as i see it - Pt. III

[ara baliozian]

Friday, October 03, 2003

*****************************

If some day we produce an objective historian

he will have to conclude that

alienated and assimilated Armenians

(beginning with the imperial dynasties of Byzantium)

made more contributions to mankind

than so-called authentic Armenians.

The question we should ask at this point is:

What is it about our environment

that infects us with mediocrity?

*

An Armenian tends to think that

just because he is an Armenian

he is also an expert on Armenian affairs

beginning with the Genocide.

But I suggest anyone who knows only

one side of a story, any story,

cannot qualify as an expert.

And to be the dupe of propaganda

is worst than a little knowledge,

which we are told is a dangerous thing.

*

Some of the most inane assertions I have heard

were made by Armenians about Armenians.

Which may suggest that if we are smart,

it is only in the market place.

Anywhere else we might as well be babes in the woods.

*

If you believe in an ideology, religion

or any closed system of thought,

read its critics and dissidents, not its propagandists,

because propaganda has this in common with serial killers:

it will invariably plead not guilty.

*

A headline in our local paper today:

AFTER ADMITTING TO KILLING HIS SIX CHILDREN

HANDEL PLEADS NOT GUILTY.

*

The approval and support of a writer

by a political party is as good as a kiss of death.

*

What legitimizes and perpetuates divisions

in a nation or community is not

enlightened self-interest or common sense

but tribal instinct for feud and vendetta

that every generation passes on to the next.

*

Blood may well be thicker than water

but common sense goes farther than chauvinist crapola

and common decency is superior to mumbo jumbo.

*

Here are some aphorisms by Antonio Porchia (1886-1968),

an Argentine writer of Italian descent

who appears to know all about us:

*

"Truth has very few friends and those few

are suicides."

*

"A door opens to me. I go in and am faced

with a hundred closed doors."

*

"You think you are killing me.

I think you are committing suicide."

*

"Some things become so completely our own

that we forget them."

*

"They will say that you are on the wrong road,

if it is your own."

[ara baliozian]

Ara, I happen to share that view but I am not eager to inform you Its not about your writing skills or sincerety to change things. I think it is all about attitude. Your attitude is all critical to the degree of not even accepting kindness in fear of losing your pose as an all critical, honest, perhaps heroic, writer. Am I right or wrong? You will probably disregard my question as you have done in the past and continue posting your usual way. While I appreciate your noble intentions I also see no way that anyone, not just any writer, can bring about positive changes by simply criticizing, finding all kinds of faults with others, teaching from a cold distance.

That said, I do think that you have a lot of wisdom to offer and as a person have a lot of good qualities, and of course you must keep writing as no other Armenian writer writes like you

you seem to imply that

the written word is obsolete.

At the beginning was the word,

at the end, garbage.

you may indeed be right....

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, October 04, 2003

******************************

In Turkey we were classified us "Christian Turks"

in the hope that if they stopped calling us Armenian

we may forget our identity.

In Russia we were ridiculed as "cowardly"

probably because we refused to die in someone else’s war.

In Italy we acquired the reputation of cunning merchants

because Italians dealt only with Levantine merchants

and not with hard-working farmers and craftsmen

of the mainland.

In France we were described as "filthy"

because in Shahnour’s words "destitution stinks."

In Greece we were dismissed as "Turkish gypsies"

because as refugees from Ottoman atrocities

we lived in a ghetto that looked like a gypsy encampment.

And if you think the odar world has been rough on us,

consider what repatriated Armenians were called

by the natives: "akhber" – an obvious pun

on the word garbage.

As Americans are fond of saying:

"Everyone has an angle."

And we ain’t no exception.

*

Almost every other Armenian I meet

has no intention of dedicating his life

to literature but would like to acquire the reputation

of one who could have been a great poet,

author or even intellectual-statesman

but preferred to sacrifice his genius

by serving the people in more tangible ways,

such as selling Oriental rugs,

making a pile, and sharing a few crumbs

with the needy – provided this fact is broadcast

to the whole wide world.

*

There will always be questions we cannot answer

and corners in our psyche that will remain inaccessible.

It is the darkness in these inaccessible places within us

that religions and ideologies exploit.

*

TV violence is bad, yes;

but far more dangerous is a belief system

that promotes prejudice.

There was no TV violence in the Ottoman Empire

and Nazi Germany, and yet, millions of innocent human beings

were slaughtered in cold blood.

*

When I was my own worst enemy,

I didn’t know it.

*

I like this expression by Beckett:

"like a caged beast born of caged beasts."

*

Reconciling self-interest with noble altruistic principles

is not easy but that doesn’t stop anyone from practicing it.

*

Whenever I dismiss one of our notorious Soviet-era brown-nosers,

I am asked: "What would you have done in his [or her] place?"

Here is a good answer by the 18th-century French philosopher

Joseph de Maistre: "I don’t know

what the life of a rogue can be like,

since I have never been one,

but the life of an honest man is abominable."

*

You cannot reason with insanity,

you cannot compromise with charlatans,

you cannot communicate with trash,

and you cannot love those who promote

prejudice, hate, war and massacre.

[Sasun]

you seem to imply that

the written word is obsolete.

At the beginning was the word,

at the end, garbage.

you may indeed be right....

To be honest with you, I didn't imply that And I don't agree - you are unrealistically pessimistic. If you can see the "garbage" how is it that you can't see the treasure in man? May I suggest that you don't want to see?

If your logic is correct then every time my pinky hurts I should criticize it, cut it off and throw it away assuming it won't be cured. This very approach is what I was talking about. It doesn't seem right to me. You were saying that you have had 3 bad decades. Of course, I am no one to judge your life, but I think that it is not about bad decades or being unlucky. Yours is just a wrong approach to make changes (sorry to say this).

[ara baliozian]

Monday, October 06, 2003

********************************

Going places and meeting people

I consider activities that belong to

the showbiz department of life.

I prefer my solitude and the company of trees.

*

A charming man does not waste his charm

on someone he considers useless to him.

*

Speaking of a writer we were about to meet,

a friend of mine once warned me:

"Be careful of what you say in his presence:

he may write about it."

That friend as well as his friends

are no longer friends of mine.

*

I am clumsy with tools.

Whenever I try to fix something around the house

I end up doing more damage.

Once when I tried to nail a framed picture on the wall,

I damaged the wall,

shattered the glass in the frame,

hurt my thumb,

separated the hammerhead from its shaft,

and bent the nail.

Now, whenever they see me with a hammer in my hand,

members of my family scatter in panic.

Which is exactly how I feel too

whenever one of our leaders pretends to have found

the solution to all our problems.

*

I question the validity of using our victims

as proof of moral superiority.

If anything, they are proof of our incompetence

and ignorance of history.

What could be more morally reprehensible

than using someone else’s heroism

to cover up our cowardice or

someone else’s generosity of spirit

to justify our pusillanimity?

*

When you visit a doctor

and he finds something wrong with you,

you don’t say: There is nothing wrong with me

and he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

And yet, this is what I am told

whenever I point out a contradiction in our thinking.

All nations are torn by internal conflicts, I am told.

All political leaders are clowns.

All religious leaders engage in double-talk

and promote intolerance against anyone

who refuses to accept their authority.

In short: there is absolutely nothing wrong with us,

we are God’s chosen people and

we sit at the His right hand.

But if there is a message in our history

of defeats, catastrophes, and tragedies, it is this:

We are at the mercy of arrogant and corrupt nonentities,

we are not God’s chosen people,

and if we sit anywhere it is at the edge of the abyss.

*

I feel guilty even when innocent.

All it takes is an accusation.

I feel guilty if only for appearing guilty

in the eyes of another; and

I feel guilty because I have experienced

the kind of white-heat rage during which

I could have committed the most unspeakable crimes.

In a way I understand the Turks.

What I refuse to understand is

the shameless impudence of our leaders

who plead not guilty on the grounds that

they believed the West would never allow the Turks

to massacre Armenians.

*

Does religion civilize?

Before you answer that question,

consider the history of organized religions

and the barbarism of religious fanatics.

*

Following the example of Socrates,

Chekhov compared his role as critic to that of a horsefly.

To be a horsefly, you need a horse’s ass.

All I have at my disposal is horse manure.

[ara baliozian]

To be honest with you, I didn't imply that And I don't agree - you are unrealistically pessimistic. If you can see the "garbage" how is it that you can't see the treasure in man? May I suggest that you don't want to see?

If your logic is correct then every time my pinky hurts I should criticize it, cut it off and throw it away assuming it won't be cured. This very approach is what I was talking about. It doesn't seem right to me. You were saying that you have had 3 bad decades. Of course, I am no one to judge your life, but I think that it is not about bad decades or being unlucky. Yours is just a wrong approach to make changes (sorry to say this). 

none of our critics -- from Baronian to Massikian, and from Zarian to Shahnour -- has had any "good" years. does that mean they were on the wrong path too? and that people or the nation was right in not heeding their warnings?

[Sasun]

none of our critics -- from Baronian to Massikian, and from Zarian to Shahnour -- has had any "good" years. does that mean they were on the wrong path too? and that people or the nation was right in not heeding their warnings?

Let's not call the paths right or wrong - if someone is following a path it is the right path for him. Let's evaluate the paths by their achievements. Please show me a critic who has succeded making changes by mere criticism. The writers in question may have been good writers but not good leaders or humanists. If you can show that there has been a critic whose criticism has been appreciated, whose warnings have been heeded, and who has changed people we may call his path successful.

 

I think all critics share one common thing - desire. Where there is desire, there is unsatisfied desire, and where there is unsatisfied desire, there is frustration. People do not like to follow frustrated critics but inspiring leaders who have a positive outlook, compassion and unity with the followers.

[axel]

And I don't agree - you are unrealistically pessimistic. If you can see the "garbage" how is it that you can't see the treasure in man?

 

Sasun, you ought to see this movie (if you haven't done so already )

[Sasun]

Sasun, you ought to see this movie (if you haven't done so already )

Its good that you reminded me, no I didn't see it I located that movie in a nearby video rental store and was planning to watch it.

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, October 08, 2003

*********************************

My mother likes talking to her flowers

and I don’t mean small talk

but such things as recent developments in the Middle East;

and judging by the way they thrive,

I am now convinced they are very much interested

in everything she says.

My mother has better luck with her plants

than I have with my readers.

*

How many Armenian dissidents

did the Armenian diaspora support during the Soviet era?

Case in point: a high-ranking member of the AGBU

(also known as KGBU at the time) once told me:

"Paradjanov is a syphilitic homosexual and black marketeer.

They should have locked him up

and thrown away the key a long time ago."

With such friends, who needs Talaat and Stalin?

*

All I ask from writers, even the very best among them,

is the occasional good book

and if that’s asking too much,

the occasional good line that may illuminate

a dark corner of the human psyche.

I find it incomprehensible therefore whenever

one of my readers asks more than that from me,

and I can’t help speculating that

if I were to deliver more,

his opinion of me would sink even lower.

*

Human rights has never been

a central issue in our media.

The only time I remember to have read

an editorial on freedom of speech was when

President Levon Der Bedrossian

banned an ARF newspaper in Yerevan.

*

To say it will take one or more generations

for things to change is to abdicate our responsibility

to do what must be done today.

Because if anything changes

it will have to begin here and now.

Which is why I assert, nothing will change

until the day one of our bosses or bishops states:

"I shall resign for the sake of solidarity."

These gentlemen (if you will forgive the overstatement)

cling to power for as long as they can

by demonizing the opposition

and they compound the felony

by trying to project the image of

selfless and patriotic servants of the nation.

*

When two Canadians soldiers died in Afghanistan last week,

there was a veritable avalanche of commentaries,

editorials and letters to the editor

blaming the Canadian government for

(a) getting involved in foreign wars,

and ( for not equipping the Canadian army adequately enough.

And for everyone who adopted a critical stance

towards Bush and the Taliban,

there were those who defended them.

And now, compare our attitude

towards our million and a half.

How many of our so-called pundits

who fuel our Genocide industry

would dare to say anything remotely critical

of our political leadership?

On the contrary, they are unanimous in placing the blame

squarely on the Turks and the West thus implying

the conduct of our own leaders

was beyond reproach and criticism.

*

If every writer took an oath

not to be subservient to any political party

or power structure,

I suspect the number of our writers and scholars

would dwindle to almost zero.

*

There is nothing wrong in hating your enemy

so long as you also learn from him.

*

The smaller the country

the bigger the spiel.

[ara baliozian]

Let's not call the paths right or wrong - if someone is following a path it is the right path for him. Let's evaluate the paths by their achievements. Please show me a critic who has succeded making changes by mere criticism. The writers in question may have been good writers but not good leaders or humanists. If you can show that there has been a critic whose criticism has been appreciated, whose warnings have been heeded, and who has changed people we may call his path successful.

 

I think all critics share one common thing - desire. Where there is desire, there is unsatisfied desire, and where there is unsatisfied desire, there is frustration. People do not like to follow frustrated critics but inspiring leaders who have a positive outlook, compassion and unity with the followers.

 

sasun:

you are elevating the average joe and his path to that of the pope of rome.

if our path at the turn of the century in the ottoman empire was the right one, then our reward was to be massacred?

 

all writers and thinkers -- from socrates and plato to tolstoy and solzhenitsyn -- were critics of their contemporaries. literature is criticism. so is poetry, according to matthew arnold.

[Sasun]

sasun:

you are elevating the average joe and his path to that of the pope of rome.

if our path at the turn of the century in the ottoman empire was the right one, then our reward was to be massacred?

 

all writers and thinkers -- from socrates and plato to tolstoy and solzhenitsyn -- were critics of their contemporaries. literature is criticism. so is poetry, according to matthew arnold.

I don't believe I am suggesting any path, and I don't find our path at the turn of the century a right one.

My point is, if you feel you should crticise - fine and well, do it as long as you wish. But criticism itself doesn't make things change, so what is the reason of your surprise? Isn't criticism all about finding faults and blaming? How can it possibly fix things? What I am saying is really simple: we are in a big trouble, we need help. Our shortcomings are so many that we can see without special criticism. So if you care then you help with actual work, not critical bullets. I am not trying to belittle written word in any way, but words are of very little help when we are sick. You can write your words, when we get a little better we will read. Right now, we need cure.

You may think of this as the path of the average Joe, but it is not. Its about compassion - a word that is lacking in the vocabulary of critics. Perhaps the average Joe has more compassion than all critics together, in that case the average Joe is the one we are looking for.

 

As for literature and poetry being criticism, I don't see it that way. To me, poetry and literature are meant to represent aesthetical values, beauty, knowledge, wisdom, and many other things. One needs not write a poem to express criticism although one could certainly do so to produce a bad poem.

 

Here is another angle - if criticism is about fixing problems, how come critics do not fix their own problems first? I mean, are critics perfect? So, lets crticise the critics see if they will ever change

 

Criticism is self-serving!

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, October 09, 2003

*******************************

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unspeakable crimes

against humanity, yes, certainly.

But let us consider the context:

Japanese militarism, fascism, fanaticism,

imperial ambitions and atrocities in Asia during World War II:

in what way were they manifestations of moral superiority?

The same applies to Muslim fanatics.

The only reason so far they have not incinerated

New York City and Washington and every civilian in it

is that they lack the means and not the ruthless disposition.

To be politically correct, they are technologically challenged.

And as far as I know, no one, not even a certified moron,

would dare to suggest that being backward

is an unmistakable symptom of moral superiority.

*

Dupes proceed on the assumption that

they are as smart as they come,

and based on that illusion

they resent anyone who exposes them as suckers.

"How dare you suggest you are smarter than I am?"

they seem to be saying.

*

Armenian saying: "With the hands of odars

you can harvest only thorns."

[ara baliozian]

I don't believe I am suggesting any path, and I don't find our path at the turn of the century a right one.

My point is, if you feel you should crticise - fine and well, do it as long as you wish. But criticism itself doesn't make things change, so what is the reason of your surprise? Isn't criticism all about finding faults and blaming? How can it possibly fix things? What I am saying is really simple: we are in a big trouble, we need help. Our shortcomings are so many that we can see without special criticism. So if you care then you help with actual work, not critical bullets. I am not trying to belittle written word in any way, but words are of very little help when we are sick. You can write your words, when we get a little better we will read. Right now, we need cure.

You may think of this as the path of the average Joe, but it is not. Its about compassion - a word that is lacking in the vocabulary of critics. Perhaps the average Joe has more compassion than all critics together, in that case the average Joe is the one we are looking for.

 

As for literature and poetry being criticism, I don't see it that way. To me, poetry and literature are meant to represent aesthetical values, beauty, knowledge, wisdom, and many other things. One needs not write a poem to express criticism although one could certainly do so to produce a bad poem.

 

Here is another angle - if criticism is about fixing problems, how come critics do not fix their own problems first? I mean, are critics perfect? So, lets crticise the critics see if they will ever change 

 

Criticism is self-serving!

 

Sasun:

the best definition of criticism is "exposing contradictions" -- which is why i totally disagree with everything you say above. in all progressive nations you will find a strong critical stance; the literature of the West is criticism -- in the East as well as Middle East there is stagnation exactly because there is no free speech and no criticism. our decline and disintegration as a nation is due to this fact alone: we have no tolerance of free speech, we have no use for dialogue -- both of which mean criticism.

[Sasun]

OK, Ara, I reckon we have quite different views. I am for the truth - which means say whatever there is, contradiction or not. When it comes to transforming human nature, I believe that only by bringing forward ones positive nature will such transformation occur. Not in theory and not it practice do criticism and harsh words nurture our positive nature.

You seem to be focusing only on contradictions and dark parts of humanity. That's just plain biased approach, but maybe you don't see it that way. I appreciate the Western literature but don't see it as all critical and exposing contradictions like you describe it, although certainly there is a lot of critical reasoning in it.

 

I could go on and say what I think of the other points you express and contradictions that abound in your writings. But, what is the use of it? It will be pointless criticism which will not change anything. Obviously, I don't adhere to your philosophy

[ara baliozian]

Saturday

*****************

The problem with ascribing all our

problems, defeats, tragedies and

catastrophes on outside agencies is that

this allows us to adopt a passive stance,

to do nothing,

to be dependent on the goodwill of others --

including those who may or may not be

favorably disposed towards us -- in short:

to surrender our destiny as a nation into

foreign hands, which, according to an old Armenian saying,

"will harvest nothing but thorns."

The common sense of our peasants

contains more wisdom than the calculations

of our self-assessed cunning political leaders.

*

As i write i also read what i write

through the eyes of an unfriendly critic

who understands everything i say

but does not always agree

with the manner in which i say it.

*

If you want to appear intelligent,

do not utter inanities.

If you want to appear civilized,

do not engage in hooliganism.

If you want to pontificate in the name

of Armenia or Armenianism,

refrain from sounding like a bloodthirsty Turk

on the warpath.

*

Only single-digit morons

brag about their IQs.

As a rule, we brag about things we lack,

so that you can tell a man's deficiencies and needs

by what he brags about.

My ancestors were heroes!

They were nothing of the kind

and if they were were,

they couldn't have been his ancestors.

If present-day Greeks share anything in common

with their illustrious ancestors of ancient Greece,

it is not with the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

but with those who persecuted them.

What about us?

What do we share with the likes of

Abovian, Baronian and Zarian?

Nothing!

With those who persecuted, betrayed and silenced them?

Everything!

*

[ara baliozian]

OK, Ara, I reckon we have quite different views. I am for the truth - which means say whatever there is, contradiction or not. When it comes to transforming human nature, I believe that only by bringing forward ones positive nature will such transformation occur. Not in theory and not it practice do criticism and harsh words nurture our positive nature.

You seem to be focusing only on contradictions and dark parts of humanity. That's just plain biased approach, but maybe you don't see it that way. I appreciate the Western literature but don't see it as all critical and exposing contradictions like you describe it, although certainly there is a lot of critical reasoning in it.

 

I could go on and say what I think of the other points you express and contradictions that abound in your writings. But, what is the use of it? It will be pointless criticism which will not change anything. Obviously, I don't adhere to your philosophy

Sasun:

 

i like to believe my approach is objective.

i concentrate on contradictions because for every critic we have a thousand paid propagandists, brown-nosers, yes-men, cover-up artists, hirelings, charlatans,

and hangers-on who will say anything in exchange of a little power, title, privilege, and 30 pieces of silver...sometimes even one piece of copper.

you must be one of those who think all our defeats must be ascribed to outside agencies.....

[axel]

in all progressive nations you will find a strong critical stance; the literature of the West is criticism -- in the East as well as Middle East there is stagnation exactly because there is no free speech and no criticism. our decline and disintegration as a nation is due to this fact alone: we have no tolerance of free speech, we have no use for dialogue

 

Dear Ara, before mentioning Solzhenitsyn, you should start reading him.

 

 

The Direction of the Press

The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media). But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?

 

Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.

 

Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers' memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one's nation's defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: "everyone is entitled to know everything." But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information.

 

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.

 

Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?

 

There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.

 

 

A Fashion in Thinking

 

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of petrified armor around people's minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

 

(...)

 

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/...arvard1978.html

 

You may read the rest.

 

BTW you haven't read Joseph de Maistre, have you? His religious outlook doesn't fit with your views at all.

Edited October 12, 2003 by axel

[Sasun]

i like to believe my approach is objective.

i concentrate on contradictions because for every critic we have a thousand paid propagandists, brown-nosers, yes-men, cover-up artists, hirelings, charlatans,

and hangers-on who will say anything in exchange of a little power, title, privilege, and 30 pieces of silver...sometimes even one piece of copper.

Ara, how hard is it to be a critic that you think critics are so few? The only thing one needs to criticize is the ability to talk (or write). If you go to an Armenian village and talk to poeple all you hear will be criticism. These people do not shine in intelligence but can think and talk enough to criticize. We all criticize one way or another, according to our intellect (or lack of it), mood, attitude and the degree of selfishness.

If you think you are doing the right thing and will succeed in improving us by your criticism, I wish you best of luck.

 

you must be one of those who think all our defeats must be ascribed to outside agencies.....

 

Bad guess. I hope similar characterizations in your writings come from better knowledge.

[ara baliozian]

Sasun:

you are confusing kibitzers with critics.

as for Solzhenitsyn: i have read most of him -- beginning with the GULAG volumes.

and just because i agree with some lines by a specific thinker, it doesn't follow that i agree with him in everything.

No writer is the word of God.

 

other replies will follow in future essays.

thanks for reading me. / ara

[Sasun]

Sasun:

you are confusing kibitzers with critics.

Ara, I know the difference. I am saying they both have the same attitude.

And why is it that it is always the other person who confuses things, not you?

 

P.S. Just to make sure that you didn't confuse me with Axel, Solzhenitsyn quote was not made by me.

Edited October 14, 2003 by Sasun

[Sasun]

No writer is the word of God.

Just out of curiousity, is this the same God that you sometimes doubt that exists ?

[Sip]

Just out of curiousity, is this the same God that you sometimes doubt that exists ?

If he doubts it exists, how can it be "same"?

 

I think Ara is referring to the abstract concept of God and if there were such a thing, no writer's word could be the word of God ... since writers are limited by humanly constraints.

[Sasun]

If he doubts it exists, how can it be "same"?

 

I think Ara is referring to the abstract concept of God and if there were such a thing, no writer's word could be the word of God ... since writers are limited by humanly constraints.

OK, Seap, thanks for the clarification A followup question though, if a writer says such things, is it possible that this writer is also an abstract concept that may or maynot exist

[Sip]

OK, Seap, thanks for the clarification    A followup question though, if a writer says such things, is it possible that this writer is also an abstract concept that may or maynot exist 

Ask Domino and he'll tell you maybe everything is just thought bubbles in a vaccum

 

I am much more of a practicalist. I think since Ara is actively posting intelligent thoughts that seem to be non-random in nature, then he most likely exists. And since he feels the need to communicate (bi-directionally once in a while as well) then that means he is not God. God would have no reason to communicate ... ever. He would already know what has been said, what is being said, and what will ever be said so that would render "communication" (i.e. including writing) completely irrelevant to him.