which I believe that they are based on some probable statistics, but are put in unbelievable environment of invented fables -- because the people
want to be deluded). With this beginning I want to excuse me if I will say some not really proved things, but when they seem very probable I take them for proved. Because I am not some specialist in gerontology, or social sciences, or medicine, biology, chemistry, or the like, no, I am just a person who has learned enough (in the field of the exact sciences) in order to be able to make logically sound conclusions; in other words I am an
intelligent laic (how I have named myself), what means that I am intelligent, to be sure, although one is right to say also that I am a laic, what I also am.
More or less equivalent (because I, as mathematician, know that the equivalence has to be proven, and I prove nothing precise) to the above given division is the dividing of knowledge in
quantitative and
qualitative ones, or also in tactical knowledge of
how exactly something has to be done, and strategical knowledge of general rules and requirements for this
what has to be done, what is right and what is wrong. I especially stress on the
inexactness, because there are many cases where it can be even preferable before the exactness, not only because there often happen errors even in the things officially taken for proven (how it happens in all social spheres, where several beliefs can exist for some time and then be declared for erroneous), but also because the exact knowledge is, at least for several centuries, impossible to keep in one (common) head, yet there are things that one has to know and be able to judge about the matters in some fields fast and alone (because in the contemporary free capitalistic society everybody feels free to
delude the others in the name of personal monetary win). Briefly said this means that one is not advised to believe neither to the physicians, not to the social rulers, and even less to the businesses and shops; one can believe, jocularly said, only to
people to whom one can believe, and first of all to such, who win nothing of spreading of their advices.
Yeah, but I, in my nearly 70, and under an invented pen name, and selling nothing really (even on sites where I
try to sell my books I require symbolic prices of less or about 1 bus ticket for piece, and till the end of 2018 I have taken
not a cent for myself). What means that if I alone wanted to get some advice I would have asked, or listened to, exactly such guy like myself, or at least would have looked first at what he says, and then have made my judgement. And this is exactly what I am doing, and wishing that you do, I am writing my advices and am leaving to you to accept them or not, what surely does not mean that you have first to turn a deaf ear to me, but to try to be a bit open-minded if I will contradict to many accepted habits. Also I am often using either etymological proofs (which are
no proofs, of course, from exact, mathematical point of view, but I am not teaching you higher mathematics here, am I?), or philosophical and dialectical judgements, or my own thoughts, observations, and experiments, and all these methods produce some ideas quite sound from point of view of the common sense. And don't forget that I am speaking about
years of living, people, these are not jokes, in cases like these every meaning has to be heard and taken in consideration.
OK, and now the plan of the material. First I will show you what is my view to the real medicine, and that this is etymologically hidden in many words, and when so this is the meaning of all wise men from times immemorial; i.e. there are no reasons to reject all these advices only because the contemporary medicine does wonders, because it simply ... tries to
compensate for our wrong way of life, and such approach is in itself wrong, the right one is to lead reasonable and proper (or wise, or just) life. Then I will turn your attention to the dangers of transition to our old years, at least because
each transitional period is worse than the two levels (the previous and the next) and many people simply can not come to the next one, but also because the aging is worsening of our ability for
adaptation and the transition is a kind of adaptation, as well as our whole life is. Then in the third chapter I will speak about the cares for our body, which we all neglect until are young, but when cease to be such it is already late; I will say here something about my
models for some mortal deceases, and about the organs of our body. Then in the fourth chapter I will give you my advices for the brain, which is the core part of our individuality, hence this is the ruling of the body, this is what keeps us fit at the top level. Then will follow a summing up conclusion, yet this is the end only of the prosaic part of the essay. But as far as all my social essays have a poetical Appendix, it must not be absent here, too, and it is worth to be read just by itself, and more so as a capstone of my immortal (I suppose -- you see, I take
all my works for immortal, because they are pretty unique) work.
1. General look at the medication
Here I will tell you first what the old Greek-Latin
medicine as science means, what is entirely my guess, unknown (I suppose) to the medics, but I just can't see how this can be else, though I may be also (in my usual habit, when trying to come alone to some conclusions, without profound studying of the matter) reinventing the wheel, as it's said, and this can be known in some etymological circles. It is simple -- like nearly all my ideas, I am popularizer -- and reduces to the statement that this word comes from the well known and widely spread medi- metha- etc. root meaning middle! You take just the words: Latin
medicator as medic, the geometric median (and
mediale-middle), the medulla-spinal-brain, the meduse, the
meditatio-meditation with some Sanskrit
medha as thought or reason, the medium /media (with the idea of some go-between), also Bulgarian & Slavonic 'med'-honey, where is your Eng. mead as the first (probably) alcoholic beverage (which, also as honey, in the Sanskrit was
madhu), the Greek preposition
meta-between, and many others. You see, medi- is not only a middle, it is also something sweet & nice, what we like (and for this reason in Slavonic 'med' means copper, as easily malleable metal), here is probably Greek
metallon-metal, meant as some means for conquering, the medal as a thing to which everybody aims, et cetera.
I will not go now in deep etymological investigations (because I have spoken about nearly
everything in my inimitable "Urrh, cum commentis", and also for the second time in my "Letters to the posterity"), but the idea of medicine, in two words, is the
moderate way of living, which, being moderate or middle (in some sense) is also the right one! And the slogan: everything in moderation, or the phrase about the
golden middle, is the most important message from old Greek civilization (which, if you ask me, has not so given to the West many philosophical ideas and notions, but has rather
stopped the ancient Eastern, of the Arabs & Persian, and hence of the Hindus, and probably also Chinese, influence over the West, passing only
some things, but not everything in its fullness). While what does the contemporary medicine, chiefly? Well, it cures the consequences from the bad way of life, as I have mentioned in the previous chapter, and makes the person
dependent on many medicaments, for which, as also for the contemporary food industry, the best that can be said is not to be poisonous in some way (and this is what, generally, is controlled somehow), but not sticking to some traditional for centuries and millenniums occupations, or the same about the food. The elimination of some of our bad habits is a necessary thing, I don't deny this, but the point is that they are incurred by our improper way of living, dictated by our contemporary (and decaying, I should say) civilization!
Now listen, it is not difficult, but you have to know that exactly obvious things are pretty often not understood and rejected, so that here the question is:
why the people do not want to be moderate? Because the humans are not
really silly, they have at least heard this about the moderation, but are turning a deaf ear to this, and I have just asked myself why it is so and have come out with the answer after some deliberation. Ah, the point is that moderate is synonymous with mediocre, and nobody wants to be mediocre nowadays, or whenever. OK, surely this is not the best thing in the world, but it depends. And on what it depends? Hmm, in this case on the age, because it is one thing when one is young to try to move higher, to come to some peaks, to stick out with something, not with moderation, of course, and it is quite another thing when one is sufficiently old, has come to pension age, and still does not want to become moderate, right? Because, let me return to the etymology and remind you also the word ...
remedy, which now, after my explanations, must be obvious that means a
returning (because of the prefix re-)
to the middle, to the norm! And this is, really, the chief remedy for the pensioners, the moderation, in whatever only aspect, because here it goes about life, not about making of career, and with not-moderate actions in old age one can only become a ridicule in the eyes of the others.
Let me dwell here a bit more, because one has to be moderate even in the moderation, not to become really mediocre, but in a way, more original with something, be it even with his moderation. And in order to do this one has to move
in counterflow of the ... ads! Because what they offer you, ah? They offer one or another way of
fixing to something, which more often than not is unnecessary. The right thing is to buy chiefly only basic food, and as simple as possible, and as natural as you can allow yourself (because this is a matter of money, nowadays, the natural food, which was the only food before less than a century, now costs about 3 times more than the surrogates). And the things offered by food industry are made palatable (be they for eating or for drinking), you gulp them and gulp and feel
not satiated, because this is what this industry wants, that you buy more and more of these products, and this is not moderation. It
might be that those companies think about people not putting on much weight, but it looks much more probable that they think about their wins, so that don't get caught on this hook. And, after all, the opposing to the ads, in my view, is a question of
common sense, and because there are chiefly two age groups to which the ads are directed, this of the silly adolescents, and that of the ... again silly pensioners, one has to take care growing old to oppose to some natural tendencies.
Also, I should say, the moderation means not only lessening of some things, occupations, which one likes to have much and because of this looses the real measure (like eating or drinking, or watching TV, or whatever else), but in the same time increasing of such activities which one does not like much, but which are necessary for the body & the soul (like movement, thinking, trying to do something alone, or generally making of some unnecessary efforts to do things which one can buy, but making alone is healthier). In a well developed country, without monetary compulsion to make whatever alone, it will be more difficult for the pensioners to lead healthy way of life, but you have at least to try, because this
slumbering effect of mass industry over the people is contraindicated more for the older people than for the others, for the reason that the aging is basically lack of adaptation to the changes and one has to oppose to this, otherwise one falls in prostration, what is nearing to the death.
And have in mind also that the old folks have looked at the diseases as like at some punishment from the gods for their wrong way of life, in what I begin in my old years more and more to believe. Because, what is an illness? It is a deviation from some norm, right, hence this norm can as well be taken for the right way of living. And a norm, obviously, must be something moderate, in the middle (between the people). And I have begun to think about the death of some of my relatives and good acquaintances and have come to the conclusion that they, surely, could have lived longer if have not done this, or then have done that. So that why should you be of those who die young, give to the others this possibility.
2. Dangers of the transition to old age
Every transitional period is bad with something, and the transition to old age is bad with the lessening of our abilities to do whatever, we think that can do it, but, alas, it is not exactly so. If you are more or less moderate by nature, or are forced earlier to think about your older years, you can easier manage this transition, but otherwise you have to take special care. And it turns out that here the men, surely, are significantly more vulnerable than the women, for several reasons. For one thing they are stronger and, hence, more immoderate; for another thing they are stronger hit by the lessening of their abilities, because this is with what they chiefly boast; and for third thing this slump comes by them in older years than by the women, when they are less capable to moderation and changes. This has to be so, because the difference in life expectancy by both sexes is big enough, it is about 6-7 percents, what could not been ignored, the men die earlier and there have to be reasons for this. And here is what they are, from the viewpoint of the women: they are more moderate as organisms, they are more adaptive (they endure significantly big changes during the period of giving birth to the children, and they meet with some changes of their way of life each month even from the puberty), and they reach their climax earlier and have time enough to prepare themselves for the old years. So that, my men-colleagues, take some measures (if my women-readers will agree to skip this I would have proposed for the
men to go earlier on pension with at least 3 years).
Then there is the mortality curve for both sexes where I have seen one of the following form, on the vertical axes is the mortality (number of deaths) and on the horizontal is the age, and this curve from 0 to about 100 looks roughly like the beginning 3 strokes of the letter "w"(!), what means that first it decreases sharp to about 14 years (really sharp to about 6 and then slower), when is reached the minimum, then it begins to increase pretty slowly nearly to about 80 (with some bend about 65 where it begins to grow a bit faster above), and after this maximum (like somewhere in the first months after birth) it begins to
fall down also fast enough (so that in the age of 100 it reaches the mortality of about 3 years old, and at about 120 is supposed probably to reach the lowest rate of 14 years old).
I don't know whether you have got me right, and also may allow myself to put to doubt the exactness and generality of the curve, but as model this seems to me quite possible, i.e. that after some age people as if
cease to die and live for very long years. I believe in this because the illnesses take one by one all people, and there have to remain in the end such ones who have led right way of life and have no special diseases (like I deem to be myself one of them), and I think that everybody has to make a try to be one of them. Also I have heard one interesting anecdote about the best healing herb. So it was such one, that, providing you have lived up till 100, will allow you to live also to 200, if you will drink brews with it. This may be meant as something impossible, yet I find it not only possible, but probable and worth trying; more than this, I think that I have discovered this herb, and it is known from millenniums and was highly honored in the ancient times but was forgotten nowadays because of our powerful (and because of this more harmful) contemporary medicines. I will speak about it in the next chapter (and have spoken not a little in my "Bulgarian survival"), but in order not to keep you under suspense will name it, this is the common dandelion met everywhere.
One has to begin to give a though or two to this transition to the old age somewhere
about 45 but not later than 50, because before 40 one does not yet believe that will grow old (I myself have not believed), and about 55 to 60 it may already be late, and this is more imperative for the men, than for the women, of course, for the reason that the women have received their alert in their critical age about 40, they are prepared, but the men are not. What one can do in such situation? Well, to begin to moderate him- or her- self in all possible ways, and simply to begin to
work less and seek some more interesting occupation if this is possible. After all this is justified, because one has not so big
personal necessities about 50, not like when he (she) was about 20, and he already receives bigger salary than at 20, so that, why more than this and not a bit less, when needed? There are usually the offsprings to think about, but they are till this time grown people, so that what I say is quite possible, yet nobody does it. Still, I have thought about this and have made one simple and natural proposition, which I will mention briefly also here.
Now, it goes about, let me call it so,
partial pensioning, i.e. from some age, I think 45 is good enough, one begins to work a bit less, and to receive some tiny portion of his (or her, I will not repeat it) pension, and let this be by 10 %. Then after 5 years (or so) one works with another 10 % less and receives the next 10 % more of the pension (till this time he could have some pension, surely, and about 20 years or more length of service in the normal case), and so on. Yet because the working day has normally 8 hours it is better to make this by 12.5 % (1/8-th) what will give 1 hour daily less -- a nice thing I will say. More than this, if this decreasing of the working day will continue each 5 years, and beginning at 45, this will give from 70 years only 2 hours daily, or 25 % salary, but already 75 % of the pension -- did you get it? But this is not everything, the idea is that somewhere after 60 it will make not a big difference whether one will work even on part day basis, or will receive only his pension, so that everyone will be able to decide for himself. ( This is so because by this numbers of percents and after 5 year each time, starting at 45, 4 times by 12.5 %, this will make at 60 exactly half working day and half pension. And then if we take that the pension will be roughly 50 % of the salary, this means 1/2 + 1/2*1/2 = 3/4 = 75 % of his usual salary, what I find just perfect. )
You see, this does not mean to go each day at the working place, even if for 3 hours, no, I make so only the calculations because it is easier in this way, but the idea is to reject one by one all working days, until after 70 one has to work just 2 days by about 5 hours, what I suppose everybody will be able to do, after all. Because the point is to
remove the sharp step, from full working week to zero, this is what sends the people faster to the grave, the big step, even if it is in beneficial for the person direction, because one becomes used to the work, one does not know what to do without this occupation, and begins to look for some part time work, or else falls in deep drinking, or simply dies faster, it is so, really! I am not psychologist, but such is the usual model, the abrupt changing of habits is what disorients the organism, while if this happens gradually it is accepted with pleasure; otherwise said, one wants to go on pension in order to
begin at last
to work less, not to cease entirely.
People, you try alone to ponder about this, but I recall that when I was young boy and studied in the school, in nearly each holiday I got some illness (a flu usually) that spoiled my repose, only because the organism demobilizes itself, changes its rhythm. Then I am unemployed from more than a quarter of a century (for the reason that my qualification was too
high for our transitional period to the democracy, which has not yet ended, because our living standard is still about
3 times less than under the totalitarianism, Bulgaria is the poorest EU country), and I know pretty well what is to sit doing nothing, and to search for
whatever activity (which I have found, naturally, I have begun to write various publicistic materials, to do etymological researches, to translate myself in 2 other languages, to write poetry, etc., but it is usually much easier if one does this, what has done many years). And one my colleague (assistant in our oldest University) has gone to pension, has taught a pair of years as part time work, and then has begun exactly to drink incessantly, and has ended his life path some months before his 70-th year with cirrhosis amidst other illnesses.
Then the good thing of this proposition is that in the beginning, when the decreasing of working time is with not more than a 1/4 of the total length, the person will give practically not less work, I suppose, because will feel himself better, more relaxed. And then after 65 one will be able to continue to work till 75 or maybe more but even less and less time. And this will be better also for the employer, yet it is not done because of the bad tradition, yeah. And don't forget also that the pensions are quite new invention, before a pair of centuries people worked until they could, say as farmers in the fields, so that everybody regulated somehow his working activity, but now we can't do this, or rather
can -- because one can alone try to organize something like my proposal here, although without percents from the pension -- but nobody even dreams to do so, being afraid that his employer will prefer to cut him out of the staff, while everything is a matter chiefly of proper habits and traditions. Only persons who have their own business can make something like my proposal, but even they avoid doing it, and, as consequence, die earlier (before 80, what, I think, is the proper age nowadays). So that you all, my readers, are those, who have to express similar wishes, and after some years this can become a reality. Up to my mind such
floating pension age, whenever
after 50 will be the best decision for all participants, and everybody will choose what he wants, what will turn to be on the average the same as now, but much more gradually and, hence, healthier for the people, as well of advantage for the employers.
3. Cares for the body
This chapter I will begin with the statement that the organism is
organized! How brilliant, ah? ( And I can put here also the ... orgasm, because from linguistical point this has to be so, the latter is some organized feeling of happiness. ) Yet what I mean is that each part of the body, each organ is in some extent organized, it is not unanimated, it has its goals and wishes, and everybody has to look in this way at his body, to try to understand each organ and to help it to do its work better, because otherwise arise illnesses. If you alone are not cleverer than your, say, muscles, or heart, or stomach, or ... testicles, or whatever, you will not succeed to live your allotted portion of time, you will wear out one body organ, while the other organs could be of use for you for 20 or more years, and this is silly, so that you try to act more intelligent.
After these beginning words about the cares for the body I will tell you chiefly my own experience, what I do for this or that organ, but let me first share with you one my recent guess about the most serious (I suppose) illness in the current days, the cancer, where I simply insist that have come to some
new (at least I have heard nothing of the kind)
model for this illness. It is simple: the cancer arises when some organ begins to feel that it functions not properly and
wants to better itself, to give the utmost possible, so to say, out of ... moral remorse! I know that I deserve Nobel Prize, but I
don't need it, I have nothing to do with such big money in such poor country. Though, if a bit more serious, I am, really, convinced in this, and will give you some examples which I know good.
My mother died quite young a bit before 60 of breast cancer, and I have heard from my father that she has had problems with breast feeding me, but I have made then no conclusions. Yet in some recent time I have got it that it is quite probable that about 40-something her breasts have begun to make efforts to be useful with something; to
develop themselves, only that they have not known how to do this and whether to do something in this aspect at all. And, philosophically looking, this is
the same problem with the humankind as a whole, because we want to be better, yet we
don't know how, and don't listen to some clever persons, because they tell us boring things -- like myself here, telling you to be moderate, not to want actions and thrillers, yeah!
Then my father died "decently" old, at nearly 80, but still for no serious reasons, because the cause for his death was this time stomach cancer, otherwise he was in quite good health (like also my mother, there were tried all possible remedies of the so called folk medicine, and she was kept in really good health condition, except for the most important incurable cancer). And later I recalled that he had the habit to drink after meal some backing soda, because of having much acids, what is something very harmless, yet his stomach has not thought so in the old age, and has begun to take its own measures -- because he mentioned at the end that for a long time has stopped to drink more of this soda. This time I remember everything pretty well, he has stopped drinking soda for some years, and for some reasons, come to think of this now! And there is one more example which I connect with this my theory, there was a friend of my friend who died at about 65 of cancer of the testicles, and he was married several times, I have seen him, and his last wife, she was with about 20 years younger than he, and at about 60 he had an abiturient girl (finishing senior school, at age of 18). And now tell me that his testicles have not wanted to help him somehow, ah? So that is it, old guys and girls, the cancer is an
intelligent disease,
Well, these my discoveries are no medicines, they don't cure, but this is knowledge, and I, as former scientist, know that even the negative knowledge is a kind of knowledge, so that this model could be used somehow by the medics (providing they were such in the old meaning of this word, which I told you, i.e. wanted to
help the body to fight the illnesses, not to suppress nearly all body functions with strong medicaments). And for the other illnesses I have not such models, but I have
feelings as to what is good and what is bad for the body organs, which are reduced, in most of the cases, to some cheap and
simple way of living, which I am both, forced to lead, but also glad that I lead, so that I will give in this chapter basically me as example for the right way of living, which things I have published in my "Bulgarian Survival" before about a decade. But, well, maybe to tell you before this about my discovery of the magical herb, which will help you after 80 (let not be exactly 100) to live up to 120 at least (if not to 150).
So I have used the dandelion for long time because this is some food and it costs nothing, and other nations use it sometimes, yet not we the Bulgarians (because of the thought that we are not so poor for to eat all kinds of grasses -- what we think
exactly because
are extremely poor). Then because of this my friend, who succeeded to develop for a pair of years sharp cirrhosis, I looked up in one herbal book and found that the dandelion was used from the times of Hippocrates in cases of illnesses of the liver, and later have occasionally heard that in some Arabic countries in the old times the places where it grew were specially guarded (in deserted areas this must have been important) and it was even cultivated. Anyway, it is highly necessary in the beginning of the year and I pick it each year from March till about May and preserve it also in some form (say, with salt & vinegar). And then I did my etymological investigations and recalled the Turkish & Arabic 'dzhiger' (they write it as
ciger but probably in English it will be
jiger) as liver, and here are the Southern Asian 'dzigits' (
jigit) as good riders (only
ji in Armenian was a horse), and there is Bulgarian 'zhivot' as life, or then Lat.
vita &
viva, and so on (if you like, the Arabic
jihad as something very fast, then their
jin-spirit, etc. -- search in my
Urrh), and the old habit (or belief) to eat the liver even raw as good for the life -- you see, in the English this relation liver - life is also hidden, come to think about --, what produces the idea that the dandelion is good for the
jiger-liver, which is practically the basis of the 'zhivot'-life! And I personally eat not only the leaves (I cook them because have no teeth, put in nearly every dish), but make also pretty good honey imitation (from the blossoms -- in my
Survival).
Then a very good practice, if you ask me, is the making of wines out of
wild fruits (like cherries, brambles, hips and apples, etc. -- again in the
Survival), for these wines are not like those out of grapes, they must have more vitamins, and I fix them with nothing, they are
alive (I usually keep them in special big bottles with a tubule going through the stopper and in a small container with water, so that the gases were able to exit, but the oxygen from the air was stopped)! This is a nice "medicine" for the stomach, and from there for all intestines, I think, and I drink between 100 and 200 grams daily and use even the vinegar after the wine as a kind of ... lemon juice (I put it in my tea). You see, there are two ways to make raw preserves of vegetables, and they are: with using of salt, or with vinegar, and I usually put both. But what I mean is that the acid things are harmless and even healthy, while much salt is not good; pouring something sour in your stomach you help it in the digestion. And surely everybody can make alone some similar wines, or then to show willingness to buy such things, in order to force the market to start producing such goods. If you can't do this you probable may try to drink a soup spoon (or a half) of some natural vinegar after the meal (or in a cup of water, and /or sugared), this will not harm you.
Then there is the necessary for all old people
aqua vita or "night cap", what means 50 to 100 gr (this is what I do, but I am skinny, so that for some of you 150 will also do) of some hard drink daily, what is good, this time, for the hearth (and muscles and for good sleep). I make myself these drinks alone with bought
spiritus aethylicus (called also
spiritus vini), pouring some of it over boiling water (in order to leave out the most volatile fractions, I suppose), but I use more than a dozen essences or tinctures of various herbs or fruits (also see the
Survival) and colour it too, so that it is a pleasure to have such "cap" in the evenings, and probably these herbs are also healing (say, coriander & dill /anise, or lemon rind, or sour cherry, or rowan berries, etc.). For these reasons or for others, which I will also mention, but the truth is that I use practically
no medicaments, even aspirin (say, for the last 5
years I have probably taken 5
tablets, but maybe less, by about a quarter of a tablet, and
nothing else)! Where I can't say that am as hard as a stone, I have had twice kidney aches, I have had a pair of times probably heart pains (on the left of the chest, anyway), I am thin like a herb, have some pains in the joints (especially around the left knee), I have no teeth at all (
1.5 to be frank, and no false ones too), I am short-sighted from young years and have about 8 dioptres, so that I am not a
macho-man but maybe that's the point, and I have no internal diseases, what matters (I suppose), because the GPs are usually internal physicians. This means that I will be forced in the end to
die healthy, but I suppose again that that's the point.
Now, my readers, I am forced by our botched democracy to keep myself in good health (having no money for medics), and you, in your affluent countries, will have it a bit harder to lead healthy way of life, but then you just don't forget that this is
life, after all! So what I also do to keep myself in good condition is: no smoking (I have given it up 2 times, and can't say that regret it), no using of lift up the 5-th floor (up and down, with or without baggage), some jogging (once in a week in the corridor of my flat, before bathing, up to 2,000 jumps or more in my nearly 70 years), some push-ups (about 30, also once weekly), practically no city transport and sometimes I walk for
10 or more bus stops (because 1 bus ticket costs a bit more than I spend
daily for eating
and drinking -- if you could believe this, but my daily pension turns to be about
3, still less than 4, bus tickets!). Also, surely, I watch practically
no TV, no actions or thrillers, no contemporary popular music, no football or whatever matches, no gaming or lotteries, no pubs etc., I only listen to classical music, read relatively intelligent books in
foreign languages (to what I will come later), and work on the Internet publishing on many sites (ah, well, write funny poetry in a
pair of languages when am pissed, sorry, by the life). And I think that I am leading healthy way of life, or else you tell me where is my error.
You will, surely, not be like me, so that I can allow you to watch a bit TV, till 1.5 hours daily, or a dozen hours in a week, but not more, as a rule. Then you have not to forget the necessity for movement, physical loading of the muscles, because, let me put it in this way, they are made to function, if you do not load them they will begin to ache, to spoil your sleep, make you nervous, and so on; and the walking is a good thing, but it is chiefly
tiring of the muscles, while the jogging is something else, you fly in the air for some time, your organism is mobilized, you think about the landing, your legs work as springs, they try to be elastic, this is much better. But mark, please, that the point is again to
oppose the usual
habits, to begin to do some sporting activity
not in young years (when all are inclined to do this), but exactly in old years (when this will not lead you to high records, but will
juvenile your body)! If you practice actively some sport in young years your organism develops faster and exceedingly (look at the sportsmen, to me they look like ... monsters, with overdeveloped organs), at least you build big heart and muscles, and they require later incessant additional activity, else the muscles droop and only hinder you and the heart in under danger of infarcts. While if you begin to do physical exercises after 50 there are not such dangers, you will newer become a real Apollo, but will simply feel younger; I myself can tell you that if I look at my body in a mirror I see a better developed chest (because of the push-ups) and legs, after more than a decade exercises, yet nothing extraordinary, I have simply come to a better norm (because have always led a sedentary life)!
Then the cigarettes are bad with this that they become
necessary for you, i.e. they
help you first, and harm you later (because all pleasures have to be paid sometime); I have come to this conclusion not only because was a smoker (although never exceeded about 25 packs in a month), but because they have diametrically
opposite effect on you depending on your wishes! For example, when you feel sleepy but want to keep awake, you smoke a cigarette and awake you, but when you are somehow tense and can't fall in sleep, then a cigarette pacifies you and you fall in slumber; the same also if you are hungry or not, or if you are tired, can't concentrate, and similar situations. This means that the cigarettes make you to a little baby, lessen your will, but in the same time, when they help you to give more out of you, to concentrate when some organ needs repose, they harm your body parts, that is. And having in mind my model of cancer it might as well turn that the often used and forced to strain organs begin to feel bound also to strain themselves and in this way to begin to develop themselves exceedingly. It is true that I gave up the smoking when was unemployed, and with no scolding wife around, but there have to be other means to substitute them (say, more coffee, or more physical exercises, or better diet, or self hypnosis, or more sex, or ... bad character, turning your anger on the others, or we can wait a little till the medicine comes up with some new thing, but the cigarettes are bad habit, and obviously harmful.
In addition to this you try with all your strength to limit to the possible minimum all medicaments that you take, be it against headache or something more serious, and when necessary try first to apply the simplest possible, known from millenniums, means, because when our healthcare is put on financial and marketing grounds, it is not real healthcare, it can make you only dependent on the pharmacy, while you have to depend chiefly on you own body (and soul). Say, I use for nearly all skin irritation only two "medicaments", either some spiritus
solution or some cream, or sometimes both; not that I scorn at whatever unguent or tablets, but use them exceedingly economical (what means one packing for a ... decade or so). Also for economical reasons I keep in my flat in winter about 16 degrees (what means that the temperature may rise also to 18 sometimes, but it falls also sometimes to 14), what is not very comfortable, and I work with some
gloves on the computer, but is very healthy, so that I don't need even aspirin. If you are so stuffed with money that don't know what to do with them, then subscribe in some fitness club (after 60 at least), go somewhere to swim regularly, equip one of your rooms with fitness equipment, pay once in a week for some sexual services by young girls or guys, try old Eastern healing methods, whatever but
not the contemporary drugs, sold chiefly because if you pay to some physician he /she is bound to prescribe you something, he must win his bread somehow. Or, to put it otherwise, help yourself alone, if you want that God helps you in His turn.
Then I can say a pair of words also about the putting of weight, what seems to be modern illness in the rich countries, where I don't think that the right way is to consume the stuff our food industry offers, because they all have their pecuniary goals, to make you buy more and more of their products, and for this purpose they offer you relatively tasty but not nourishing food, where I think that such persons have just to eat
not tasty food, only this will make them to eat less, surely! And such things can be raw vegetables, pieces of beans or peas, rice (this at least will surely be digested in the stomach), something that fills (with much cellulose) but is also not tasty; anyway, low calories is one thing, and tasty is another thing. But I told this before: oppose the ads, oppose the consumptive society, stay against the high records, but think for your own body and its organs, and try to reach the threshold of 80 years with as sound as possible body. For this purpose will be best if you will try to make
alone whatever you can make alone, just in order to find some occupation for you and move and load the whole organism; an anti-market behaviour is always more healthy, especially for the aging people. What you always need is to find ...
surmountable difficulties, because this both, loads and occupies the organism, and then gives you pleasure that you have won this time (again).
This is right from psychological point of view, so that you try just what you like, to cook, to paint, to invent verses or stories, to make, say, pottery, or embroidery, or grow plants and species (like I do this, too, on the balcony), or repair your home, or keep it clean at least (what I am bored to do, I confess), or whatever, but
alone, not to watch the others (playing football, or, then, making sex). The desire to watch what the others do, or buy what the others have produced, is dictated by our wish for ... perfection, but the old age is not the perfect one (surely), and the very life is not perfect, and the imperfection is what makes one interesting with something, and we do not need perfection but our own
participation. And in the next chapter I will dwell about the sound mind, or the
anima sana, that has to be kept in a
corpore-body
sano.
4. Cares for the brain
This, surely, is of utmost importance, because the brain is our ruling, it organizes everything (what can be organized) in the body, and one has to begin to think about this also somewhere about 45, not later than 50, and to take the necessary measures, which I will reduce to one single thing that will keep your brain functioning, working, and also not bored or slumbered like by the TVs and the ads, and the actions & thrillers, or football matches, et cetera. And what can this panacea be, ah? Well, the
foreign languages! Yet not in order to speak them well, because this will be difficult in the old years, but just to
use them to
read chiefly, to
compare the words and expressions, to find about what to ponder, in short, to give work to the brain, which work is not slumbering or lulling it with some silly blah-blah, but makes it to try really to work, what means to build new neuronal circles, or to refresh the old ones, and such work that is also interesting, not tedious, and really intelligent, worthy this central organ.
You see, the brain consists chiefly of long neuron tails that cross one with the other and build the so called
synapses, through which exchange of chemical iones is performed, and in this way, very roughly speaking, are built some circles relating some inputs with some outputs, so that some frame-like structures appear, and every such frame is a mental picture of some notion (or word). But these frames must be refreshed from time to time, else they are dissolved and you begin to forget, there appeared holes in the memory, you remember that you have known something but forget what it was (like, for example, I have once wondered for a pair of hours, or probably of days, how was the Easter in English, because in this word is hidden the East, i.e. this is some old Eastern holiday, but in Bulgarian it is literally called "Great Day", so that I had reasons to wonder about the name, the frames here are quite different). For this reason you need incessant thinking activity or you turn to senile moron, so that the resting here is not in the total rest but in choosing of a lighter, more effortless mode, and the languages have this advantage that they require no higher mathematics or other specialized knowledge (chemical or physical, or then factual knowledge like in geography, literature, biology, philosophy, religion, etc.), yet they are intellectual activity, unquestionable. And if you succeed to build new frames, not only to restore the old ones, this means that you are almost young. Even better than this, succeeding to build new functioning frames, this means that you can make relations with other old frames (knowledge), so that you are preferable than an young ... child (or imbecile -- ha, ha, old imbecile is preferable that an young one), for example, whose chains of knowledge are too short.
Well, there is this thing with the knowledge accumulated by old people, that they know many things but chiefly intuitive, i.e. they have forgotten the exact inferences (there are some holes in the canvas present), but can generally make right conclusions! Because this is the intuition, some global sight over the matter yet without many details, or else said, to have some
feeling, like the women usually have. OK, but what of it? It is not said that the old people must be able to defend, say, a PhD thesis in theoretical physics, it suffices if they can make sound judgements about the things they understand. But the most precious thing of the languages are their
idioms, i.e. the words or expressions that are used not in their literal meaning (say, red herring, hot dog, etc.), and /or the proverbs, and /or the manner of speaking. Each language builds some spot in the brain (which may not be really spatially positioned in one place, it can be dispersed, I suppose, but such is the expression), and when you know several languages then these spots can
communicate between themselves, what is exactly proper work for your brain cells. More then this, in this way you can incessantly discover
new knowledge, based on the juxtaposing of different frames, this is a ... feast, I should say, for the brain, obviously much better than solving of crosswords, or watching of soap-operas, or football matches, believe me! And all this is accessible to everybody, what is necessary is just to show the wish somewhere before 50 years, and you discover one new world!
Yeah, this is really so, because in this way you begin to know one different nation, you look to the world through the eyes of new people, this is always interesting. I don't say that you can not begin, say, between 40 and 50, to learn some new profession, or religion, or change the community and /or country, but what I propose is
easier, because now everybody (I suppose even in Rwanda) learns first & second languages, he does not learn them good enough in order to communicate in them, but some traces are always left. Or then one has some private preferences or wishes for foreign languages and /or countries and after his (or her, I said that will not repeat this each time) climax it is high time to give a thought to this matter. Because after 40-something one will surely not begin to conquer the world, but is bound to conquer his own body and soul in his preparation for the meeting with the Creator, as it's said. ( Even if the Creator does not exist one has to be ready for this meeting, am I right, because -- what if He exists? And if it is not literally for this "Lord", then one has to leave good memory after himself, so that one must begin to look more
contemplative at the world, and a foreign language is a peaceful knowledge, from some other standpoint, this may help somehow. )
Now, I want to tell you another one of my guesses, about the three, exactly, periods in everybody's life, which idea is not right for Nobel prize, no, it is, probably, for some Doctor Honoris Causa of some University (say, of this of
The Second Coming, or of
Causa Magnifica, or of
Urbi at Orbi -- I am not bad in inventing fictitious names), and I can quite well share it with you. So according to me the first phase in human life is the so called (by me, naturally)
post-uteral phase (or period), which lasts approximately from 0 to 20, but we can count it even as to 25, years and it is characterized with acquiring of more knowledge in order to become full-rights participant in the life on this world; have also in mind that about 26 years is the length of one generation, i.e. new generations appear after so many years. Then as second comes the
propagatory phase, which lasts till 45, but we can count it also a bit extended up to 50, years, during which one "produces" (on the average) the new generation and does what can about his pushing forward in the process of making of career and conquering of the world. After this comes the last phase called (as I hinted above)
contemplative, in which one tries to make clear face before the others, to leave good memory about himself, to accept the necessity to leave this world (or to get the meaning of meaningless life), or in many of the cases (as I suppose) to spend his life as useless as possible (not knowing how to spend it useful).
As far as we are interested here basically about the old age I think that in this contemplative phase one chiefly looks at the others and
not acts alone, what allows him to give more thoughts to everything. Yeah, but I find it very probable that the majority of people (say, 95 %, at least 90) prefer not to give more thoughts to the life and take it as granted and accept the inevitable (i.e. the death) as bad luck, while the thoughtful persons (like me) try to grasp the meaning of meaningless (life) as something reasonable, after all. If you are of the first category you may not pay much attention to your brain (because you do not use it much), but my meaning is that if you keep your brain well working you will not only come lighter to good terms with the world, but will be able to manage better your body. So that it depends on the person, but I think it is worth mentioning my view at the lack of meaning (for the individual, that's it), which is that if there
was some meaning of the life of each person (or animal, or tree, or stone, atom, etc.), then we would have long ago reach
ed it (being, especially in the last pair of centuries, really powerful) and after this point there would have been again no meaning of life! This sounds a bit more soothing to me; and as to the meaning of life from the standpoint of some Creator, then I am convinced that such
exists, it is to see
what will happen next, this is a very interesting
game!
( Because I, as mathematician, have heard about, and been interested for some time in, the so called
cellular automata, which are pretty simple cells, obviously with
no souls, even without bodies, because they exist only theoretically, outside of the reality, but they build quite interesting pictures, and some of them can even ...
propagate themselves, so that they are, really, functions of some structures, here I cant say matter, for they are immaterial. So that the complicated structures can show, after reaching of some level of complexity, characteristics of alive objects, can have, so to say, their souls, purpose in life, such things. So that, why should one try to
diminish the diversity of this world only because can't see its meaning, or God's intentions? And also about the God, to which theme I intend to dedicate another material, I can say that this is absolutely
necessary term for designing of the
union of the matter as a whole, and the idea or information about it, which notion simply eliminates the question about what is first or ruling, the matter, or the idea or laws of its functioning, they are practically indivisible, each thing depends on the other. And one more thing, the really
principal questions, like God for example, are for us, usually, ...
of no importance, they have chiefly academic interest, they do not influence our life! )
5. Conclusion
Ah well, it looks like I have finished this pretty needful, in my view, material, although I am not so much read on the sites, or then am read about
thousand times less than needed (because after a pair of years I have usually about 10 or tens of thousands of readers, while judging by the importance of my works, according to myself, of course, I would have had about 10 or tens of
millions of readers). Nevertheless I have done my duty and have told you that the important principles for to live longer is to do this, what you usually do
not want to do, namely: to lead poor and simple way of life, to try to keep to the golden middle exceeding in nothing especially, to make intermediate steps when you have to change drastically your way of life, to think about every of your body organs as of an animated object equipped with some kind of soul, to find surmountable difficulties in order to keep you in fighting spirit, so to say, and to find some interesting and not slumbering activity for you brain, so that to maintain both,
anima sana &
corpore sano till somewhere about 80, when can leave to the dear God to chose the very moment of your last farewell breath, hoping that you have left between the cohabitants decent memory of you.
I, for my part, have decided, and this "scientifically" motivated, that I will leave this world at the 3rd day of the 5th month of the year 35th of this century, and even between 3 and 5 o'clock in the morning, after the second ... emptying of the bladder! Does this sound good, ah? Well, I think it does, because I will be then nearly 85 years old (what isn't really much, after all), and if by some unforeseeable circumstances I have made some little error -- nobody is perfect, you know, -- then any time
later but not before; still, I don't think that more than 100 years is advisable in the current moment (maybe after a pair of centuries till 120, yet not now).
Then about this contemplative phase (because at least for me it is so, I chiefly look now at the madness of all people around me, but basically of the barbarous Bulgarians), I insist on this name because this is what one has to do the cleverer he becomes. You just look at the dear God, does He do something more, now? Nop! He has done His Creation and has left everything after this moment, and, the most important thing, He does not think, nor has ever thought, about procreation, never. Id est, if one is very clever one has to
stop the procreation, because, I judge by my experiences, one can understand his great intellect only on the background of silly people teeming around him, not otherwise, and if one is clever enough one has to see that it is
more fun to watch than to act, and this is what God, in fact, does, isn't it?
Ah, but come to think about, there is one paradoxical or interesting moment with these phases, namely that the conclusion to which one can come in the contemplative phase
can't be genetically passed to the posterity, because in that moment one is normally beyond the propagatory phase! Did you get it? And here I can see only three possibilities. The one is that our dear God has made some
tiny error (not that I want to criticize Him, but just as possibility), in what I don't believe much now, because God (or resp. Nature) can not err
in principle, for the reason that what has settled somehow and exists must have been the only possible solution under the circumstances (these are old Eastern views about parallel universes, or that everything is just, when has succeeded to come to reality, and so on). The other and most probable variant is that the wisdom got in the contemplative phase is
not really
necessary to be passed to the posterity, because one has to act according to his (imperfect, partial, silly, etc.) understandings, in order to allow the very life to
exist (and to provide objects at which some exceptionally wise guys or girls can look at their contemplative phase), and that what we all need are actions not philosophizing (what is the core conclusion of one old Hindu poem, "Bhagavad Gita"). And the third and last possibility is that we are left to do this genetical passing of wisdom on purpose when deemed necessary (what we, in fact, can do even now, because men are able to do
it till at least 60, and women could do it, when needed, at about 40 -- at least in extra-uterine way).
So that is it, everything is just, and 95 % of the people have to die before the coveted limit of about 80 years, in order to allow to some clever 5 %, who know how to live properly, to reach and exceed this age! I have done my duty, I have opened your eyes, yet if this my wisdom is too dazzling for you and makes you blind (or deaf), then it is your right not to listen to me. Adieu.
Nov, 2018
9. Appendix
[ With the remark that the char "º" is used below for making of additional syllable, similarly to the apostrophe ("'") used for missing of one. ]
LISTEN PEOPLE, YOUNG AND OLD!
Listen heºre peopºle of all nations:
Life is chiefly act of adaptation!
Women, they all theºir life adapt,
Hence for the old age they are more apt;
Men, though, they fall fast in ruination.
Also movement is the core of all alive,
So that you don't stop to walk, run, jog, says I,
Theºre are some hidden mechanisms,
That keep fit thus all your organism,
Else you'll sooner make in-th' other world your dive.
Then if you want longer be as fit as fiddle,
You must stick in everything to-th' golden middle,
And if this will make you mediocre,
What of it, in old age worse things occur;
Mark, the moderation-'s answer of the riddle!
Plus this you must have beloved activity,
Watch what others do is deep naivety,
Do it with your hands, brain, legs, alone,
Else you will the old age curse and mourn;
Oºwn deeds give reasons for festivity.
Ah, and you must stay in opposition
To the very consumer position,
Else you will become senile addict
To things that must, frankly, make you sick;
What's against the soul is superstition!
And because, you know, exists statistics,
Which is not at all equilibristics,
When you sooner die this will allow
To some other live bit longer, wow!
I hope this will make you optimistic.
Sep, 2018
MANIFESTO OF THE IIE*
(Initiative for Iterative Elections)
[ * Here are three "i"-s in the original because "election" in Bulgarian begins with this letter. ]
The history of all societies is a history of
selection of public leaders! However strong and powerful one country is, if it is not well organized and governed, the society cannot demonstrate this, to what it is capable, the country is torn by internal confrontations and becomes easy prey for others, better organized than it, countries. And much more needed is the good organization if the country is poor and weak. But in the human society the organization is performed
by the humans and, therefore, it reduces mainly to finding of most capable rulers and setting them at the head of the power. In conditions of dictatorship this is performed from above, where in conditions of democracy -- from below, but
the problem remains, because it is very difficult to be solved and, usually, some decision is taken, but with no guaranties that it is the best one. Let us have a better look at this.
Under the dictatorship the rulers are appointed by the dictatorial body (be it one person or some counsel), what is good, if this body is competent and honest, bus as far as this rarely happens the good dictatorships are also rarity in the history, and what is worse: when there come incapable rulers they compensate in abundance for all good, which their predecessors have done. Under the dynastic and monarchical forms of governing it is accepted that the choice of the new dictator must be done from the descendants of the old, because the "seed" is the same, but this, alas, guaranties nothing. The only plus of the choice from above is that the area for searching of rulers is restricted to few and related with some aristocratic or other relations persons having received good education and who can, more or less, be made known to the dictator, i.e. some
diminishing of the pool of choice is achieved.
Under the democratic choice (the choice from below) the things go well only
if the group of voters
is relatively small, and they can know good the persons whom they choose, but on a state's level this choice appears to be nearly as bad as the other one, with the single plus that the bad ruler can't state for long in power and can easily be changed with another one (usually as incompetent as the previous!). However small this advantage is, it, still, is something, so that we shall try to retain it, i.e. we will observe the democratic model, but let us not be mistaken that it works now good,
because the problem of choice remains! This is the problem that when one chooses somebody, who is to rule him (or her), he must choose the more competent one, but for this purpose
he alone must be competent enough in order to make the choice! In other words, one can choose only such boss for himself who is as good as he is (or worse), but
not better one, by the simple reason that he is
not in condition to assess him right! The things worsen even more because the managerial art isn't at all an area with which everybody is familiar (as, for example, the football), so that the ordinary citizen simply
has no chances to be specialist in it.
At any rate, this has to be obvious, because in each human activity there exist commissions for making of decisions about the abilities of competitors, and these commissions are more competent than the very participants, but in the national elections it is
on the contrary! The choice from below can work only
in case of very small difference in the abilities of the competitor and the commission, what can make it similar to the competent choice from above. For this reason the humanity from times immemorial applies the simplest rule
of iterative choice, where small groups of people choose their representatives, which form another groups, where the same rule is applied, and so on, until the top level is reached. This is the main method of work in each party or group of people, where the democratic choice is applied. The only reason why this is not done in general elections is the
difficulty for performing of such estimation, but only this is the right way, if we want to make good decision! We from the
Initiative for Iterative Elections (IIE) have definite proposition, which we shall explain below, but let us first clarify the obvious minuses of the existing democratic choice, which are wisely hidden by all traditional parties, or, better, by the politicians on the higher levels of power.
1. Drawbacks of the democratic choice
a) In the direct national elections
people vote, as a rule,
for parties, not for personalities! This is easy to explain because the parties live longer and are better cognizable than the personalities, and because it is tacitly presupposed that in the very parties the iterative choice is applied, but neither this can always be guarantied, nor the parties are just sums of their members. The parties are
places for career making and receiving of personal benefits, what has to say that the party members have their own interests, different from those of the people who they represent. Besides,
the party system contradicts to the democracy, because the democracy requires access to the power for wider masses of citizens, where the members of all parties in a given country usually don't exceed 10% of its population, what gives us reasons to speak about
partocracy, or ruling of the parties! Anyhow, this is sufficiently clear, but all parties taken together resolutely keep silence about this (and this question, as it seems, is the only one on which they have consensus) and insist, each in its own way, that they are the best representatives of the people. The important thing for us here is to reach to the conclusion that the choice must be held out for personalities, and only after their choosing they may be united in some groups with similar views of the things, but this groups must not obliterate their singularity.
b) The choice at the top, naturally,
means not knowing the people and this leads to lack of objectivity and exclusion of the right decision. This follows from the mentioned in the beginning problem of the choice, and because of this it follows that leaders on the top must advertise themselves in the same way as, for example, one car model, or prostitute, is advertised, where is not at all necessary that the most popular persons are also the best ones. One cannot choose somebody in a democratic manner if this somebody does not volunteer alone, and with this he (or she) can demonstrate only his higher self-esteem, though not some other qualities. But when a young boy intends to marry he does not go in the brothel to search there for his future bride, does he? The electors must vote for persons from their near surroundings, who they know, not for those from the political high-life -- and this also is pretty clear, if there were not the politicians to confuse the things.
c) The representatives of the people have no information about their electors, so that they, in fact, don't know who they are representing, and in this case they simply apply their personal (i.e. party) views, but not those of the voters! The single thing that they know is from which region they were elected but this is a
pure formality, because the dividing of people in regions of habitations is not at all important feature of the voters -- such characteristics would be, for example: the differences in ownership of capitals, or of age, or ethnical, educational, and so on differences. Besides, splitting by regions has no meaning on a level of our Parliament (the National Assembly), which is one national institution. If we direct our sights to the primal source of democracy -- the Ancient Athens -- so there were elected representatives of 50 genders (called
dems), what for that time was a substantial sign of differences between people. But if the delegates of people don't know which strata of population they represent, then
they are not representatives of the people at all! If they meet from time to time with "their" voters, then these people are not necessary exactly those who have elected them (because this can't be proved), but just people who want to use the position of a given representative in order to rise higher some question, or because they have no other things to do and on account of this go to these gatherings (but the same question they could have set also before representatives of some other political power).
For these reasons the traditional elections are plainly
procedure for lawful validation of the power of political oligarchy and for facilitating of its linking with certain business circles! The difficulty for choosing of persons from the near surroundings of everybody, just because of their abilities or moral features, here is changed with one
electoral farce, intending "shutting up the mouths" of the general public, that they are, seemingly, those who make the choice. Only our IIE is able to fight with this
wryly-understood democracy proposing the following
2. New procedure for democratic elections.
Primarily requirement of the new procedure is the possibility for
each one to vote for everyone, not because the latter have applied for but because the former thinks that he (or she, surely) can trust the chosen person with defending of his interests! Under the present-day development of the computerized technique this can be performed very easily where each person can choose
up to five persons, including himself, if he finds that he is capable enough to, or at least will, take part in the governing of the country. The order in which the proposing is made has no importance, and the very persons are marked by unique number which for our country is the so called Unique Citizenship Number (UCN -- or, then, the insurance number, or how it's accepted in the country), where in the subsequent processing erroneous numbers are excluded and doubling ones are counted once.
At the first sight may seem that the requirement for everybody to know the exact UCN of the person for whom he wants to vote is an essentially difficult one, but this could have been so before half to one century, maybe, not nowadays, because each official candidate can together with his name make known also his UCN (this isn't an address, for to be afraid to tell it to all around). Besides, everybody would be allowed to ask his close friends or relatives about their UCN-s and write them on a piece of paper. On the place of work there are no problems for everyone when he writes his name (on the door or in some list) to write also his UCN, which, anyway, exists officially in the office. And why not to carry some badge on the lapel with his name and the UCN when some elections are in the near vicinity -- maybe someone may find him worth liking when meeting on the street? But there are also no problems to have some officially available data bases (in the Municipal Councils or in the electoral clubs) of all persons from a given region or for the country, where by various signs like: some of the names, age, place of living, etc., to be possible to make the needful selection and find the UCN, if this proves to be useful.
In this way we do
not reject altogether the parties and the possibility to make choice on the top, because together with his near acquaintances one may wish to vote also directly for some well known leader (who can be a politician, or football star, or good professional in some area). What is important is that this choice must be done
in iterations, where on each next stage there vote
10 to 20 times less people. In this case 3 to 4 iterations will suffice for the choice of Parliament, and even less for the Municipal Councils. It must be clear that in each subsequent stage vote
only the corresponding number of the
first in a list ordered by the number of votes received
for them, but they can vote again for everybody (for now), with exception of the last time, so that some persons may enter in the list of elected in next iterations, too. In the last iteration, which must contain about
thousand persons, must be provided possibility for them to meet personally and acquaint one with another, where here must be chosen persons
only between themselves (in order to avoid inclusion in the last moment of arbitrary persons, or of possibilities for easy buying of votes). So that we propose the following variant of voting in our country.
2.1. Choice of Parliament
a) First iteration: starting with all voters (about 6 mln.), each of which votes for each of these persons, till the first 300,000 of them with the most votes given for them, according to an ordered list of the chosen containing only UCN and the number of votes received for them.
b) Second iteration: from 300,000 voters to the first 20,000 with the most votes given for them by the same rules.
c) Third iteration: from 20,000 to 1,000 in the same way, where this time the choice is performed in the Regional Electoral Bureaus, because of the diminished number of the persons.
d) Fourth iteration: from 1,000 persons to the needed number in the Parliament, which we propose to be exactly
100 persons, where this time each one of them votes again for 5 persons but
only between these thousand. In addition to this before this stage of elections there must be at least one month time, during which these people must succeed to associate with one another, staying for two weeks together (in some tourist resort, for example), having in their disposition various possibilities for personal contacts and expressing of their views for the strategy of governing in the given moment. This thousand chosen delegates may be looked at as one
Enlarged National Assembly (Parliament) and as natural reserve for further supplying of the future one when needed. Here is permitted to arise division of this people according with their political views, or some other characteristics (age, education, etc.). The very voting finds place in the Central Electoral Bureau (or in the National Assembly), where it is preferable for it to be also
open.
In relation to the coding of the votes we propose it to be done on usual punch cards (the same that have been used in the computer centers before 10 to 20 years), where everyone may prepare his card when he wishes in an interval of two months in the corresponding bureaus to the Municipal Councils using there some data base for to be sure in the numbers of the UCN of the candidates. In the election day there must be such devices in the electoral bureaus, or to be used these in the Councils and in the bureaus to be accomplished only the voting. Together with this must be enabled also the potentiality for everyone, if he so wishes, to vote also in
advance and openly, leaving one such punch card and receiving a copy of it, confirmed with the needed signs (of the administrator and his) and a seal of this institution. Mark that, when people vote for persons, there are no reasons for whoever to be
afraid that he knows somebody and trusts him, more so, if these are not people from the top, as it is supposed to be on the first iterations!
The processing of the votes should not be difficult (it is time-consuming, but that is why the computers exist -- for to "work" in place of the humans), where it will consist in one preparatory phase of transferring of the records from all punch cards for a given section to a magnetic medium (no matter in what order), and subsequent filling of one file with two fields for each record: UCN and the number of votes
for this person, which has to be maintained ordered by UCN. Afterwards, on regional level, these files (from different sections) are merged (united) maintaining them ordered by UCN. After merging also on national level this file is sorted by the field for the number of votes and is separated the needed number of records (persons) from the beginning of the file. (In case that the next several persons after the last chosen have the same number of votes like him they are also included, because the exact number is not important.) It leaves then to inform all these partially chosen for each level people that they continue the election. There are no problems for whatever checks and examinations from whatever political power of the files and their processing.
2.2. Choice of Municipal Councils
Here the things are entirely similar, only that the iterations will be in other boundaries. If we take for granted that one Municipality has, say, 50,000 people, then on the second stage is enough if there vote 3,000, and on the third -- 200 people. Only that in this case during the processing must also be sieved out the persons who are not registered in the region. There are no problems, though, if this processing is done on the
same punch cards for the choice of Parliament, because that choice, anyway, is carried out by regions, so that the necessity of new elections (at least for the first iteration) may vanish. In addition must be noted also that there is no need of common elections for judicial authorities, because the masses, in any case, don't know them, and these elections may take place in the corresponding Municipality, where the candidates may meet in person and make acquaintances with the representatives of the people (or even with an enlarged number of them -- those from the last iteration), instead of applying of one purely formal procedure.
2.3. Choice of President
By the iterative elections there is no need for doing of separate choice of President /Vice-President, because this may be done in the very National Assembly, but if we so much want to increase the selection, then the thousand people who have voted on the last iteration may be used for the purpose. Generally speaking, this Enlarged Assembly may be used also for various other purposes (say, for inquiries), because it will be a sufficiently good
representative choice of the population, something that is absent from
all contemporary democratic elections.
3. Future evolution of the elections
After the proposed by IIE variant of elections is applied several times and the citizens palpably experience its advantages there will be made necessary some enhancements and accelerations of the method. Here we will mention five more important moments.
a) The elections will become open and clear! As we have already mentioned, when everybody votes for people from his immediate surroundings there are no reasons for fears to state openly his vote, what in effect
will eliminate the possibility for falsification of the elections, because easily can be faked this, that can't be seen, where this, what is known and can be proved elementary, nobody will try to forge. But then this means that there is no need of one election day with the traditional commotion, and everyone will be in position to fulfill his choice in convenient for him hours in one reasonable span of time (of about a month), where the election day will be simply the last moment for the given stage. The open choice will require also entering of the UCN of the voter (for example, as the last one and preceded with the symbol "@"), but this in turn will provide possibility for demonstration of all other pluses given below.
b) Everybody will be able to vote from his home or place of work, using the computerized network, doing in the same time all needful checks in the data bases. This can be done with sufficiently high level of protection and security using personal keywords (as it is done, for example, by getting money from the bankomats or cash dispensers). After that moment will be possible to require in each iteration to be named persons only
between the voters for the given level, because it will be easy to make fast check whether the UCN in question is from the allowed ones, and if it's not so then to show some other person. It is possible also to do more iterations so that the diminishing of the pool each time to be only about 10 times (five iterations for Bulgaria), what will increase the accuracy of the elections. All in all, this means that elections could be done even each year, if this will be forced by the circumstances, and they will cost almost nothing to the state.
c) It can, and must, be introduced
weight of the votes for each iteration (after the first), because these (say, 300 thousand), which have been elected on the preceding level, have entirely different representativeness, i.e. number of people who have voted for them! In some open elections there are no problems in addition to the five UCN and this of the voter to enter one more field in the record for fixing of the weight of his vote, which on the first level is filled with one but for each next level will be automatically filled in the process of computerized processing, where for each chosen by somebody person in the field for the number of voted for him people is added not one but this number. Then will be possible rightly to say
how much "costs" the vote of each one of the voters on every level of the elections, what in the last iteration will show exactly how much people have chosen,
directly or indirectly, the given Representative of the people (and not only how much persons on the last level have voted for him). In this way will be reached
the ideal variant of voting, where could be possible to be traced, when needed, the whole tree of the choice, as from top to bottom (who from whom was chosen), also from bottom to top (who which persons has chosen). And mark that here it goes about
each one from the hundred persons in the National Assembly
separately, not mixed for all candidates from the list of some party for which there are given some number of votes (but in one region the candidates are one, and in another -- other people).
d) It will be possible to make
all imaginable statistical analyses of the voters. In the previous subsection we have hinted this but let us stress that in the nation-wide elections the question is not "who whom", but "who
from what people", i.e. age, education, profession, ethnical identity, and other parameters, which can be extracted from some more accurate data bases for the country. This will help the MPs to execute maximally near to the interests of the real voters policy, as also
to give ear to their meanings (via email, for example), because the meaning of one person is one thing, but the situation is entirely different if behind this person stay, say, 42 people!
e) The society will unite itself and its conscious attitude to the elections will enhance. When everyone after the first level begins really to express the meanings of the others, and everybody before the last one will be deprived of the possibility to make career and take personal benefits out of the elections, then also everyone will begin to approach them more seriously and try to give all he can squeeze out of himself. The humans, surely, are egoists, but they are not imbeciles and each one aspires for supremacy if this can be achieved, but otherwise there leaves nothing else to him unless to think about the society, for the very reason that he
wants to be admired by the others (who have trusted him with their votes). It is normal to suppose that the majority of the people, when they see that they represent more than a ten of persons, will try to find in some way (say, via a standard questionnaire) the views of these persons, with the aim that in the next elections these people could again express faith in them. And the ways for this will be quite available, because if today (about the 2000) in the developed countries nearly 10% of the population has access to Internet at home or in the office, then after some 10 years their part may become 1/4, and after 20-30 years this will be so accessible as the TV nowadays.
Conclusion
In the most of democratic countries the population looks at the politicians as at some elitarian stratum which is not approachable for the masses and is ready to bet on them as it is done in lotto or in horse racings. But this is so because of the lack of involvement with them, as also from the part of the latter to the masses which have elected them. Only IIE finds the right way for
uniting of the society in one whole body, where each one carries his part of responsibility for the destinies of the others, and the more to the top we went the more heavier becomes this responsibility. The future of the elections is only in the open and iterative elections, based on direct contacts and possibility for expressing of one's own meaning about the persons for whom is voted. The choice on the top, especially of people related by tight and unifying party platforms, and not of particular personalities, erodes the foundations of democracy. The Representatives of the people must really represent the nation (or part of it) and not their parties, and such representativeness can be reached only with the help of IIE.
Give support to our IIE, because
we support the proved during the centuries iterative choice of gradually executed voting from below, solely able to overcome successfully the problem of choice.
Show reason, show understanding, show initiative --
choose our Initiative!
IIE gives the iteration, the iteration betters the democratization!
MANIFESTO OF THE NNO
(New Nomenclature's Offensive)
The history of all societies is a history of
fight for power between common and chosen (by God) people, between patricians and plebeians,
between people and aristocracy! This is so because, for one thing, the governing isn't an easy activity which can be performed by incompetent and unprepared for the purpose people, but, for another thing, the more limited one is, the less he understands this and the more thinks that he knows everything and wants to have his say in the government (surely for to muddle the things in the end). The aristocracy has the important advantage of people grown up in cultivated environment and received good education from early childhood, people for whom it is proper to say that they have sucked the good manners already with their mother's milk. The fact that they, as a rule, are not encumbered with the necessity to win their bread with disgusting labour, as the other part of the population, gives them the possibility to live for their own pleasure and creative expression, because to show his own abilities is the highest pleasure for those wealthy in spirit! At the same time the aristocrats don't need to make career
at all costs, in order to find their place under the Sun, as it is the case with the "plebeians"; they have their good place already with their birth and when they take some important positions in the hierarchy of government they have no other possibility unless to do their work properly (because
nothing makes them to do this, other than their moral sense)
Put it otherwise, the practical lack of selfish incentives in the governing makes the aristocrat the
ideal ruler, and the more prosperous one ruler is, the less is for him the danger to "lose the bone" and all related with this privileges, the more unconcerned is he in the power and the
more competent is his ruling! In this connection is useful to remind the accustomed between the ordinary people rule that a clever person, when surrounded by swarm of gnats, does not drive them away at all, because these, that have sucked full bellies with his blood, keep away the new and hungry ones. Together with this we should not forget also the fact that the aristocrat
knows from early age what will be his place in the government and receives the corresponding specialized education, so that he is ready for the activity which will perform, where the plebeian-ruler, more often than not, has no managerial, as we say nowadays, education.
But all this, surely, has been known to the people from ancient times and was applied in social ruling long before the emerging of democracy, as it continues to be applied in nearly half of the world centuries after the widespread proliferation of the latter. The non-unknown totalitarian nomenclature was yet another attempt for realization of the above-mentioned pluses of predetermined rulers. The main drawback of this method is the fact that the masses are
to be forced somehow to obey the aristocracy, where the ways for doing this are usually only two: either by compulsion, or by deception! If it is necessary may be invented some absolutely impossible lie, which can enable achieving of the goal for unquestioning obedience of the masses (like this, that the aristocracy has blue blood instead of red, like all the others, or that the God itself has made himself the trouble to choose them for rulers and this must be passed from father to first-born son and from him to his son, et cetera, until the end of the world) -- each measure is good if it achieves the result. This, what is bad in this case, is that the goal not always can be realized. But let us analyze more precisely the situation, in order to see what, still, is missing from the good idea, what hinders it to be applied everywhere, and formulate in this way
1. The idea for New Nomenclature.
If the common person was honest enough with himself (what, alas, happens very rarely) he should have confessed that the single reason, why he does not like the aristocracy very much, is the fact that
he alone is not from it! And not only that he is not an aristocrat, but
there is no way for him to became one, when he has not been born as such (it is true that there are some exceptions, but they are so rare that only confirm the rule), and at the same time people are longing most strongly for this, that is most hardly attainable for them, and don't want to accept the impossibility to enter in the list of the chosen. This eager wish, in principle, is something good, because it allows mobilization of the powers in necessary direction, but in our case this unrealizable desire just hinders the successful governing of the masses.
The good thing of the aristocracy is the social environment, in which it grows and is brought up, its material invulnerability and its wish to do something useful for the others (because there is nothing else left to it), where
the bad thing is ... its heredity, which irritates the "plebeians", and exactly the realization and distinguishing of these moments build the backbone of the idea for New Nomenclature! If we find a way to "kill" the heredity, but preserve by this the privileged state of one group of people from the moment of their birth, we shell get
only pluses without minuses, because we take for granted (and many times validated) that the abilities of geniuses, in whatever field, are not transferred to the posterity (something that highly impedes the descendants of known persons, because their ancestors shadow them throughout their whole lives). But is then possible to have an aristocracy without inheritance, or this is just one chimera? Indubitably yes -- reply we from the
New Nomenclature's Offensive (NNO) to the first question, because we contemplate the matter scientifically and substantiated. Yes, of course -- say we, because we are realists and democrats -- and if other people before us have not seen the elementary decision, then this is only because they have not searched on the right place!
But if the belonging to the New Nomenclature will not be passed by heredity, then
how it will be passed? The answer is really obvious -- via
some choice, for which there are no reasons to be selective by some given criteria, because it is not clear of what kind they must be, neither is possible to be taken the right decision already in very young children age of the chosen person (because the living environment must be settled very early)! Then we are left with nothing else as to apply the only proper, in situation of uncertain information, choice -- the
arbitrary choice, used frequently also by the very nature (or God, if you prefer this notion). Only the arbitrariness can democratize the idea of aristocracy and make it appealing to the public! Only the arbitrariness can give chances to everyone to be from the chosen (by God), as well as to pacify and convince the masses in the rightfulness of the choice! Only the arbitrariness can make "the wolf satisfied" and "the sheep alive", but which must be the exact procedure we shall see in the next chapter about
2. The choice of the New Nomenclature.
Such choice must take place every year, for it to be really democratic and each
child to have equal chances to enter in the circle of the chosen. The first thing that must be determined is the number by which the New Nomenclature (NN) is to grow yearly and supposing that the principal sphere of its activity will be the Parliament we propose its increase for one Parliamentary mandate to be
between single and double strength of the Parliament. If by regulations the elections are performed every four years this will give yearly increase of NN from 1/4 to 1/2 of the number of persons in the Parliament. These figures will be substantiated later in the course of our explanation but it suffices to say here that initially, until it does not accumulate enough grown-up and capable New Nomenclature, we shall stick to the higher number, what for 200 persons in the Parliament makes exactly
by hundred in an year.
The next thing to establish is the age of the children who are to be chosen and we settle on
two completed years, and because of the yearly basis of elections we accept for convenience that it goes about children born on whatever day in the calendar year that was
three years before the
current one. More precisely we propose this to be done in a very festive setting in groups of ten persons once weekly, say on Saturday evening, beginning from the first week of February, where there are drawn three groups of numbers, namely: month of birth (where in the sphere are loaded three groups of numbers from 1 to 12, in order not to rotate it nearly empty), day of birth (there are put 31 numbers in the sphere), and one group of three numbers -- the last but one of our so called UCN (Unique Citizenship Number -- equivalent of social insurance number or the like), which must identify uniquely the person -- which are drawn
digit by digit and
with return (again by loaded three packs of digits from 0 to 9; the last digit in our UCN is for control by module 11, so that it should not be drawn). The year of birth is guessed by default, because it is one and the same. As far as the purpose of the elections is to be chosen real and alive in the moment child it may happen that some
group of numbers must be redrawn, where the drawn till the moment numbers which are real
remain, and are drawn again only these which cannot be satisfied (say, for the 29-th of February for non-leap year is redrawn only the day but the month remains; or the drawn for the last group digits don't corresponds to alive child, or simply give too high a number and for the day there are not so many children born -- in this case are redrawn only these three digits). To add that if such examination, by different reasons, could not be performed
in real time, or some error occurs, then the choice is finished in the next consecutive day.
This will be one highly attractive event that will be followed with great interest by the entire nation, maybe with greater than a final of world football competition (not to speak about drawing of some lotto), because for the first time in human history the mankind will interfere actively in the affairs of "God". But this will be one game
without losses, contrarily to all other drawings, where one has to pay at least for the
ticket -- here each born alive citizen has already received his "ticket" and it remains only to check whether it is winning, what will make him (or her, of course) an aristocrat
of new type (changing radically the life of his parents, too), or he is like all the other mere mortals. The important thing is to be understood that the New Nomenclature is chosen from most early age, without distinction by gender, ethnicity, religious belief, wealthy status, and so on, and continues to be such till the end of their life, but
only until that moment, where nothing is passed to the posterity of the new aristocrats. Only in this way the access to the aristocracy remains open for each of the citizens, widening in this way the main democratic rights with one new more --
the right of everybody to become aristocrat! But mark that this right is
not related with whatever obligations for the newly chosen and he may make political career, if he wants, yet he may do also whatever he wishes (retaining for himself also the right to
do nothing, if that is whereto his heart drives him). Before this, however, each representative of the NN must first grow up and receive his education, and that is why in the next chapter we will consider
3. The upbringing of the New Nomenclature.
Till the end of April (but maybe earlier) the elections of the new generation of NN will be finished and to the middle of the year -- we propose from 1 of July -- the happy chosen ones will be in position to enter the established for the purpose special
nomenclature educational institutions. Because in the beginning the children are too young till the end of the year in which they complete six years (i.e. four more years) one of their parents or guardians has the right to live together with his /her child, and after this time the teaching is performed on basis of weekly boarding. The whole sustenance of the aristocrat (and the accompanying him parent, till he has this right) is taken by these establishments and, naturally, his upbringing must be, really, first class: with small groups of maximum 12 students; individual lessons everywhere, where this must be done, even studying in educational institutions in foreign countries if needed; the most up-to-day material facilities; free of charge, not only food and medicaments, but also books and teaching aids, sporting facilities, international communication links, transport and excursions all around the world, and everything what one wealthy parent will not have spared for his offspring.
In addition to the above-said, till reaching the age for official enlisting as New Nomenclature member, what we propose to become on 21 years, each chosen person will receive also one minimal monthly salary (MMS), where till being not of passport age these sum will be paid to his /her parents, and after that moment to him /her alone. With the years this financial support
will not cease but grow even higher. Insofar as each aristocratic system has its hierarchy then NN also must have some levels of division and (until in the future the very aristocrats do not decide for something better) we propose the working name
newarists from third till first rank (what sounds good enough in all western languages). More precisely: till 21 years we will speak about future newarists and they will be ensured with only one MMS; after the official declaration of the young newarists of third rank their support will grow to 2 MMS; later, when reaching the second rank, they will get by 3 MMS; and for the first rank -- 4 MMS. Under which conditions and when will happen the raising in aristocratic staircase (as well as whether there will be some changes in the proposed amounts) will decide the newarists alone, where for the moment we propose that the first raising to second rank happens not before the age of 40 and by the requirement of at least 10 years length of service in the ruling democratic institutions, and for the first rank -- at least 55 completed years and 20 years service in this structures, where existence of the clause "for special merits" is also permitted. This, what must be fixed now, are just the limits and we set as low limit 2 MMS (1 for the future ones) and as high --
5 MMS, which are never to be exceeded. Let us stress that this is a kind of
pension for each newarist between 1 and 5 MMS, but does not limit their incomes!
Therefore, it is made all possible for to spare the new aristocrats whatever worries about their sustenance, decent home, professional career or respect of the others around, supposing that left to do what they wish to, they will do what they are able to do better! But after finishing of their education nobody requires from them work of any sort in the benefit of society and they may lead the way of life of all aristocrats around the world. Some of them may become scientists, another sportsmen, third hunters or explorers, there might be craftsman, if this is what they do better, or physicians, cosmonauts, businessmen, pop stars, et cetera. Of course it is supposed that about 1/4 of them will dedicate themselves to social activity (at least after reaching of some age), if not for other reasons then because they are, in any case, always before the eyes of the public as part of the highlife, so that in the next chapter we will have a look at
4. The participation of the newarists in the ruling of the state.
As far as we from the NNO think that the newarists must be
part of the governmental institutions we propose, instead of forming of separated Houses or special institutions and after this establishing how they will interact with the existing ones, to be provided for the NN just a
quota in each of the ruling instances, namely: in the Municipalities, the Parliament, and the judicial authorities, where this quota is
always 1/3 of the whole number (with precision of the rounding)! But this number must be understood as
maximal, where NN declares one month before the corresponding elections how much places exactly will be filled by the nomenclature, and if it can not fill all its quota then the left seats are added to the chosen by the common democratic way. The important thing is that more than its quota NN can't take
in nomenclature way, but nobody forbids to whoever newarist to be elected also as representative of a given political power in the standard democratic way, because there are no reasons to take the participation to NN for some
depriving of the common democratic rights. In the elections for President, of course, we can't set a quota and that is why we propose NN to take part in them as an ordinary political power and present its own pair of candidates.
In contrast with the greater majority of democratic institutions, though, we are not ailing by
mania of populism and, when for the taken posts is not required some special (democratic, maybe?) education, think that there must be at least some rational limitations by age as a guaranty for accumulated living experience, because the ruling, somehow, is not like the sports, sciences, or reproductive (read, sexual) activity, where the highest achievements are reached often before completing the middle age of human life span (i.e. up to 35-40 years), but
precisely on the contrary! That is why we require as an
additional prerequisite for taking of the nomenclature seats also the following (upper and lower) age-limits: from 30 to 50 years -- for the Municipalities; from 40 to 60 years -- for the Parliament and the chosen Magistrates; and from 50 to 70 years -- for the President (also the Chief Prosecutor and some other significant key-positions). These are wide enough diapasons for career making in each of the listed ruling institutions, which presuppose some natural continuity in the taken posts and in the same time, preventing the political activity before 30 years of age, give possibility to each of the newarists, if he (or she) has the needed abilities, to express himself in some other specific activity (such, for which education
is required), and if he can't find such area, or already reaches his threshold in the chosen one before, or accumulates enough living experience and perceives that the social government is his calling, or when, in the end, with reaching of the middle age and his gradually cooling to fast and not taught-through youthful actions comes to one average (for his country) view and understanding of life, only then to turn his sight to the politics.
After explaining the precise quotas and age-limits it is now time to revise the temps of reproducing of the New Nomenclature, which we have accepted to be between 1/4 and 1/2 of the Parliament yearly. Now, if we take one middle value of 1/3 of the Parliament and remind us that the quota of NN in the Parliament is 1/3 we will get that each year we shall have the reproduction of the whole four-yearly quota, but if we take that only 1/4 of the newarists will occupy themselves with politics in the given ages, then we will succeed for one mandate to have exactly the needed number. If thereafter we accept that the aristocrats (as also the other Representatives of the people) will remain for on the average 2-3 mandates, we shall reach one double to triple covering what (in our view) builds the ideal competition. Let us remind you that in the countries with real aristocracy not more than (supposedly) 1/10 of the aristocrats occupy themselves with politics, but in our case of specially formed such strata is possible to expect that this part will grow higher. At any rate, the reproducing of the NN (in the set limits) will be in the hands of the very nomenclature, something that for the traditional aristocracy is
nowhere yet reached (and is very difficult, not to say impossible, to be reached).
5. Sustenance of the institution of New Nomenclature
The financial support of the new for the country institution must be organized via initiating of one Foundation "New Nomenclature" which will be filled initially (and when needed) from the State's budget, from various charity organizations and private persons (we may be confident that such will show themselves) as well as from the very newarists. As far as each member of the New Nomenclature can't pass some of his (or her) farm or company to his future nomenclature descendants by genetic line, he is left with nothing else as to leave his heritage to this Foundation. And here we are not speaking about some small possessions, furniture, private home of flat, cars etc., which are left to his family according to the existing in the country laws, but for real values, which one aristocrat may gather for the years of his (supposedly) highly paid activity. At any case, we propose as part of the moral codex of the newarists to figure also giving in inheritance each more substantial possession to the very institution, to which he, in fact, is obliged for what he was (together with his luck, of course). Besides, each income exceeding one limit of, say, 10 MMS (there are no lawful limitations as to how much may win such person in a month, but only to how high may be his aristocratic pension) we propose to be
transferred voluntarily by him to the Foundation, in order to be reached its complete self-sustenance after some time.
Before the Foundation, though, accumulates enough assets there are to be constituted for it premises for education, means for sporting activities, relaxation, transport, etc., etc., which can't "fall from above". But even in the most unfavourable for the people case (if everything falls on their backs), having in mind that yearly for our country will be chosen only 100 future newarists, just after 50 years will be expected their number to reach 5,000 people, so that even if till that time will not be switched to its full self-sustenance (what is practically impossible) then their number will amass up to about 1/1,000 of the working-age population (about 5 mln.), or each Bulgarian will "carry on his back" only one per mil of a child, more or less, what is really funny as additional load, where the advantages of the New Nomenclature are immense!
But we not vainly mentioned not long before the number 50 years, because after this time from the choosing of the first future newarist must be held, let us name it,
Great Congregation of the New Nomenclature, on which will be possibly corrected the figures of growth (but surely in the allowed limits), will be changed, maybe, the very name newarists, and will be rearranged the matters with the financial support of the Foundation. Then, maintain we from the NNO, must be approved also some Moral Codex of the newarists. Then,
but not earlier, the ruling of the NN will be really passed in its hands, because only then could be supposed that the New Nomenclature, having already taken part about 10 years in the Government of the country (the Parliament) and about 20 years in the Municipal Councils, will at last have reached its maturity.
In conclusion
of our Manifesto of the New Nomenclature's Offensive must be stressed that the main modification of the laws, for to be we in position after some time to create our own aristocracy of one really new type, consists in establishing of the nomenclature quota of 1/3 from the future governmental institutions, which to be filled only then, when by reasons of age this becomes possible. Together with this, of course, must be settled also the financial questions with the founding and initial sustenance of the Foundation "New Nomenclature", what, surely, will not provide difficulties, where the emotions for the public will begin immediately and the confidence in scientifically-based ruling (and, more generally, selection in the society) will pour fresh stream in our democratic government! To say nothing about the worldwide contribution of our small nation to all countries which, by whatever reasons, have succeeded to destroy their aristocracy, or for which there have not yet ripened suitable economical and other conditions for its building.
To scientific comprehension of the notion nomenclature cadres, as specially cultivated and brought up, chosen by the fate and protected by the nation, competent rulers of the people!
To new and fuller democratization of the society via the official acknowledgement of
the right of every citizen to become aristocrat of a new type!
Ahead to the future Offensive of the New Nomenclature!
MANIFESTO OF THE FFF
(Feminism Forcing Formation)
The history of all societies is a history of
fight between the exceptional and the mediocre! And in this fight very often wins the mediocre, because it is exactly
in the middle, it is this, what wide population masses want, and what they can understand and accept. The exceptional, on the other hand, is supported and understood only by a minority, and it isn't at all clear whether it is good or bad, until this question is not answered by the future (very often again
not unanimous), because there are not objective criteria for this. In other words, there are no guarantees for disregarding of the mediocre majority in the name of some not known where leading minority! In the area of politics this means that
the ruling positions must be taken exactly by moderate personalities, expressing most completely the aspirations of averaged folk layers, and "must" here means that if this is not so then these personalities simply will not stay for long on the political stage! This thesis surely is known, but till now it has not been explained convincingly. Only we from the
Feminism Forcing Formation (FFF) have logically motivated meaning on this question which we express below.
1. Elections for central and municipal ruling institutions
Accepting as fundamental the above-mentioned
principle of mediocrity we propose the following phases.
1.1. Preliminary (pre-electoral) selection
of the candidates according to certain criteria fixed, naturally, in the Election Law. Here the question goes about parameters like: gender, material conditions, education, physical characteristics, et cetera, which we will list precisely below. We can't propose, alas, whatever intellectual selection, as long as (at least for the moment) it can't be objective, because if it is, still, difficult for one to show oneself more clever (more capable in a given aspect, generally speaking), then he can easily make himself sillier, so that we are taking the risk to introduce in the governmental structures many uncommonly capable persons (who have very good
pretended to be mediocre), but future achievements of psychology will possibly help us in this connection. So, let us formulate one
filter for mediocrity of the candidates as conditions which they must obligatory satisfy in order to apply for ruling posts, namely:
a) Women -- all candidates for ruling positions must be
only women! It is obvious that from both sexes the women are most mediocre sex, if not for other reasons then because they are laden with the main task of propagating the gender, and God or Nature (strike through the redundant) would not have entrusted one exceptional individual with the major task of reproducing, having in mind that his exceptionality can after some time turn out to be wrong -- in this most responsible case may be set only on the mediocre! Anyway, we think it is well known that by various parameters (strength, intellect, physical qualities, etc.) the women, as a rule, are mediocre, and that is why each exception of this rule
is highly valued and attracts our attention. If till now the women have not taken their well-suited place in the politics this is only due to not understanding of the principle of mediocrity in the governing, and the main task of FFF is to overcome this irrational anomaly.
b) Personal income in the amount of
more than one and less than three minimal monthly salaries (MMS) for the last calendar year. This is one suitable and wide enough criterion for moderate earnings, which in this way remains always actual because the MMS is continually corrected.
c) Secondary, college, or tertiary (but only one)
education. The main reason for including the tertiary or university education here is the general tendency to devaluation of educational qualifications, what unavoidably leads to one "middle" high education. In this sense is possible after some time to argue for removing of the secondary education as already under the average level, but higher than one tertiary education, in any case, must not be allowed.
d) Age -- from 35 (completed)
to 45 (uncompleted)
years to the moment of election. This not only forms the middle of the average life span for the humans (around 80 years, at least for the women in Bulgaria), but such relatively narrow interval excludes the possibility for participation in more than three (and usually two) mandates, what is sufficiently important for the renovation of the ruling posts in every party.
e) Tallness -- from 155 cm (including)
to 165 cm (excluding), measured barefooted to the day of election. This requirement, of course, is forced by the mediocrity of choice, but it corresponds also with commonly accepted aesthetical criteria.
f) Weight -- from 55 kg (including)
to 65 kg (excluding), to the day of election -- the reasons are the same. Here deserves to be mentioned that the height and weight have to be confirmed with official measurement by authoritative commission under conditions of general publicity from one to three days before the election, and those who don't meet the requirements drop out even in the last moment. There are meanings for imposing of the requirement this choice, which will be broadcast also by television, to be executed
topless for women-candidates, and we can't deny certain degree of reasonableness in this, for the people have the right to know as better as possible their chosen ladies, but for
the moment we don't think this must be made obligatory. Similarly it isn't yet included selection on chest measurement (say, from 1.2 to 1.4 of the waist measurement), because in the age of mass applying of artificial feeding of babies, for one thing, and the great achievements of cosmetic medicine, for another thing, this isn't very indicative for the mediocrity. In any case, it is always possible to add some correction to the Election Law, if this proves to be needed later.
As we already mentioned these are requirements only for the candidates
for ruling posts in the country (MPs or Municipal Councilors) and don't impose changes in the party structures. It is not necessary
and is erroneous to come to the conclusion that in each party can enter only women, or that they have to be only between 55 and 65 kg, etc.; or also the vulgar understanding that each party member (no matter to which party belongs) must present himself (or herself) always naked to the waist on party gatherings -- by unfavorable meteorological conditions this may turn to be harmful for the health! In other words, in each party can be, as well members men, also "memberesses", but only women answering to the above-mentioned requirements can set their candidatures for participation in the governing of the country. If these requirement will lead to gradual withdrawal of men from the politics (in the way in which the appearance of automobiles in their time has led to shifting aside the horse coaches from their positions of means for transportation) -- well, good, we do
not object to this, we will welcome this, but we don't require it! If such time comes this means that this is the
natural evolvement of the things and it just has to be accepted.
1.2. Proper (actual) elections
for central and municipal organs of government. Proceeding from the principle of mediocrity in governing we think that it is necessary to cut out all possible cases when for one party (coalition) is obvious that it does not express the meaning of the middle of the population, i.e. from 1/4 to 1/2 of the electors. These situations are three, namely:
a) Low threshold for participation -- we propose
10% of places in the Parliament (or Municipal Councils), because if one party can't gather at least as much percents then it in no case can express the interests of the average citizen and, hence, must drop out from the governing.
b) High threshold for participation -- we propose
60% of places in the Parliament (or Municipalities), because if one party wins more that this it gets obvious supremacy in the institution and suppresses each opposition! In this case
the elections must be annulled, because this not only violates the principle of mediocrity, but also harms the foundations of democracy.
c) Correlational threshold for participation -- we have in mind the difference in the number of places between the first and second parties with most votes related to all places in the Parliament, in percents. If they are very near one to the other it can't be said which party is more mediocre, because the difference is within the limits of the error, where we think that this percent must be
at least three, and if the difference is smaller, then again
the elections are annulled (so, for example, by 100 persons in the Parliament, if the one party wins 37 of the places, and the other -- whatever amount between 35 and 39 including, the elections are annulled). For the Municipalities, though, this threshold is
not applied, mainly because of the small number of seats in them.
These requirements, by the way, are obvious, where the low threshold, in any case, exists in most of the Parliaments, the high one leads to dictatorship, and when the correlational is broken is arrived at the situation of "two hard stones", for which our people have long ago said that they can't "mill the flour". More important is to add that, as far as here we may often come to canceling of the elections, they are performed
up to three times, after what (by not satisfying some of the conditions) the organs
remain in their old staff
for another 6 months, when elections are performed again.
As far as by the elections for Parliament are chosen, in fact, only women we have all reasons for naming it
Women's Assembly, because this matches exactly the real situation; similarly the Municipal Councils become
Women's Councils. But let us explicitly stress that in Women's Assembly the women
only take decisions, i.e. they approve or
choose, where the fabricating of the very law-bills is done in different Commissions to it, which are filled with good professionals (jurists), not with mediocre politicians, and in them, naturally, can take part also men (where this is even preferable). In this way the cherished desire of the woman to take decisions by propositions of the man, i.e. after he is already made all depending on the reason in order to reduce the things to ordinary choice between hardly discernible and
insignificant alternatives (something like the choice of a necktie, for example), and what finds its manifestation in almost each family (and even more so in relations outside from the families), becomes reality also in the politics, and this on the highest possible level!
Or you think it is in vain what people say that the man is the one who must propose and the woman is the other who must decline (or accept, respectively); or also that the man is the "head" but the woman -- the "neck"? Put it otherwise, it appears one natural separation of the process of elaboration and analysis of the laws, from one side, made by competent professionals, i.e. by exceptional personalities, from the process of taking the decision by the people, or some of their chosen in advance commonplace (i.e. middle-valued) representatives, from another one. So that there is no danger, as cynically profess some enemies of FFF, to close the ... man's toilets in Women's Assembly.
Nothing more different can be said about the Women's Councils, where the work is primarily administrative and, when so, even more fitted for fulfilling by the mediocre and
industrious sex; as also that there can, again, be different groups of men, which must think more profoundly, or perform the creative or tactical work, if this needs to be done.
2. Presidential elections
Contrary to more of the expectations we propose here something
diametrically different, because the situation, in this case, is opposite! The Presidential institution is mainly consolidating and representative, inasmuch the President does not accept laws but
simply rules (as far as the laws and Women's Assembly allow him this). He must, figuratively speaking, tear off the women when they "catch one another by the hairs", must be man with authority, charm, charisma, emitting strength and power, man to whom each woman (or at least these from the Women's Assembly) would have wished to obey, and that is why
he is not allowed to be mediocre! The phases here are similar.
2.1. Preliminary selection for President
From the said just now follows that the Presidential filter must be
filter for exceptionality, such that to find one patriarch, or "father of the nation", and the conditions to which he must answer are the following:
a) Man, because only man President can balance sexually the governing of the country, only man President can pacify the Women's Assembly, only man can rule with strong fist, only man can declare or terminate wars, when this becomes inevitable! The left subsections, in fact, specify more precisely which must be this Man (with capital letter!).
b) Personal income of more than 4 MMS for the last calendar year. The President should not be mediocre, and the poverty has never been respected (especially by women), so that there leaves for him only to be sufficiently wealthy.
c) Education -- more than (one)
tertiary, where some doctorate is preferable.
d) Age -- at least 55 (full)
years, because otherwise he simply can't be named "patriarch". Let us remind you that similar requirement is applied in various countries, though most often undeclared.
e) Married and with at least two daughters to the moment of election -- it is entirely natural for a man who must deal with the whole Women's Assembly to show that he can deal with at least three women.
f) Tallness -- more than 175 cm (barefooted) -- obvious requirement.
g) Weight -- more than 75 kg to the moment of election. Weighing (in swimming trunks) will be performed similarly from one to three days before the election day and will be shown by national television -- the show has never hindered the politics yet only has helped it!
2.2. Proper (actual) elections for President
As far as he will work mainly with the Women's Assembly we propose his choice to be performed via
indirect voting in Women's Assembly (there are no problems for direct general election, but this will only make the procedure more expensive, without making it more reasonable or spectacular). The choice terminates either from the first time, if one of the candidates wins
at least 50% of the votes; or (otherwise) are performed unlimited number of votings until will be gathered
at least 1/3 of the votes, where by this also
the difference between the first and second candidates is at least 3%.
In relation with the thesis
"The President -- father of the nation" is necessary to be given to him also decent rights, for example: he must be allowed to set tasks to Women's Assembly (what laws to accept and actualize) and to require reports for their execution; to have rights to punish and even dismiss from the post, when he decides, the Representatives from the Assembly or the Councils (where they are substituted with the next reserves from the list of the same political powers), but
not more than 1/3 of their number in each of these structures for one his mandate; to have
rights of veto on every question and by unlimited number of reviews (i.e. to be impossible to adopt whatever law if the President does not approve it, at least with his silence); to be Supreme Commander of the armed forces; et cetera. The supremacy of Women's Assembly may be shown only through changing of the President, but such extraordinary event may happen only after
double voting "pro" taken
with qualified majority (of 2/3) and in the interval of
at least one and not more than two weeks between the votings.
3. Other elections
3.1. Elections of judicial authorities
Starting from the principle of mediocrity, because the applying of laws is even more routine task than their voting (and in a near future might even be assigned to some computerized systems), and if so it is entirely of the competence of women, the judges should have also be chosen in similar way as the Councilors. But on the other hand in the whole human history there are practically no cases of women as judges (neither in the old religious books such are mentioned), what is explainable with their extraordinary partiality and emotionality, leading to non-objectiveness in the appreciation of events, so that the women should have been entirely excluded from the judicial system (how it really was for a long time). Well, we propose one "Solomonic" decision satisfying both sides, namely:
the elections of judicial organs not to be subjected to feminization and to be performed according to the usual rules.
3.2. Elections of Government
Although the Ministers are not chosen in democratical way from the public, because they must be competent professionals and perform the tactical ruling of the country, we think it is necessary to mention the major requirements in this case. The Ministers is
rightful to be men, but this may be left only as recommendation and be allowed to have also women for Ministers, because these posts are in sufficient extent
strategical (if we think that the real tacticians are
the employed officers in the ministries), so that here also is applicable the "Solomonic" decision. These people must be proposed by the political powers, with right of veto from the part of the President, and only to be approved by Women's Assembly, but it has to be in position to reject or cease each of their decision, if finds it erroneous.
In Conclusion
deserves to be mentioned that the participation of women in the governing isn't something new, neither on a worldwide scale, nor in Bulgaria, and in the folklore of various nations finds its reflection the women's wisdom in solving of many difficult situations, it is spoken about "women's intuition" (as notion substituting the reason of men, and in many cases even more successfully), and so on, but till now all this has happened
chaotic, arbitrary, and ungrounded. Only
we from the FFF for the first time propose logical motivation for this situation and
find the exact place of the woman in the governing.
But by doing this, however, we
are not for emancipation of woman -- neither in the commonly proliferated in Bulgaria meaning of this movement as "equality", because there can't be spoken about equality where exists the biggest difference between individuals (between the sexes), nor in the right meaning of "freeing" (what is the exact meaning of the word) of the woman from the ruling of the man, because this ruling, very often, is
in the interest of the very woman! Nor are we pleading for approving of the other extremity -- the matriarchy, as ruling of the woman over the man, because men are already the
less enduring sex and it remains only to take away their right to command, for them to loose at all the interest to live fulfilled life.
That is why we speak about
feminization, understanding by this
dividing of the activities between sexes, namely: the militant, creative, risky, exceptional -- to the man, and the routine, mediocre, everyday needed, fateful for the posterity and the people -- to the woman. Man proposes, woman disposes; man rules, but woman chooses (by whom to be ruled); or, otherwise said:
the Feminism Forcing Formation stresses on the extraordinary importance of the mediocrity of the woman, what exactly, makes her the ideal politician!
The strength of the woman is in her weakness, the weakness of the man is in his strength,
the might of the FFF is in the reasonable compromise between the two extremities!
Without FFF there is no feminization, without feminization there is
no sexual equilibrium and stability in politics, without stability in politics the society has no future, ergo:
without FFF there is no future!
Force the feminization with our Formation!
MANIFESTO OF THE USC
(Union for Strength and Competition)
The history of all societies is a history of
demonstration of power and fight for domination of the stronger over the weaker! At least from the times of Babylon is known that almost always is very difficult (not to say impossible) to prove who is right and who is wrong, because there are not objective criteria for truthfulness in the social sphere, so that the absolute (or divine, if you prefer it so) truth leaves most often deeply hidden for the humans, and whatever position to take for right it flows some time and it becomes erroneous in the light of new knowledge, but this assumption, too, after a time turns again erroneous and one simply does not know in what to believe and in what -- not to. But if it isn't clear who is the right then it always can be established who is the stronger, and because of that from ancient times was accepted the rule that
right is the stronger!
This "formula" has just no error, and for this reason nobody tries in critical moments to prove who is right but only who is stronger, after what the latter is taken for right and with this the problem is solved. The right of the stronger is main law in our Universe and the single thing one can do is to comply with this and accept it, making all possible for it to be applied at least
honestly, i.e. to exist conditions for performing of fair inspection about this who is the stronger.
The strength exists for to be respected (there is no other justification for its existing) and our concern is only to determine who is the stronger in order to listen and obey to him and live happy!
The Union for Strength and Competition (USC) supports exactly this opinion and raises it in rank of primarily thesis in the politics. If till now in the governing of each country have occurred many errors this is only because the politicians have not yet known about the goals and tasks of our Union! Let us correct this fault.
1. Requirements from the politicians
From the said till now must be clear that
we heave the strength and fair play directly
in cult, as it was already in Ancient Greece, where in years of Olympiads were suspended even the wars, because if the wars have been checks only of the techniques of war then in the Olympic plays were examined the strengths in various sports disciplines; if in the wars the losses have been enormously big then in the sport looses only one insignificantly small amount of population, but
win all, or "whole one nation", if we cite our eminent revolutionist Vasil Levski! If right is
not the right one (because it isn't clear who he is) but the strong, then only via impartial or fair play (as this expression is used now worldwide, even in Bulgaria) may be easily and attractive proved his strength. If the democracy provides shows and evokes emotions in people then its natural conclusion is in the sportsmanlike fight. If the future of social governing is in the democracy then
the future of democracy is in the realization of ideas of our movement, or
in radical "sportsmanization" of the politics! When the democracy comes from Ancient Greece so there is where we have to turn our sight, if we want to better and defend it. Here are the main requirements from the politicians in order to guaranty this.
a) Men and only men, because it was so in ancient times, because only men may lead fair play (has somebody heard about women duels or knight tournaments -- for to defend the honour and cause of a man, maybe?), because only men boast with their strength and take it for their rightness! We are not against women in the politics
at all, but are against women
in the highest politics, where must be proved the rightfulness of someone's meaning or must be "coined" new laws. The woman has her place in life, surely, but the man is who must give her the tune and not vice versa, for otherwise it appears that we "put the horse before the cart", as the English use to say, and then the state's coach does not run properly. Anyhow, the Cesarean to the Caesar, and the manly to the man!
b) Age from 20 to 45 years, because these are wide enough limits for active sports activity and it is unrealistic to suppose that one 55 years old man will turn out to be stronger than one of 25 years in whatever sports discipline, and, hence, there is no place for such men in the governing of the country! This may be cruel to a heap of deserved statesmen but in the sports (and politics) wins the stronger, this isn't place for courteous gestures, so that to such men there leaves nothing else than to look from side and enjoy the activity of younger generation.
c) Sportsmen or
fair players, in sense that they should have no bans for unfair play (what is a question of lawful settlement), and if they have had such violations then must be flown the established by the law period of banishment from participation in the governing of the country -- this must be something like "certificate for fair play" which has to be issued by specially authorized state institutions. The main, though not exactly specified by the law, requirement remains the necessity of some proof for active sports occupation: various distinctions like Master of sports, national, world and Olympic records, medals, awards and certificates from different sports competitions. Not every sportsman can become politician (this is unobtainable, because we defend the massive sport and in the politics there are not needed so much people), but
each politician must be sportsman, and well known!
Well, and because in the light of fundamental principles of our Union some of the existing democratic instances are filled with new meanings, we propose also new and more suitable names, namely:
Olympiament, instead of the Parliament, and
Localments, instead of the Municipalities. And really, as in ancient times Olympus was the place where the gods sat, in the same way now in the Olympiament must be decided the fate of the country, and the questions of competence of local instances of government -- in the Localments. As common name for these both institutions we propose the simplest --
Sportaments, because these are places where function eminent sportsmen. And mark that this mnemonics not only represents their new essence, but also
rejects the old one, which comes from the word
parlare (or "speak" in Italian), where we from the USC have the ambition in the new organs
not just to speak but to
do useful
work! How precisely will be done this we shall explain in the next chapter.
2. Activity of the Sportaments
2.1. Polemics and debates
We can not imagine whatever ruling without debates of some kind, because the truth crystallizes only in result of colliding of different views, but we
don't think that these disputes must be only some verbal equilibristics and stings (for information of the readers Latin word "discussion" is build of "dis" + "kus" and means simply tearing of the problem in bites or cut "kusses"-pieces). Much more dignified for a high tribune is literally to
debate, or lead battles, in which the rightfulness is proved via victory of the stronger part under conditions of fair play.
When somebody has personal (or collective)
meaning on some question, which differs from that of some other part, and when he is ready to insist that it is the right one, then
let he defends it in a duel!
Wasn't this the right way of behaving used for centuries and were not for this reason invented the duels or simply the fights between adversaries (even in very ancient times), and the wars, too, as last way out (or
ultima ratio in Latin)? Could you believe some orator more than a man who is ready to fight (and even to risk his life) in order to defend his position? But we are not cruel and don't want human sacrifices (when they can easily be avoided)! The bad thing in the duels from the gone away centuries were
not the very duels but their lethal issue, though when the needed measures for protection are taken (as it is in all contemporary sporting disciplines), then leaves only the possibility for checking of the rightfulness and
conviction of the politician. This is our opinion and it, obviously, is right, as proved in the centuries of human history. Even etymologically viewed the word "sport" is closely related with the word "controversy" (in Slavonic languages, where they are, respectively, "sport" and "spor", but something similar may be found also in English where the word "contest" means also sports events), what speaks about the fact that people long ago have been unconsciously convinced that
all controversies-contests must be decided by sporting-contests! We propose below the actual procedure.
When the person X insults the person Y and does not want to excuse oneself (i.e. this has not happened accidentally) then the person Y has the right
and moral obligation to declare a duel, and if it makes this then the person X chooses in which sporting discipline they will contest. Everything is plain and clear, and there leave only some details to be fixed and confirmed with laws. First of all has to be made precise list with sporting disciplines in which may be performed such duels in the Sportaments, where they must be attractive and convincing, i.e. to be unquestionably clear who is the winner and not to do this by finding the mean value of debatable meanings of some highly professional jury. We will just mention that rhythmic gymnastics, for example, is out of place here (and it is, in addition, sport for women); the various acrobatic exercises on sporting tools are also not suitable; about the chess we can't speak at all because it checks not the strength but the intellect, and in what country rules the intellect (?) -- rhetorical question, because if such country existed then people there will shortly begin to be ruled by computers and we, personally, are not much exalted by such perspective --; the mountaineering, jumps with parachutes, deltaplanerism, paraplanerism, caving, ski jumping, et cetera, are also excluded. What concerns the collective sports so they may be used only by collective controversies or on official holidays and other special events.
There remain, though, wide variety of suitable battle sports, like the different kinds of wrestling, boxing, fencing (where winning by points has to be excluded), some knight's tournaments, maybe, etc., and also different kinds of "out-playings", like weightlifting, throwing of javelins, cannon-balls and other things, outrunning, outswimming, outjumping, motorcycle races, horse races, and other 'out-' games, for each of which sports there have to be special regulations for winning (or degree of supremacy), which must
exclude the equality as outcome, because in the politics and sports is looked
only for victory! In this situation the Sportaments, naturally, must have access to different halls, which are placed usually on the stadiums, and own some stadiums, too, but these are easily realized formalities, where initially the existing sports facilities might be used.
The next question which must be fixed in laws is the formation of special Commissions to the Sportaments as analog of the umpire institution in the sports games and we propose they to be named
Commissions for Sports Ethics (CSE). These Commissions must have certain rights and obligations and only via request to them must be sanctioned and planned all political contests, which thereafter have to be officially registered and saved in the archives. No one politician has right
even to give a slap in the face of his adversary, otherwise than using the specially determined for this purpose
white silk glove, which he is obliged to carry always with him when working (on the meetings of Sportaments, or by the official combats), set in the upper pocket of his coat in place of a handkerchief! All insults and challenges must be achieved
stylish, not with insulting words (how it is in the existing Parliaments), otherwise the CSE can penalize the person with sums of about 1/10 to 1/2 of his monthly salary. In more serious cases of violations these Commissions must be authorized to impose also temporary suspension (up to three months) from the Sportament with deprivation of salary for the period, where in cases of necessity for imposing of the same punishment for second time the person is permanently excluded and for him is written a ban up to four years for participation in the ruling of the country.
If it is not possible to entirely avoid the use of political qualifications like: "charlatan", "swindler", "traitor", "bungler", "nitwit", etc., then there must be at least provided means for each political power to reject (or confirm) similar bad names in honest combat, where if the insult isn't personal but of the whole party may be used collective sports like: football, volleyball, waterpolo, etc., not forgetting one especially suited , though not popular in our country male sport, like rugby.
More than this, as far as some political disagreements can provoke
permanent conflicts (like, say, the question: what to do when your children want some milk but you have not a cow: whether only to look; or to begin also you to milk her, no matter that she is not yours; or to roll up your sleeves and after, so, ten years of hard work save enough money for a milk cow and, though you still have not the money to feed her but, anyway, will increase the chances for buying of your own cow, so that if not your children then at least your grandchildren could drink as much milk as then want; or to forget about the dream to buy your cow and spend your money to buy by little milk from those who have their cows and require as much as they want for their watered milk; et cetera) -- so, if there are such permanent contests, then there must be some limitations in the number of combats, which can be carried out in the Olympiament on the questions.
We from the USC propose to be set the following limitations for insults of a given person or political power in the period of one mandate:
only one encounter with a given weapon (i.e. in the given sport)
on each question, and
up to three combats on one and the same question but in different sports (and is it one and the same, despite the different ways of its presentation, is established by the CSE), where in case of two won battles from the one part the third is not carried out. In the same time, however, if the question is already completed with decision from previous combats must be imposed corresponding fines for new challenge; but in every new mandate, of course, the question may be raised again. The Localments can discuss only questions with local significance and are not allowed to debate global ones (like that about the cow).
To summarize: fair gentlemanly duels on every question, sports combats and defending the honour of personages or political powers at any time until the reasonable limit of contests is exhausted -- this is the rightful and objective decision of USC! But mark, that we do not demand wherever for the duels to be executed personally by the insulted or insulting persons, this is a matter of honour and decision of each of the parties in the conflict. It is supposed that the choosing part will prefer the sport in which it is stronger, but nobody can require from the other part to fight in person in the duel, it may point also another one for its defender -- because: what is the purpose for the electorate to watch, say, freestyle wrestling between world champion in this fight, from the one side, and jockey, or boxer category "feather", or even Olympic winner but in swimming or running 100 meters, from the other side? People may want shows, but
real shows, not showy things! So that each one can play in place of everybody, when wishes to defend the honour or credo of some of his followers, he must just state this earlier before the corresponding CSE. It is possible also that the insulting participant chooses specially the sport of the insulted person in order to make him to fight personally, but then the very insulting person may decide not to take part personally but to use a protector of his. In addition to this, no matter that there are obligatory arbiters from the part of CSE, each party in the duel can have also its seconds, but they have no decisive voice.
What concerns the exact
motive for the fight (because people always look for some motive as an excuse for their detestation to other persons or ideas), let us stress that it is preferable
not to look for a motive, at least for personal duels, but to use the silk glove for one light tapping on the nose of the adversary in public -- were it on some competition, were it on the sidelines or at the buffet, were it during the meetings, but in all cases in official working circumstances --, than to make unprovable verbal attacks, unworthy of eminent statesmen! Even when the accusations can be proved before a judicial court
we prefer the right of the power before the power of the right (at least because if there were not power then there wouldn't have been what to legalize the law). Well, it is clear that all duels without motive are counted for one type and, hence, it can't be more than one fight on this question, but, still, "everyone with everybody" is sufficiently big amount, so that there is no danger that sometimes the public will be bored by this.
2.2. Adoption of laws
As far as the main activity of the Olympiament, after all, is the adoption of laws, we feel obliged to explain our view on this question, because the existing (all around the world) procedure of voting is, really, not only unsatisfactory, but directly
erroneous! It gives
bad decision, because the choice between only three variants is highly restricted (imagine if in schools there were only three kinds of grades, namely: "knows", "does not know", and "I don't know whether he knows", without any possibility to determine the level of knowledge -- here, the usefulness of the law), but it gives also
erroneous decision, because this, what must be understood by the voting, is
what is the power that stays behind the decision, and
not the number of people, i.e.
what is the quality, not the quantity!
In other words, here is needed some
smooth solution, and such one that can evaluate the
strength and will of the sportsmen. Our proposition satisfies these requirements and in addition is much more spectacular than an ordinary voting. This entirely
sportsmanlike decision is ... the
pulling of a rope! We leave to everyone to think about this and convince himself alone in its advantages. Of course, we can in old fashion speak about voting instead of "pulling out" of the decision, though both expressions are permitted. And if by some exhausting votings (especially if there are different amendments, for each one of which must be done separate pulling) are imposed temporary interruptions of the sessions for reinforcement of the politicians this is fully in the order of the things, because the strong spirit resides in a strong (and well fed) body. For the public, though, remains the irreplaceable with whatever else show of this kind of voting -- the atmosphere of fight and strength!
3. Elections
USC does not impose other changes in the existing elections of Olympiament, Localments, and President, except the mentioned in chapter 1 requirements to all high-ranking politicians, namely: to be men between 20 and 45 years and to have at the moment no bans for unfair play, where they must provide also convincing proofs for active sporting career. The formal renaming of these institutions was explained earlier. We think that all elections must be direct and general, as much as this lies in the foundations of real democracy. Let us note also that the very pre-electoral campaign in this case will be made significantly easier due to the wide popularity of the candidates, what will save sufficient amount of money in state's budget.
More than this, in order to give more emotions to the people there might be extraordinary pre-electoral sporting events and the collected out of them money will go for sustenance (and maybe also self-sustenance) of the Sportaments. Instead of pre-electoral meetings where the public hears various speeches and cries "Huhh" or "Hurray" (in Slavonic "Uuhh" and "Urahh", respectively, so there is hardly a big difference), according to the preferences of each one
*, we propose highly emotional sporting events, which, besides being triumph of the strength and sportsmanship, will give also a good orientation about the views of the sportsmen (in any case idols for many men and unspoken desires for a row of women) and will assist the ordinary person in the forming of his choice in one pleasurable way. Via invasion of the sport in the politics we will make the very elections to one sporting event in which wins the stronger and the braver -- not that who promises more, but who
gives more (positive emotions) to the population; not that who thinks more for his personal benefits and enrichment, but for the ideals of the pure sport and is stimulated only by the wish to win. This, naturally, does not hinder the politicians to win dividends (and other benefits) from these sports battles, but that is why the prizes in the sport exist -- for to stimulate and distinguish the best!
[ * It seems that in this was the main difference between Bulgarian two leading political powers in the first decade of our democracy, i.e. between BSP (Bulgarian Socialist Party) or the party of former communists, who call themselves now socialists, and address everybody with "dear humans" as modification of the former "Hurray" (for the Party, Government, etc.), for one thing, and the UDF (Union of Democratic Forces, SDS in Bulgarian), supposing that there are no other democrats at all except them, who liked to cry "Huhh!" and "Down!" and were "anti" to everything, for another thing. ]
Specifically by the elections for President must be drawn first a lot for the sporting discipline, in which the candidates in the current elections will contest, as well as also their category (some of the heavier, surely). By one suitable regulation for really male sports like: wrestling (free, classical, eastern type), boxing, weightlifting, and others, may be expected very interesting pre-electoral fights which will draw the attention of the whole nation to the political arena. Only in this situation our President will sit like Zeus Thunderer on his throne and will be obeyed and respected by everyone, what unavoidably will show its positive influence over the progress of democracy in our country.
4. Conclusive remarks
Let us in conclusion turn our attention to this how
the sound fundament of strength and competition in the politics sets easily everything on their places and resolves a heap of unsolved problems, like for example: about the incorrect quarrels, because the most convincing defense of
unconvincing positions is only the
fight for their assertion; about the unreasonable partiality to ideas which truthfulness nobody can prove, and even if one does this, after some time it will turn out that he has made an error; about the advantages of the brave and dynamic positions of strength and youthfulness, and not of the experience of the old generation, because if we have relied only on the experience and wisdom we would have lived still in caves; about the correct voting via the
strength and conviction of the MPs by rope pulling, not by simple counting of votes all of which are equal; about the cult to the sport and competition, as one of the ways for bettering of our life; and at the end, be it only for combining of the useful for the country with the pleasant for the people!
But the most important thing is that we
don't add new
minuses to the democratical idea, because if for governing of the country is
not needed whatever qualification (for such is not required), then our stipulations for strength and competition
can't worsen the governmental mechanisms! There are no reasons which will induce that one well known sportsman will show to be worse judge for the good or the bad (what is the work of the MPs) than one confined in his narrow domain jurist, or physician, or economist, engineer, etc., but there is a
big conviction in the argument of strength, and even greater -- of fair play --, and in spite of this such requirement does not exist in any actual Parliament!
Only USC finds the right qualification for the politician, as well as the right place for the sportsman, because they both live for personal expression and
to provide emotions for the public! Well, if it's so, then let the emotions be more and pleasanter!
If the politics aims to make our society better, so the sport aims to make our body better. From ancient times the humanity has got to the truth that sound spirit can exist only in a sound body, for a long time it is in certain that sound society may exist only by good governmental institutions, but we from the USC for the first time got to the conclusion
how to accomplish this! And in doing this we have not looked for something new but just looked properly in the history of humanity, and taking the best out of it we incorporated it in the democracy. In this way we created one better, or one
newer democracy!
Via USC to
well suited selection of statesmen and bettering of their demeanor!
To real political battles and duels only via the Union for Strength and Competition!
Give support to the strength, give support to the competition, give support to the USC!
MANIFESTO OF THE CCC*
(Civilized Centralization and Circuses)
[ * Here are three "z"-s in the original and this letter is also to the end of the alphabet (though not last). ]
The history of all societies is a history of
compromise between the bread and the circuses for the people! This is formulated most precisely in the proverbial phrase
"panem et circenses", which we in Bulgaria translate not quite exactly as "bread and shows". For the securing of the bread is needed centralized, very often dictatorial or at least one-party, government, where for providing of the circuses for the people in the area of social governing is invented the democracy, or the choice from below, which gives possibilities for outspeaking of various parties and for changing of those who have sat for a long time on the throne. The truth in this case, as also in many other situations, is in the suitable level of
compromise between these both extremities, because the good centralization requires full subjection of the population to the ruling persons, in order to achieve peaceful life in the country, as much as
the goal of each ruling is to maintain the status quo, but nobody can obey sufficiently good if he has rights to criticize and change those who command him. On the other hand, only the possibility for participation of wide population masses in the governmental processes, the discussions and confrontations of different views, realized in the democratic forms of government, can provide the so needed for the public political circuses, which together with this ensure also quick and easy changing of the line of governing when needed.
As it's seen, these are contradictory requirements, and the contemporary democracy succeeds to remain for a long time in many countries because it
is not that classical democracy from Ancient Greece (which, because it was pure democracy, or has provided mainly the circuses, has not stayed for more than a decade in succession in Ancient Athens and was changed with the next tyranny). Despite of everything, however, the present-day compromising democratic forms of ruling, though they contain sprouts of strong centralized power, set primarily on the democracy, and for that reason the providing of bread continues to limp, where the more poor the country is, the more tangible people feel the need of really stable power, and not only of circuses. But in order to appreciate properly our proposition let us first have a look at the
1. Main shortcomings of the democracy.
1.1. The opposition and the folks hinder the rulers in the process of governing,
where they most often want things which, if they alone had to implement them into deeds, would have perfectly well understood their unjustification, and this, in turn, urges the leading party rare to give ear to their voices! This is psychologically well explainable, because one thinks in one way when he alone has to do this, what he proposes, and in entirely different way when he wants just to express his meaning but knows that,
anyway, nobody will listen to him. That's exactly this that gives the circuses, of course, but these circuses hinder the governing when they cease to be just circuses and allow possibility for influence over the governing. After the moment when one party wins in the elections it must be left to govern alone; there might be given advises to it and expressed requests, but
not to expect that it will listen to them! And exactly then the ruling persons will listen more often to the circuses, because they may be interesting for them and the ruling ones may later say they were their own meanings (where for the people is important to be well fed and the life to be calm, not
who exactly has proposed something reasonable).
The ruling party must take the whole responsibility for its governing; it will have the possibility to listen to the voice of people when new elections come, but it should not be hindered during the mandate.
1.2. The rulers suppress the free expressions of the ruled,
because they are afraid (and with reason) that the people and the opposition will begin to search ways to interfere with the pursued line of management and even to change them prematurely. When somebody isn't convinced that the other one will listen to him and respect him, then he tries either to fool him or to disguise the facts, and when he can't achieve this, then the governing becomes ineffective and begins to stall. Similar situation may be seen in contemporary families, where, as far as the deciding parts are exactly two, is obviously necessary unambiguous determination of the deciding vote, and if it lacks (as it also happens nowadays) than the family begins to fall apart. Similar is the fate of many democratic regimes, especially of the so called bipolar model, when emerge "two sharp stones" for which the folks say that they "can't grind the flour", because the most often reaction is simply to do the reverse of what the other part wants (in order to see who is the stronger). If the rulers are convinced that nobody will hinder them to finish their mandates then they will try (at least the cleverer between them) to fulfill the wishes of the opposition and the folks, for to be again elected the next time. As it's seen, the simultaneous activity of the winners and the losers in the elections, on one and the same arena called Parliament, leads only to troubles, where neither the bread is good secured, nor the circuses are circuses.
1.3. The real democracy remains on the streets,
because in the majority of cases the main advantages of the democracy occur under the influence of various extra-parliamentary associations, were they: movements for environmental protection, for protection of animals, for freedom of homosexuality, some female squads, pacifist movements, associations of pensioners, or of certain minorities, and so on, as well as from a number of prominent individuals, or extraordinary set up temporary associations, but
not as a result of debates in the Parliament. Not that the Parliament does not at all provide circuses for the people, but the real circuses happen on the streets, and even if we imagine that it is possible to satisfy all wishes of the masses, and before they are yet expressed, then there also will be discontented people, at least because they will have nothing
to what to object! Hence, all circuses must be gathered in one place, in one specially created institution, to which all who express a wish must have access, not only the official opposition from the Parliament.
1.4. In all Parliaments is absent the rule for two mandates of political parties,
which is important dynamical element in the present-day democracy. Such rule exists for the President, but he is only one person, where it does not exist for the parties alone, and in this situation some party may win the elections even in five mandates in succession, and the masses will be governed
by the same people, because nobody will give up his post voluntarily, if his party continues to lead. Under the democracy
there is not the best party, because if such existed it shouldn't have been changed (as it was under the totalitarian regimes), so that each prolongated remaining in power unavoidably strengthens the centralization, but decreases the spectacularity for the people. It is needed, therefore, some ceiling for the duration of governing of each party (coalition), what will lead to more frequent change also of the very politicians, because, as in the families, so in the politics, the variety is the primary thing which makes life bearable.
From the already said it becomes clear that the contemporary democracy is one
chaotic mixture of centralization and circuses, in which nobody bothers to set some limits where the one thing ends and the another one begins, and for that reason the circuses hamper the governing and vice versa, and the democracy exists because it can't be a country without ruling and till now there was not known something that could have made it better. We from the
Civilized Centralization and Circuses (CCC) undertake to correct this omission by offering
2. New democratic structures.
These structures are mainly two, which are pure incarnation of the two principles in the governing, where the first is called
2.1. Government.
This is the very government and there is no need to invent new names when this word is well known in the western languages (though in the other, not exactly "Eastern" ones, it is not used).
The Government is the ruling body in the contemporary democracies, but together with the managerial functions of the Council of Ministers, which is part of the Government, here are included also the Municipalities, as regional governmental bodies, the
Legislative Chamber, as analogue of the legislative functions of traditional Parliaments, as well as the Presidency, with representative and consolidating functions. These structures and their rights are established in accordance with the Constitution of the country, and their filling with concrete individuals is performed by decision of the
Representative Council (RC) of the party which has won the elections. This Council consists of
100 persons Representatives of the People (RPs or MPs) from the
leading in the elections party, which are estimated by summing of the voices only for the first party, dividing them by 100, and in this way is calculated the quota for one representative place in RC. Later, according to this quota, for each region is calculated a number equal to the amount of seats in RC for the region, where the votes for this party are divided to the quota. This number isn't integer and because of that firstly is chosen the minimal amount of MPs according to the integer part of this number and then all regions are ordered in decreasing order of the fractional part of the same number and is taken by one person from each region from the beginning of the list in this order until reaching the required common amount of hundred persons, what guaranties justified rounding in favour of the greatest parts. The choice from below reaches to the establishing of the political power and its representatives, from then on starts the reasonable choice from above according to the decision of this power.
The leading party determines the various Ministers, but they
are not so important persons as we are used to think and only
helpers in the governing process, as says also the very word, which is derived from the root ... "mini-", surely, i.e. something small (where exactly in English the word "minister" means small priest, ambassador, and, in general, officer in some centralized structure; well, he isn't so small officer because there are even smaller,
added to him persons, who administer). The Representative Council of the ruling party appoints also the members of the Legislative Chamber according to certain professional criteria, approves the Municipalities according to the party lists for the regions, as also chooses the President and Vice-president, and this is the supreme authority of the country after initiating of the mandate, which can perform whatever changes in the Government and to cease (reject) decisions of various of its bodies. This, naturally, does not mean that in the Government can't enter representatives of other parties or non-party persons, if they are good professionals, but RC is the instance, which has to approve them and takes its responsibility in case of eventual errors.
The Representative Council
isn't permanent body and it chooses between its lines one
Coordinating Council (CC) from 12 persons as permanently acting body and with rights to cause congregation of the whole RC when needed, as far as the major part of MPs from the ruling party occupy some posts in the Government. The adoption of laws is done in RC, where each draft law can be subjected to prior discussion. The sittings of the RC are carried out, as a rule, by closed doors, where the decisions are taken by simple or qualified majority (according to the case) and announced officially. The same applies also to various bodies of the Government. The mandate of the Government and the Representative Council is according to the written in the Constitution (where we find that 4 years is an appropriate duration) and it can't be prolonged, but can be terminated earlier by decision of RC taken with qualified majority of 2/3 of its members, and then must firstly be carrier out new elections in shortened terms (up to three months) and only after this to be handed over the power. The Representative Council can be called also by initiative of at least 1/4 of its members, but only it embodies the whole government and takes the whole responsibility. Any public debates hindering the governing are excluded from the Government, because it intentionally is separated from the circuses and the expression of will of the people, for which purpose exists another structure called
2.2. Circament.
As it follows from its name this is a structure for providing of democratic circuses to the people, for discussions and expression of the popular will. Our presumption is that
each comparatively
mass movement must have some representation in the Circament, so that people could be in position to express themselves and their pretensions to be written and showed to the Government, if they receive positive resolution in some of the divisions of the Circament. This, of course,
does not mean that the Government must pay attention to them, but each non-paying attention may then fall on the back of the ruling party, so that exactly this is the needed degree of compromise and of dividing between governing and circuses. In order to be fairly represented all strata of the population the Circament consists of
three separate Houses, namely:
a) House of the Representatives (HR). This House is sufficiently near to the traditional Parliaments, or rather to their oppositional part, i.e. this is
the official opposition, where it consists again of
100 persons but
from all other parties excluding the leading one (which occupies the Government), and in addition to this these parties have gathered enough votes for to skip over some
lower threshold (what is also traditional requirement). This threshold according to CCC must be
five percent from the votes for the Circament, what, in fact, corresponds to circa 3% by other Parliaments (because normally at least 1/3 of the MPs are from the first party, which here is absent). After throwing away those parties which do not skip the threshold are summed up the voices of these for HR and are divided similarly by 100 in order to find the quota of each of them, setting aside first the integer part, and after this the additions in diminishing order of the fractional parts. The specific Representatives are chosen according to the lists by regions, again first only the integer parts and after this also the additions for the decimal fractions. By the way, in this way is good to make also a list of
reserves (continuing the visiting of fractional parts and, when needed, to begin again from the beginning), which to be used to supplement the HR if necessary.
b) House of the Anti-representatives (HA). This house is now a new element and
has no analogue in the traditional Parliaments. It consists also of
100 persons, where here are represented these political parties which have not gathered the needed number of votes to enter the HR, where here, too, exists
lower threshold of five percent. The calculations are entirely similar to those in the previous subsection, where here are excluded all parties up to the last represented in the HR including, only that, as far as this House already is of the minority parties, then they are represented
in inverse proportion of their votes, so that those with the fewest number of votes to be "heard" best of all. This is one typical circus element and it, positively, will provide many emotions for the people during the debates in this House. More precisely said, this inverse proportion means that after establishing of the exact number of mandates for the parties these mandates are read in strictly inverse order where the first party gets the number of Representatives of the last in HA and vice versa, the second -- those of the last but one, et cetera.
c) House of the Extra-parliamentarians (HE). This House
also is entirely untraditional and consists again of
100 persons. In it enter
by three persons from each of the
non-presented anywhere else
political forces from the participated in the elections, as well as
from each other organization expressed a wish to be included (provided it is registered under the law for non-profit organizations), which can be represented in the moment. Let us make this clearer: because here can be represented at most 33 organizations this means that if they are more than this number is simply drawn a lot which of them may enter, where each force then names by three persons who are to represent it (first in the lists, if they have taken part in the elections), and in addition to this these persons choose one between them for Chairman (and to fill up the number to 100), where this force that has given the Chairman proposes one more on his place. It is maintained a
waiting list for including of new organizations, where
every six months these forces
are updated (and possibly is chosen new Chairman) substituting maximum ten forces (if there are at least so much in the queue), and the determining of those, that are to go out, as well as those, that are to enter, is performed in an arbitrary way -- via a lot! This is quite justly because in HE are represented forces with practically no importance for the governing (but important for the
circuses), and there are no other reasons for the greater value for democracy of the whichever one of them, where in this sense the ordering in the queue gives no priority for inclusion. Besides, each gone out force can
again stand in the queue, by wish. And, naturally, if there are less than 33 such powers, then HE will be in incomplete number.
The House of Extra-parliamentarians solves satisfactorily also the question with individual candidates (IC), because they can easy register some non-profit associations (e.g. "Ivan Ivanov and Supporters") and just enroll on the waiting list, even if they
have not taken part in the elections, in which case they will have very real chances to be represented (and in fact by three persons) in the Circament, and for at least 6 months. But may be proposed an alternative variant of HE, in which it consists of up to 30 parties by 3 persons and up to 9 individual candidates, plus the Chairman, where there are maintained two separate waiting lists -- for parties and for IC -- and are changed by 10 parties and 3 IC. Though let us mark, that the presumption for individual candidates is rather one more democratic confusion, because they are chosen by regions, not for the entire country, where one known personality can much more easy collect the required number of votes. And besides, what's the purpose for one IC to win in three regions, for example; or else, if he is chosen from the whole country, then to win, say, five mandates? Therefore, it is clear that they exist only for
to conceal the political power which stays behind them, so that CCC thinks that they must not exist, and the corresponding persons take part in the government, if they wish to, in some other (easier) way.
As you see,
the Circament is one perfect democratic circus, where are represented: the traditional oppositional parties -- in the House of Representatives --, also the typical minorities, which take part in the elections but can not succeed to enter in the classical Parliaments, and even maximally spectacular -- in the House of Anti-representatives --, and in addition to this also all extra-parliamentarian forces, which are absent from the traditional Parliaments and go about the streets hoping to attract attention of the public and the government -- in the House of Extra-parliamentarians. These Houses are ordered by seniority or importance (in the order of explaining), and every common person may require access to the Circament, but
from below and upwards, i.e. firstly to HE. If HE comes out with resolution that his opinion deserves attention, he may require access also to HA, and in the same way to HR. Surely each House may also deny access of this person, or reject his thesis as pointless or outdated. Similar is the way of corresponding of these Houses with the Government, where only HR has right of access to it, and this also not directly but via correspondence, to which, as we mentioned earlier, the Government is not at all obliged to pay attention. This is how the government can be Government, and the circuses -- Circuses!
In the Addendum is given one detailed example for the distribution of seats in the above-mentioned democratic structures in accordance with the requirements of the CCC. Here it remained to look at one more structure, which takes temporary part in the governing and which is called
2.3. General Assembly.
The General Assembly (GA) is called
in the beginning of each mandate for a period of
two weeks, which can be prolonged twice for the same period. In timely executed elections GA can be gathered even one month before expiring of the mandate of the old Government. In it enter the 100 persons from the
Representative Council of the leading party and also the 100 persons from the
House of Representatives from the Circament. It can take decisions only about questions for changes in the Constitution leading to changes in the structure of democratic authorities, for possible corrections in the duration of the mandate with regard of rounding, but less than plus /minus one year, or for redistribution of certain authorities. All decisions of GA are taken with qualified majority of 2/3 and until it completes its work the old Government continues to work. In the normal case two weeks are just a period for making acquaintances between the future rulers, for analysis of the expiring governing, and for transmission of the work in the corresponding structures from one party to another. It is possible also to decide that GA will be gathered after one year again for two weeks in each six months, for analysis and reporting, where after the second year to have rights to decide about early termination of the mandate and fixing of new elections.
3. Democratic elections
The elections for the Government and the Circament are general, with bulletins and lists of candidates, as it is in the traditional democracies. The new moment here is the so called
postponed mandate, what means that if one party /coalition occupies twice in a row the Government and if it wins for the third time it receives only the right in one of
the following two elections to move up with one position, while currently it
returns with one position back and is considered as second power in which case it receives stable majority in HR of the Circament! This moving up in the next elections, surely, is worthwhile only from second place to first, because this ranking can not change the percentage of votes for the party and, hence, this shows no influence over the HR, but it can be very significant sometimes, when the party lacks a mere percent to the first place. This postponed mandate is one very justified decision that satisfies the requirement for maximum two mandates for each party and in the same time it harms nobody else, but if instead of party we have coalition then this rule is applied to the
whole coalition, so that if to the next elections even one political force comes out of it, then all left forces also lose their postponed mandate. In addition let us mention also that, as far as this condition remains valid only up to two consecutive elections, and is won also for two mandates, there is no possibility for more than one party /coalition to make use of it simultaneously.
Because the Municipalities are part of the Government there is no need for additional elections for them, and, besides, they are administrative units, or should have been such ones. If our country was divided in autonomous regions or States, with some separate territorial bodies and laws, then it could have been allowed in each State to perform also elections for local governmental bodies, but for us there's no need for this. The separation of the Legislative Chamber as professional judicial body for making of laws solves also the question with
professional incompetence of the political leaders, because the one who governs is not at all needed to know how to compose laws. The drafts of the laws are elaborated in the Chamber and are adopted by the RC of the Government, what does not exclude (and even presupposes) the possibility that the House of Representatives from the Circament expresses its meaning about each of the drafts, if RC or CC decides to send them with this purpose. HR, for its part, can decide to make other Houses also know this draft law, but the Circament takes no decisions and works under directions from the Government and in set by the later terms. The choice of the President ceases to be the next circus for the masses because his post is especially important for the state, and his professional qualities can be appreciated best of all by his colleagues from the party which leads the Government, and that is why he is chosen by the Representative Council of the winning party. In this way is excluded the possibility for existence of President from oppositional party, what can only weaken given government and force new elections.
As a rule CCC proposes that
all mandates begin on Jan 01 of an year divisible by 4, where the elections are held three months before this time (i.e. in October), and even the General Assembly to be called in the beginning of December. The pre-electoral campaign begins normally 6 months before each elections (or from April 01) and each temporary ban on political parties, if such was imposed by the Government, is canceled in order that the elections run fairly, and later the next Government can again enact such ban, if finds it necessary, but only with resolution of Representative Council taken with qualified majority. Even in situation of martial law, or under premature termination of the mandate (again by decision of RC), the elections must be held normally, where in such conditions is allowed the pre-electoral period to be shortened, but not to less than three months.
Martial law can declare initially only the President but for a period of to 14 days, which can be prolonged ones more time. In case of military danger or serious internal turmoils RC has the right to prolong this condition also to the end of the mandate (i.e. after the elections and until the new Government takes the power). Anyway, all these things must be fixed in the Constitution of the country, by respecting the main ideas of CCC. It is right also to fix the remuneration of different structures where we propose the following gradation: HE of the Circament to receive only by one minimal monthly salary (MMS) in a month, HA -- by 2 MMS, HR -- by 3 MMS, and the staff of the Government and RC -- from 4 to 7 MMS.
The Civilized Centralization resembles in some extent the known democratic centralism, only that under the latter there was only centralism and was no real democracy, because there were no party fights and genuine elections. By our proposition exists as well strong central power (which can forbid temporarily political parties, demonstrations, and other manifestations of public discontent leading to unrests in the country), as also real free democratic elections, where in the Circament are represented not only the parties won in the elections but also
all other parties and strata of the population. Of course,
not all have equal rights for interference in the governing of the country, but that is, after all, why the elections are performed -- for to determine which political party what rights will have during the next mandate! And the rule for postponed mandate is just a necessity for all democratic forms, only that it is applied nowhere yet.
If we want adaptive and dynamic governing we must choose some form of democracy; if we want stable and dynamic democracy we must choose some way for centralization; if we want circuses and emotions for the people we must give them possibility for free manifestation and circuses.
The Civilized Centralization and Circuses satisfies all these requirements.
CCC preserves everything precious from the democracy, centralizing and strengthening it, but in one civilized, not totalitarian, way. The civilized society requires civilized democracy, but
the civilized democracy is the CCC.
The democracy incessantly develops and betters itself, or mutates and evolves.
The newest mutation in the domain of democracy is the CCC.
If you value the circuses, if you value the centralization,
if you value the civilization, then
you value the Civilized Centralization and Circuses!