Francis Berger's Blog, page 169
January 16, 2019
Hungarian Folk Music - A Glimpse into the Spirit of a People
Most people in the Anglo West know little about Hungary, which is understandable. A small landlocked nation of just under ten million, Hungary seems rather insignificant in the international grand scheme of things. What most Anglo Westerners know of the country usually boils down to the following: goulash, Budapest, goulash, Franz Liszt, and the 1956 revolt against Soviet rule, which was probably about goulash. I do not hold this against Americans, Brits, Canadians, and the rest of the Anglo West. In all fairness, I know very little about Bulgaria and Moldova, so hey.
Regardless, interest in Hungary and Hungarian culture has been steadily increasing over the past few decades, and the number of tourists visiting the country has rocketed in the last ten-to-fifteen years. Tourism interest from Asian countries appears to be particularly high, but Americans and Brits have been coming in droves as well. I imagine those people who have taken an interest in Hungary probably browse the internet and the library in search of resources through which they can learn a little about the country. Though I wholeheartedly support anyone who makes the effort to study and learn about Hungarian culture, or any culture for that matter, I humbly suggest that guidebooks or internet sites or history books are not the best resources to start with if one is truly interested in knowing something of another country's culture. To truly catch a glimpse into a nation's soul, to feel the pulse of the people's blood, and understand the spirit of a culture, one must begin with music.
Hungary has a rich musical legacy that includes internationally reknowned masters such as Ferenc Liszt (mentioned above) and Béla Bartok, but it is in Hungarian folk music that one can really get a sense of the spirit that rustles and moves the Magyar soul. Stemming from mostly peasant traditions, Hungarian folk music offers a genuine insights into the land and people.
Folk traditions varied from region to region, but many of these have been preserved, thanks, in no small part, to the efforts of Ferenc Liszt and Béla Bartok. Regional variations aside, the basic characteristics of Magyar Népzene (Hungarian folk music) are fairly standard - violins, violas, and a bass form the core of a given folk band. Vocal accompaniment could take many forms, but a single female or male voice was the most common.
Hungarian folk song themes span the spectrum of human emotion - from love, joy, elation, and hope to heartbreak, sadness, despair, loss, mourning, and despair. The arrangement of the music itself - an enigmatic blend of rhapsodic flourishes and mournful wails - tugs at the soul, regardless of the subject matter, but it is quite telling that even the most jubilant songs are often tinged with a hint of melancholia revealing something that is not only an innate part of the Hungarian psyche, but has also, perhaps, become a part of the nation's inherited collective wisdom.
The folk song sample I have included below features the outstanding contemporary Hungarian folk singer Ágnes Herczku. Listen to this for ten minutes and I guarantee that you will know more about Hungary and its people than any history book could describe.
Regardless, interest in Hungary and Hungarian culture has been steadily increasing over the past few decades, and the number of tourists visiting the country has rocketed in the last ten-to-fifteen years. Tourism interest from Asian countries appears to be particularly high, but Americans and Brits have been coming in droves as well. I imagine those people who have taken an interest in Hungary probably browse the internet and the library in search of resources through which they can learn a little about the country. Though I wholeheartedly support anyone who makes the effort to study and learn about Hungarian culture, or any culture for that matter, I humbly suggest that guidebooks or internet sites or history books are not the best resources to start with if one is truly interested in knowing something of another country's culture. To truly catch a glimpse into a nation's soul, to feel the pulse of the people's blood, and understand the spirit of a culture, one must begin with music.
Hungary has a rich musical legacy that includes internationally reknowned masters such as Ferenc Liszt (mentioned above) and Béla Bartok, but it is in Hungarian folk music that one can really get a sense of the spirit that rustles and moves the Magyar soul. Stemming from mostly peasant traditions, Hungarian folk music offers a genuine insights into the land and people.
Folk traditions varied from region to region, but many of these have been preserved, thanks, in no small part, to the efforts of Ferenc Liszt and Béla Bartok. Regional variations aside, the basic characteristics of Magyar Népzene (Hungarian folk music) are fairly standard - violins, violas, and a bass form the core of a given folk band. Vocal accompaniment could take many forms, but a single female or male voice was the most common.
Hungarian folk song themes span the spectrum of human emotion - from love, joy, elation, and hope to heartbreak, sadness, despair, loss, mourning, and despair. The arrangement of the music itself - an enigmatic blend of rhapsodic flourishes and mournful wails - tugs at the soul, regardless of the subject matter, but it is quite telling that even the most jubilant songs are often tinged with a hint of melancholia revealing something that is not only an innate part of the Hungarian psyche, but has also, perhaps, become a part of the nation's inherited collective wisdom.
The folk song sample I have included below features the outstanding contemporary Hungarian folk singer Ágnes Herczku. Listen to this for ten minutes and I guarantee that you will know more about Hungary and its people than any history book could describe.
January 15, 2019
One of the Most Harmful and Foolish Platitudes? “I’m okay with it, as long as they don’t force it on me.”
“I’m okay with it, as long as they don’t force it on me,” was something I used to say quite often in the 1990s when I was young and held more or less purely libertarian views. The expression was a common one during that time and seemed an appropriate response to the issues spreading from the social justice plague that was still in its incubatory phase back then. Like me, I imagine people used the “I’m okay with it” phrase when they were confronted by something disagreeable, but were willing to it tolerate for the sake of avoiding conflict.
I used the phrase primarily to get along with others. I found the expression appealing because it seemed to offer a bough of appeasement while simultaneously maintaining a sense of steadfastness. Like all appeasements, the “I’m okay with’ platitude was a soothing blend of what were essentially two contradictory statements occupying the dividing line between surrender and ultimatum, weakness and strength, tolerance and intolerance, acceptance and rejection, vice and virtue, and open-mindedness and close-mindedness.
On the surface, it was all very noble and diplomatic. Through the phrase, I could essentially communicate some or all of the following – that I did not really accept / approve of / care about / want to think about the thing in question, but was willing to acknowledge / tolerate / ignore its existence as long as the thing remained somewhere in the external world, far away from me, and that I would not allow this external thing to be forced upon me, because when all was said and done, I did not really understand / subscribe to / approve of / endorse the thing itself.
This live and let live sentiment seemed to be the epitome of a classic win-win in my mind. I could essentially acknowledge the liberty of others while staunchly defending my own freedom at the same time. Also appealing was the subtle warning this “I won’t bother you if you don’t bother me” approach contained. I had drawn a line in the sand that could not be crossed, and if the line were crossed, not only would I vehemently defend myself, but I could even go on the offensive. When I spoke the phrase, I assumed the parties at whom I aimed this sentiment of acceptance / tolerance held an attitude similar to mine, that they would be grateful of my acceptance / tolerance and, in return, would respect my freedoms and leave me well enough alone.
But this is not what happened. As the years passed, the line I had drawn kept getting encroached upon – and when I offered no real resistance, other people were quick to draw their own lines around me, lines that effectively trapped magnanimous appeasers like me who had so nobly attempted to protect and respect the liberties of all.
Though I don’t like the concept of the culture wars, it could be argued that these wars had been won and lost on the back of the “I’m okay with it, as long as they don’t force it upon me” phrase. Looking at the statement today, I see it as nothing more than a self-constructed Trojan horse that I had unwittingly deployed against myself. By speaking those words, I had admitted unacknowledged enemies into my fortress.
In retrospect, I realize the “I’m okay with it” phrase contained two fatal errors. The first error was indirect endorsement. Although I did not recognize it at the time, signaling tolerance and acceptance of a thing I sincerely considered unacceptable actually helped to legitimize it. The second error within the phrase was the tacit consent it implied. Since “I’m okay with it” was not an outright objection, it could be interpreted as consent. In other words, not voicing an explicit disagreement equaled implicit agreement.
Stating that you would not accept having a thing forced upon you and then capitulating for the sake of appeasement was the second flaw within the sentiment. As I stated earlier, when I spoke the phrase “I’m okay with it, as long as they don’t force it on me,” I assumed the people on the other side of a given issue were also in the live and let live camp. This, of course, proved false as most adhered instead to the live and let die philosophy.
It also never occurred to me at the time that telling the world you would tolerate a thing without wanting any part of it essentially amounted to little more than confirmation of your disapproval of the thing in question; naturally this was intolerable to those who considered the thing good.
After all, how could I not want to be a part of the thing I had indirectly endorsed and tacitly consented to? If I was okay with, how could it, in essence, be bad? The answer was simple – it couldn’t be. Thus, the thing was obviously good, and the problem squarely resided in me. Any unwillingness to freely celebrate and support a good thing revealed I was, at best, a primitive simpleton or, at worst, a hate-filled, hypocritical bigot. As appeasers like me quickly learned, there was no place in the world for hate-filled bigots openly hostile to the good. When the attacks against the “I’m okay with it” appeasers inevitably began, a volley of accusations was usually all that was required to reduce even the staunchest defenses to rubble. I survived by sentencing myself to a self-imposed exile.
Nearly thirty years have passed since then and I seldom hear the phrase “I’m okay with it, as long as they don’t force it upon me” anymore. Most of the people who used to proclaim such sentiments have either freely submitted to or have been pummeled into submission by the leftist agenda. Besides, being okay with it, whatever it happens to be, is barely adequate today. Today “it” must be wholeheartedly supported, endorsed, promulgated, celebrated and embraced. The slightest failure to do so immediately creates suspicion, and inevitably leads to consequences. Barely anyone spouts noble refusals at being forced into anything anymore. If refusals are heard at all, most ring hollow and empty.
Of course, you will never hear leftists speak phrases like “I’m okay with, as long you don’t force it upon me.” Contemporary leftist convictions are clearer and firmer than libertarian appeaser convictions were in the 1990s. Leftists refuse to be okay with anything not fitting their particular set of values, and are quick to make that known. Unlike the appeasers, the leftists show little interest getting along with others. They prefer simply getting on. And getting on requires you either get with it or get lost.
When all is said and done, “I’m okay with it as long as they don’t force it on me” is a harmful and foolish phrase because it seeks to appease. Though it aims to placate and pacify, it does little more than provoke and inflame. In a way, the saying reminds me of Neville Chamberlain stiffly holding aloft that limp piece of paper he had brought back from Germany as he proudly declared he had secured peace in his time. Chamberlain’s example shows that appeasement as a strategy is, more often than not, utterly ineffectual.
At the personal/spiritual level, it is always ineffectual because, contrary to what we may believe, appeasement comes not from love, but fear, which is why avoiding the strategy altogether seems not only prudent, but necessary.
I used the phrase primarily to get along with others. I found the expression appealing because it seemed to offer a bough of appeasement while simultaneously maintaining a sense of steadfastness. Like all appeasements, the “I’m okay with’ platitude was a soothing blend of what were essentially two contradictory statements occupying the dividing line between surrender and ultimatum, weakness and strength, tolerance and intolerance, acceptance and rejection, vice and virtue, and open-mindedness and close-mindedness.
On the surface, it was all very noble and diplomatic. Through the phrase, I could essentially communicate some or all of the following – that I did not really accept / approve of / care about / want to think about the thing in question, but was willing to acknowledge / tolerate / ignore its existence as long as the thing remained somewhere in the external world, far away from me, and that I would not allow this external thing to be forced upon me, because when all was said and done, I did not really understand / subscribe to / approve of / endorse the thing itself.
This live and let live sentiment seemed to be the epitome of a classic win-win in my mind. I could essentially acknowledge the liberty of others while staunchly defending my own freedom at the same time. Also appealing was the subtle warning this “I won’t bother you if you don’t bother me” approach contained. I had drawn a line in the sand that could not be crossed, and if the line were crossed, not only would I vehemently defend myself, but I could even go on the offensive. When I spoke the phrase, I assumed the parties at whom I aimed this sentiment of acceptance / tolerance held an attitude similar to mine, that they would be grateful of my acceptance / tolerance and, in return, would respect my freedoms and leave me well enough alone.
But this is not what happened. As the years passed, the line I had drawn kept getting encroached upon – and when I offered no real resistance, other people were quick to draw their own lines around me, lines that effectively trapped magnanimous appeasers like me who had so nobly attempted to protect and respect the liberties of all.
Though I don’t like the concept of the culture wars, it could be argued that these wars had been won and lost on the back of the “I’m okay with it, as long as they don’t force it upon me” phrase. Looking at the statement today, I see it as nothing more than a self-constructed Trojan horse that I had unwittingly deployed against myself. By speaking those words, I had admitted unacknowledged enemies into my fortress.
In retrospect, I realize the “I’m okay with it” phrase contained two fatal errors. The first error was indirect endorsement. Although I did not recognize it at the time, signaling tolerance and acceptance of a thing I sincerely considered unacceptable actually helped to legitimize it. The second error within the phrase was the tacit consent it implied. Since “I’m okay with it” was not an outright objection, it could be interpreted as consent. In other words, not voicing an explicit disagreement equaled implicit agreement.
Stating that you would not accept having a thing forced upon you and then capitulating for the sake of appeasement was the second flaw within the sentiment. As I stated earlier, when I spoke the phrase “I’m okay with it, as long as they don’t force it on me,” I assumed the people on the other side of a given issue were also in the live and let live camp. This, of course, proved false as most adhered instead to the live and let die philosophy.
It also never occurred to me at the time that telling the world you would tolerate a thing without wanting any part of it essentially amounted to little more than confirmation of your disapproval of the thing in question; naturally this was intolerable to those who considered the thing good.
After all, how could I not want to be a part of the thing I had indirectly endorsed and tacitly consented to? If I was okay with, how could it, in essence, be bad? The answer was simple – it couldn’t be. Thus, the thing was obviously good, and the problem squarely resided in me. Any unwillingness to freely celebrate and support a good thing revealed I was, at best, a primitive simpleton or, at worst, a hate-filled, hypocritical bigot. As appeasers like me quickly learned, there was no place in the world for hate-filled bigots openly hostile to the good. When the attacks against the “I’m okay with it” appeasers inevitably began, a volley of accusations was usually all that was required to reduce even the staunchest defenses to rubble. I survived by sentencing myself to a self-imposed exile.
Nearly thirty years have passed since then and I seldom hear the phrase “I’m okay with it, as long as they don’t force it upon me” anymore. Most of the people who used to proclaim such sentiments have either freely submitted to or have been pummeled into submission by the leftist agenda. Besides, being okay with it, whatever it happens to be, is barely adequate today. Today “it” must be wholeheartedly supported, endorsed, promulgated, celebrated and embraced. The slightest failure to do so immediately creates suspicion, and inevitably leads to consequences. Barely anyone spouts noble refusals at being forced into anything anymore. If refusals are heard at all, most ring hollow and empty.
Of course, you will never hear leftists speak phrases like “I’m okay with, as long you don’t force it upon me.” Contemporary leftist convictions are clearer and firmer than libertarian appeaser convictions were in the 1990s. Leftists refuse to be okay with anything not fitting their particular set of values, and are quick to make that known. Unlike the appeasers, the leftists show little interest getting along with others. They prefer simply getting on. And getting on requires you either get with it or get lost.
When all is said and done, “I’m okay with it as long as they don’t force it on me” is a harmful and foolish phrase because it seeks to appease. Though it aims to placate and pacify, it does little more than provoke and inflame. In a way, the saying reminds me of Neville Chamberlain stiffly holding aloft that limp piece of paper he had brought back from Germany as he proudly declared he had secured peace in his time. Chamberlain’s example shows that appeasement as a strategy is, more often than not, utterly ineffectual.
At the personal/spiritual level, it is always ineffectual because, contrary to what we may believe, appeasement comes not from love, but fear, which is why avoiding the strategy altogether seems not only prudent, but necessary.
January 14, 2019
Munkácsy's Christ Trilogy Back in Hungary
Last week the Hungarian government announced it had successfully acquired Golgotha, the second painting in Mihály Munkácsy's Christ trilogy. The three paintings are now on permanent display in Debrecen, in eastern Hungary. I have never been to Debrecen before; looks like I have a reason to go now.
Details of this story are taken from a short piece that appeared in Hungary Today on January, 2019. The Hungarian government has purchased 19th-century painter Mihaly Munkacsy’s monumental piece Golgotha, the head of the Prime Minister’s Office said on Wednesday.
The government paid Hungarian-born American art collector Imre Pákh 3 billion forints (EUR 9.3m) for the painting, Gergely Gulyás told a press conference.
The purchase means that all three pieces of Munkácsy’s famous “Christ Trilogy” are now owned by the Hungarian state.
The state had owned Ecce Homo! (1896), the third painting in the trilogy, for years and acquired Christ Before Pilate (1881), another of the three, from Canada’s Art Gallery of Hamilton for 5.7 million US dollars in 2015, with funding from the National Bank of Hungary’s programme to buy national art treasures.
In 2015, talks between the Hungarian government and Pákh on the possible sale of Golgotha to the state fell through and Pákh signalled he was ready to have the painting removed from Debrecen’s Déri Museum.
The government later initiated a procedure to place Golgotha on a list of protected artworks to prevent it from being permanently removed from the country. Pákh in response ordered the painting to be veiled from public view.
In 2016, the Hungarian heritage authority decided to give Golgotha protected status. Pákh appealed the decision, but his claim was rejected. The following year, the Kúria, Hungary’s supreme court, ordered a retrial in the case.
Last year, the government and Pákh entered into negotiations on the painting’s purchase.
Christ Before Pilate - 1881 
Ecce Homo - 1896 
Golgotha - 1884
Details of this story are taken from a short piece that appeared in Hungary Today on January, 2019. The Hungarian government has purchased 19th-century painter Mihaly Munkacsy’s monumental piece Golgotha, the head of the Prime Minister’s Office said on Wednesday.
The government paid Hungarian-born American art collector Imre Pákh 3 billion forints (EUR 9.3m) for the painting, Gergely Gulyás told a press conference.
The purchase means that all three pieces of Munkácsy’s famous “Christ Trilogy” are now owned by the Hungarian state.
The state had owned Ecce Homo! (1896), the third painting in the trilogy, for years and acquired Christ Before Pilate (1881), another of the three, from Canada’s Art Gallery of Hamilton for 5.7 million US dollars in 2015, with funding from the National Bank of Hungary’s programme to buy national art treasures.
In 2015, talks between the Hungarian government and Pákh on the possible sale of Golgotha to the state fell through and Pákh signalled he was ready to have the painting removed from Debrecen’s Déri Museum.
The government later initiated a procedure to place Golgotha on a list of protected artworks to prevent it from being permanently removed from the country. Pákh in response ordered the painting to be veiled from public view.
In 2016, the Hungarian heritage authority decided to give Golgotha protected status. Pákh appealed the decision, but his claim was rejected. The following year, the Kúria, Hungary’s supreme court, ordered a retrial in the case.
Last year, the government and Pákh entered into negotiations on the painting’s purchase.
Christ Before Pilate - 1881 Ecce Homo - 1896 Golgotha - 1884
January 13, 2019
Success in Life? Simple. Succeed in Areas in Which Even the Most Successful Fail
To strive for success is natural and good. Setting aims and then pursuing those aims in the hope of success is not only noble, but a positive affirmation of a prime motivator of human existence. After all, our lives, both at the individual and collective levels, would be considerably impoverished if we failed to or were unable to set goals and then work toward them in the hope of succeeding. Perhaps this addresses a fundamental truth lying at the core of our very existence; that we are essentially goal setters and problem solvers. Though many aspects of our lives provide satisfaction and joy, very few of these rival the deep contentment and elation we feel after we have accomplished a set objective. Conversely, very few aspects of life lead to the discontent and misery we experience when we fail to reach our goals. This success-failure dichotomy fuels our ambitions and forms the overall basic framework that exists at the foundation of almost everything we feel, think, and do.
If this sounds like an overstatement or an oversimplification, then take a moment to imagine two ambitious people – one, an enormous success; the other, a hapless failure. Whom do you inherently admire? Whom do you pity? How do you think each feels about himself or herself? It does not take much imagination to realize the crucial roles success and failure play in our lives. Striving for success is hardwired into the fabric of our being; without the possibility of success, our lives would suffer an immense loss of meaning.
Aspiring toward success is one thing – recognizing success when it happens or exists is another matter entirely. This reveals the enigmatic nature of success and leads us to the awesome task of defining what success truly means. There are times success is obvious, such as the achievement of a minor personal goal, and there are times success is more obscure, such as an apparent failure that opens avenues to greater success in the future. Sometimes success is the result of intention, talent, hard work, and dedication; sometimes it is a purely a result of luck, chance, happenstance, and circumstance. Success can be earned and deserved, or unearned and undeserved. Sometimes people who should succeed, fail; and sometimes people who should fail, succeed. This proves success is not always guaranteed even when the right actions towards its attainment are taken. Bookshelves around the world overflow with tomes and self-help guides offering formulas for success in as many areas in life as there are stars in the night sky, and though these books do occasionally offer useful advice, none can claim to have truly found the elusive “secret of success.” Despite this, we have all experienced and continue to experience various degrees of success in our lives. The trouble is, we often do not recognize our success as such, choosing instead to belittle our achievements by comparing them to the achievements of those we deem truly successful.
Now there is nothing wrong with admiring the achievements of great individuals and being inspired by their accomplishments, but it is foolish to constantly compare yourself to the standards of success Hollywood, Wall Street, the Super Bowl, Washington, and the New York Times bestseller lists project into the world because they are mostly narrow and inflated, focusing almost exclusively on the material trappings of success – power, privilege, material wealth, luxury, glamor, and fame. Yet, for a vast majority of people these are the exact things that epitomize success and the driving motivation behind their desire to attain it. Put another way, I would posit most people are more interested in the “ends” of success than they are in the “means.” Acquiring the trappings of success – a big house, expensive car, flashy clothes, a large bank account, influential connections, fame – are, thus, more important to most than the means through which they managed to obtain such trappings. For this reason, I would argue the outward appearance of success carries far more weight in the modern imagination than any actual success does.
Before I am accused of being some sort of raving communist, let me clearly state that I am not against big houses, expensive cars, fame, and all the rest of it even though these things do not provide much thrust in my own ambitions. What concerns me more are the many successful, but ultimately miserable, people I have met in the course of my life. The successful-but-miserable can be divided into two distinct categories: those who possess all the outward appearances of success, but have failed in many areas of life regardless; and those who possess very few of the outward appearances of success, but have succeeded in many areas of life regardless. In the first category are the business people, politicians, Hollywood A-listers, rock stars, bestselling novelists, and others who have achieved immense fame and fortune and regularly project that onto the world, but have otherwise failed in areas that seem crucial to securing true contentment and happiness. In the second category are those who belong to the non-descript masses who, despite their various degrees of material achievement, have not achieved any notable wealth or fame, but have managed to succeed in areas of life that seem to assure higher levels of contentment and happiness.
Of course, not everyone in the first category fails in the more subtle areas of life. Some people truly do have it all. And not everyone in the second category succeeds in the more subtle areas of life. Some people truly do have very little. The overarching point I am making is this – just because you do not possess the outward appearance of success does not mean you are not successful. By all means, strive for the trappings if you wish, but do not sacrifice success in other vital areas of life as you pursue these rewards, because it is not the material trappings that will fill your life with meaning and contentment, but the other areas, those exact areas in which many “successful” people ultimately fail.
The following is a brief list of some the areas of life in which many so-called successful people fail. These are areas in which you could prove yourself far more successful than most. In my mind, the final point on this list is the most important, supplanting all others, but for what it is worth, I will mention the others nonetheless:
Marriage
Last I heard half of all marriages ended in divorce; the number may even be higher amongst those considered successful. Gossip rags and tabloids abound with tales of infidelity, divorce, and broken marriages among the successful. Despite having it all, many successful people struggle to hold a marriage together, and ultimately fail. Some fail several times. The same holds true for the less successful. Though it is not widely regarded as a mark of success, getting married and staying married could truly be a seen as a high-water mark of achievement in our world of easy and common divorces.
Sincerity
Many a success story is built upon a foundation of lies, pretense, and hypocrisy. If you can maintain your integrity, go into the world with honesty, and deal with people frankly, not only will you sleep better at night, but you will have achieved something many successful seem utterly incapable of achieving.
Debt
We imagine successful people are swimming in money, but in many instances, the opposite is the case. How many times have we heard members of the rich and famous suddenly declaring bankruptcy despite the millions or billions they have earned? Remember, many successful people invest heavily in the appearance of success, and these appearances do not pay for themselves. In their dealings, successful business people often assume large debt loads, together with the accompanying worry and stress. Using debt to build a business is often unavoidable, but as Dickens noted nearly two centuries ago, the dividing line between happiness and misery can come down to simply being six pence below one’s annual income. Debt is a common problem among the less successful as well, so if you can find ways to reduce or free yourself of debt entirely, you will have succeeded materially in a way most people can barely imagine, regardless of their station in life.
Obscurity
Many regard fame as an important sign of success, but rarely consider what being famous truly entails. Imagine being gawked at everywhere you went, having paparazzi hound you day and night, and being a constant focal point of media interest. For some people this amounts to a dream, the fulfillment of Oscar Wilde’s famous quip that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about, but obscurity is not without its benefits. Being able to travel and go about your daily routine without the fear of being spotted or recognized has its own neglected charms, and the world abounds with successful people who purposefully avoid the limelight for these reasons alone.
Substance Abuse
Success stories are often tainted by tragic tales of overdoses, lifetime addictions, and premature deaths due to drug and alcohol abuse. That so many successful people rely on drugs and drink to make it through the day is revealing on several levels. As outsiders, we envy a rock star’s extravagant lifestyle without giving too much thought as to why he blasts himself into oblivion every chance he gets. Of course, substance abuse is rife among those who regard themselves as failures, as it is among average people irrespective of their success or failure in life. Though many of us think successful people use drugs and drink for purely recreational reasons, the stories we hear of on television or in the papers hint at something else entirely. If material wealth, fame, and the trappings of success were all that were required to achieve happiness, why is intoxication necessary? If you can stay sober in your life, you have succeeded at avoiding a trap that is the death knell of many.
Faith
No matter who we are, or how far we make it, we all face the same ultimate physical end. Regardless of our success in life, we all become equal in death. We enter the world with nothing but our bodies, and leave the world in the same manner, leaving behind all the material wealth we created, the privilege we had inherited or earned, the lands we conquered, and the empires we built. All that remains is our children, the memory of us, and our works. True, the works of greatest talents and world influencers remain with us indefinitely, but even these works can become distorted or fall out of fashion with the passage of time. In the end, our material legacy becomes a zero-sum game – you cannot take it with you and you can no longer control it once you are gone.
This obvious truth notwithstanding, the vast majority of us continue to view success from a purely materialistic perspective, yet there is One who has shown us where true success really resides – not purely in the material, but in the blend of the material and the spiritual. By accepting the gift Jesus offers, ultimate success can be achieved by embracing love, transcending death, and gaining everlasting life.
This, in my mind, marks the apex of the success we can achieve on this Earth. Not only is it the greatest of all rewards, but it is one that is freely available to every single one of us. Like other forms of success, it requires work, dedication, and right action. Unlike other forms of success, it does not project any material appearance of success. Yet it remains highest form of success a person can achieve in this life, and if you accept the gift He offers with all your love and soul, you ultimately cannot and will not fail.
In the end, this is not only the final success we can experience, but also the most important and most meaningful, which makes one wonder why so many, especially among the most successful, simply reject it and refuse to pursue it.
If this sounds like an overstatement or an oversimplification, then take a moment to imagine two ambitious people – one, an enormous success; the other, a hapless failure. Whom do you inherently admire? Whom do you pity? How do you think each feels about himself or herself? It does not take much imagination to realize the crucial roles success and failure play in our lives. Striving for success is hardwired into the fabric of our being; without the possibility of success, our lives would suffer an immense loss of meaning.
Aspiring toward success is one thing – recognizing success when it happens or exists is another matter entirely. This reveals the enigmatic nature of success and leads us to the awesome task of defining what success truly means. There are times success is obvious, such as the achievement of a minor personal goal, and there are times success is more obscure, such as an apparent failure that opens avenues to greater success in the future. Sometimes success is the result of intention, talent, hard work, and dedication; sometimes it is a purely a result of luck, chance, happenstance, and circumstance. Success can be earned and deserved, or unearned and undeserved. Sometimes people who should succeed, fail; and sometimes people who should fail, succeed. This proves success is not always guaranteed even when the right actions towards its attainment are taken. Bookshelves around the world overflow with tomes and self-help guides offering formulas for success in as many areas in life as there are stars in the night sky, and though these books do occasionally offer useful advice, none can claim to have truly found the elusive “secret of success.” Despite this, we have all experienced and continue to experience various degrees of success in our lives. The trouble is, we often do not recognize our success as such, choosing instead to belittle our achievements by comparing them to the achievements of those we deem truly successful.
Now there is nothing wrong with admiring the achievements of great individuals and being inspired by their accomplishments, but it is foolish to constantly compare yourself to the standards of success Hollywood, Wall Street, the Super Bowl, Washington, and the New York Times bestseller lists project into the world because they are mostly narrow and inflated, focusing almost exclusively on the material trappings of success – power, privilege, material wealth, luxury, glamor, and fame. Yet, for a vast majority of people these are the exact things that epitomize success and the driving motivation behind their desire to attain it. Put another way, I would posit most people are more interested in the “ends” of success than they are in the “means.” Acquiring the trappings of success – a big house, expensive car, flashy clothes, a large bank account, influential connections, fame – are, thus, more important to most than the means through which they managed to obtain such trappings. For this reason, I would argue the outward appearance of success carries far more weight in the modern imagination than any actual success does.
Before I am accused of being some sort of raving communist, let me clearly state that I am not against big houses, expensive cars, fame, and all the rest of it even though these things do not provide much thrust in my own ambitions. What concerns me more are the many successful, but ultimately miserable, people I have met in the course of my life. The successful-but-miserable can be divided into two distinct categories: those who possess all the outward appearances of success, but have failed in many areas of life regardless; and those who possess very few of the outward appearances of success, but have succeeded in many areas of life regardless. In the first category are the business people, politicians, Hollywood A-listers, rock stars, bestselling novelists, and others who have achieved immense fame and fortune and regularly project that onto the world, but have otherwise failed in areas that seem crucial to securing true contentment and happiness. In the second category are those who belong to the non-descript masses who, despite their various degrees of material achievement, have not achieved any notable wealth or fame, but have managed to succeed in areas of life that seem to assure higher levels of contentment and happiness.
Of course, not everyone in the first category fails in the more subtle areas of life. Some people truly do have it all. And not everyone in the second category succeeds in the more subtle areas of life. Some people truly do have very little. The overarching point I am making is this – just because you do not possess the outward appearance of success does not mean you are not successful. By all means, strive for the trappings if you wish, but do not sacrifice success in other vital areas of life as you pursue these rewards, because it is not the material trappings that will fill your life with meaning and contentment, but the other areas, those exact areas in which many “successful” people ultimately fail.
The following is a brief list of some the areas of life in which many so-called successful people fail. These are areas in which you could prove yourself far more successful than most. In my mind, the final point on this list is the most important, supplanting all others, but for what it is worth, I will mention the others nonetheless:
Marriage
Last I heard half of all marriages ended in divorce; the number may even be higher amongst those considered successful. Gossip rags and tabloids abound with tales of infidelity, divorce, and broken marriages among the successful. Despite having it all, many successful people struggle to hold a marriage together, and ultimately fail. Some fail several times. The same holds true for the less successful. Though it is not widely regarded as a mark of success, getting married and staying married could truly be a seen as a high-water mark of achievement in our world of easy and common divorces.
Sincerity
Many a success story is built upon a foundation of lies, pretense, and hypocrisy. If you can maintain your integrity, go into the world with honesty, and deal with people frankly, not only will you sleep better at night, but you will have achieved something many successful seem utterly incapable of achieving.
Debt
We imagine successful people are swimming in money, but in many instances, the opposite is the case. How many times have we heard members of the rich and famous suddenly declaring bankruptcy despite the millions or billions they have earned? Remember, many successful people invest heavily in the appearance of success, and these appearances do not pay for themselves. In their dealings, successful business people often assume large debt loads, together with the accompanying worry and stress. Using debt to build a business is often unavoidable, but as Dickens noted nearly two centuries ago, the dividing line between happiness and misery can come down to simply being six pence below one’s annual income. Debt is a common problem among the less successful as well, so if you can find ways to reduce or free yourself of debt entirely, you will have succeeded materially in a way most people can barely imagine, regardless of their station in life.
Obscurity
Many regard fame as an important sign of success, but rarely consider what being famous truly entails. Imagine being gawked at everywhere you went, having paparazzi hound you day and night, and being a constant focal point of media interest. For some people this amounts to a dream, the fulfillment of Oscar Wilde’s famous quip that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about, but obscurity is not without its benefits. Being able to travel and go about your daily routine without the fear of being spotted or recognized has its own neglected charms, and the world abounds with successful people who purposefully avoid the limelight for these reasons alone.
Substance Abuse
Success stories are often tainted by tragic tales of overdoses, lifetime addictions, and premature deaths due to drug and alcohol abuse. That so many successful people rely on drugs and drink to make it through the day is revealing on several levels. As outsiders, we envy a rock star’s extravagant lifestyle without giving too much thought as to why he blasts himself into oblivion every chance he gets. Of course, substance abuse is rife among those who regard themselves as failures, as it is among average people irrespective of their success or failure in life. Though many of us think successful people use drugs and drink for purely recreational reasons, the stories we hear of on television or in the papers hint at something else entirely. If material wealth, fame, and the trappings of success were all that were required to achieve happiness, why is intoxication necessary? If you can stay sober in your life, you have succeeded at avoiding a trap that is the death knell of many.
Faith
No matter who we are, or how far we make it, we all face the same ultimate physical end. Regardless of our success in life, we all become equal in death. We enter the world with nothing but our bodies, and leave the world in the same manner, leaving behind all the material wealth we created, the privilege we had inherited or earned, the lands we conquered, and the empires we built. All that remains is our children, the memory of us, and our works. True, the works of greatest talents and world influencers remain with us indefinitely, but even these works can become distorted or fall out of fashion with the passage of time. In the end, our material legacy becomes a zero-sum game – you cannot take it with you and you can no longer control it once you are gone.
This obvious truth notwithstanding, the vast majority of us continue to view success from a purely materialistic perspective, yet there is One who has shown us where true success really resides – not purely in the material, but in the blend of the material and the spiritual. By accepting the gift Jesus offers, ultimate success can be achieved by embracing love, transcending death, and gaining everlasting life.
This, in my mind, marks the apex of the success we can achieve on this Earth. Not only is it the greatest of all rewards, but it is one that is freely available to every single one of us. Like other forms of success, it requires work, dedication, and right action. Unlike other forms of success, it does not project any material appearance of success. Yet it remains highest form of success a person can achieve in this life, and if you accept the gift He offers with all your love and soul, you ultimately cannot and will not fail.
In the end, this is not only the final success we can experience, but also the most important and most meaningful, which makes one wonder why so many, especially among the most successful, simply reject it and refuse to pursue it.
January 12, 2019
John Dowland - English Renaissance Lute - Music I Have Been Listening To Lately
I only started listening to John Dowland's music three or four years ago, which makes me pause and wonder why it took so long for me to discover this incredible composer. His lute compositions are particularly enchanting and tinged with just the right amount of meloncholia. Sometimes I let his music play endlessly for hours as I go about my daily routine at the university or when I am at home working at my desk. The internet is full of "music for reading and relaxing" compilations, but if you want some soothing music that helps you focus, none compare to Dowland's lute pieces, as far as I'm concerned.
Many of Dowland's lute compositions have been recorded and are readily available online via You Tube. My favorite recordings feature the brilliant and masterful lutenist Paul O'Dette. If you have never listened to Dowland's music, O'Dette's playing, or lute music in general, I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Some information courtesy of Infogalactic:
John Dowland[1] (1563 – buried 20 February 1626) was an English Renaissance composer, lutenist, and singer. He is best known today for his melancholy songs such as "Come, heavy sleep" (the basis for Benjamin Britten's Nocturnal), "Come again", "Flow my tears", "I saw my Lady weepe" and "In darkness let me dwell", but his instrumental music has undergone a major revival, and with the 20th century's Early music revival has been a continuing source of repertoire for lutenists and classical guitarists.
Paul R. O'Dette (born February 2, 1954, Columbus, Ohio, United States) is an American lutenist, conductor, and musicologist specializing in early music.
O'Dette began playing the electric guitar in a rock band in Columbus, Ohio, where he grew up. Eventually this led him into playing guitar transcriptions of lute music, and not long after that he opted for the lute (as well as the related archlute, theorbo, and Baroque guitar) as his primary instruments, and now he specializes in the performance of Renaissance and Baroque music. He has made more than 120 recordings, earning five Grammy nominations and numerous other awards. In addition to his activities as a performer, Paul O'Dette is an avid researcher, having worked extensively on the performance and sources of seventeenth-century Italian and English solo song, continuo practices and lute technique.
And finally, the music . . .
Many of Dowland's lute compositions have been recorded and are readily available online via You Tube. My favorite recordings feature the brilliant and masterful lutenist Paul O'Dette. If you have never listened to Dowland's music, O'Dette's playing, or lute music in general, I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Some information courtesy of Infogalactic:
John Dowland[1] (1563 – buried 20 February 1626) was an English Renaissance composer, lutenist, and singer. He is best known today for his melancholy songs such as "Come, heavy sleep" (the basis for Benjamin Britten's Nocturnal), "Come again", "Flow my tears", "I saw my Lady weepe" and "In darkness let me dwell", but his instrumental music has undergone a major revival, and with the 20th century's Early music revival has been a continuing source of repertoire for lutenists and classical guitarists.
Paul R. O'Dette (born February 2, 1954, Columbus, Ohio, United States) is an American lutenist, conductor, and musicologist specializing in early music.
O'Dette began playing the electric guitar in a rock band in Columbus, Ohio, where he grew up. Eventually this led him into playing guitar transcriptions of lute music, and not long after that he opted for the lute (as well as the related archlute, theorbo, and Baroque guitar) as his primary instruments, and now he specializes in the performance of Renaissance and Baroque music. He has made more than 120 recordings, earning five Grammy nominations and numerous other awards. In addition to his activities as a performer, Paul O'Dette is an avid researcher, having worked extensively on the performance and sources of seventeenth-century Italian and English solo song, continuo practices and lute technique.
And finally, the music . . .
January 11, 2019
If You Want To Read A Novel About Transition-Era Budapest, I Humbly Offer Mine
The first English language novel I read that was set in transition-era Budapest was Arthur Phillips' ironically titled narrative Prague, which was, well, not very good. There have been a smattering of other novels focused on transition-era (1989 to roughly 2000) Budapest and Hungary since then. Some are better than others, but very few capture the turbulence and flux of those tempestuous years.
Thirty years have passed since the collapse of communism in Hungary, and its capital city Budapest has transformed into a somewhat trendy tourist hotspot complete with all the positives and negatives that accompany such a development. As interest in the city and country grows, people inevitable seek out stories. With this in mind, I humbly offer you check out my novel The City of Earthly Desire, which documents the darker side of liberalization focusing on subject matter few authors would be willing to explore.
Thirty years have passed since the collapse of communism in Hungary, and its capital city Budapest has transformed into a somewhat trendy tourist hotspot complete with all the positives and negatives that accompany such a development. As interest in the city and country grows, people inevitable seek out stories. With this in mind, I humbly offer you check out my novel The City of Earthly Desire, which documents the darker side of liberalization focusing on subject matter few authors would be willing to explore.
Lego - Still One of the Best Toys on the Market
Lego was my favorite toy when I was a child. The small, plastic, interconnectable building blocks provided endless hours of creative enjoyment. Though I never thought about this at the time, I imagine spending hours building things from Lego helped nurture my creative, reasoning, planning, and fine motor skills. As far as I remember, no other toy provided as much satisfaction and fun.
Interestingly enough, Lego has become my son's favorite toy as well. I had no influence over this development, other than purchasing him a small Star Wars Lego set when he turned four. Since then, he has become an avid Lego builder, and even suffers withdrawal symptoms if he does play with his Lego sets for a day or more. It's fascinating to watch him sit, sometimes for hours on end, clacking the blocks together as he manifests the visions in his imagination. When I see him playing Lego, I am also reminded of other benefits playing with Lego imparts upon children - patience, independence, problem-solving, and the list goes on.
Even though stepping on a Lego block in the middle of the night remains one of the most painful things a human being can experience on this planet, it's a small price to pay in exchange for this jouet extraordinaire.
Interestingly enough, Lego has become my son's favorite toy as well. I had no influence over this development, other than purchasing him a small Star Wars Lego set when he turned four. Since then, he has become an avid Lego builder, and even suffers withdrawal symptoms if he does play with his Lego sets for a day or more. It's fascinating to watch him sit, sometimes for hours on end, clacking the blocks together as he manifests the visions in his imagination. When I see him playing Lego, I am also reminded of other benefits playing with Lego imparts upon children - patience, independence, problem-solving, and the list goes on.
Even though stepping on a Lego block in the middle of the night remains one of the most painful things a human being can experience on this planet, it's a small price to pay in exchange for this jouet extraordinaire.
January 10, 2019
Perversion - A Word That Is Becoming Increasingly Difficult To Use
Language, the English language especially, is in a constant state of flux, endlessly morphing and changing with the passage of time. New words and phrases enter the language while other words and phrases, some centuries-old, become obsolete or are simply expelled from common usage like unwanted exiles. Some words remain in the language, but their meanings and definitions alter so drastically that the original definitions become like neglected tombstones of long-forgotten ancestors buried in some distant land.
The word gay is perfect example of this. Mention gay today and nearly everyone will assume you are referring to homosexuality rather than happiness or joy (though for some individuals, the word could mean both simultaneously, but that's another story). In any case, you will have a difficult time convincing people gay once meant happy. When I was a high school teacher, I often had to explain the original definition of gay to a class after the word appeared in some nineteenth-century novel or other we happened to be reading. More often than not, my students simply could not accept that gay merely meant happy back then and implied no other connotations within the confines of the text. Thus, whenever the word appeared, they instantly assumed some sudden revelation of an author’s or a character’s sexual orientation; my attempts to counter this usually failed, especially when we read Oscar Wilde, but that’s a different matter entirely.
I think about words and their meanings quite often, especially perfectly straightforward words that seem to be on the cusp of losing their meaning, not simply through their ascription to other things, as in the example above, but rather through the transformation of society (though gay could qualify under this category, too). Put another way, some words are becoming increasingly meaningless because changes in society no longer reflect the meaning the word represents. The verb “to pervert” might be a perfect exemplar. The word continues to exist, but the boundaries of what it defines have blurred and it is often difficult to know in what situations or circumstances perversion can be appropriately applied.
Ten minutes of extremely hasty and sloppy internet research revealed the word pervert has undergone considerable transformations since it was incorporated into the English language. Originally from the Latin, the word is combination of per (meaning thoroughly or to an extreme degree) and vertere (to turn). Thus, the original Latin meaning of the word was an extreme or thorough turn. This matches the Proto-Indo-European wert, which means to turn or rotate. The word eventually found its way into French and then migrated to English, but the essential meaning of pervert - an inherently positive, natural, acceptable, or good thing being turned in the wrong direction, or being turned away from, or leading someone away from something considered good and acceptable - has remained intact regardless of which language it called home. As we shall see, what can be perverted tends to change as the perceived good, natural, and acceptable thing changes.
I imagine the Romans considered perverted anyone or anything that took an extreme turn away from the core values of fides, pietas, religio, disciplina, gravitas, dignitas, and virtus, known collectively as the mos mairorum, which roughly translates to “ancestral code.” Unlike the written law, the mos mairorum was more of less an unwritten set of principles that dictated virtues, behavior, and social practices. Oddly enough, the Romans had no qualms about their orgies, slavery, or gladiatorial games, none of which crossed the threshold of perversion in their minds.
When the word was employed in English in the thirteenth century, it was used almost exclusively to delineate the act of turning away or turning someone away from Christianity, which was considered the highest good at the time, reflecting the religiousness of the age. I imagine as the centuries passed, the definition of perversion expanded beyond the realm of religious belief at the same pace Christianity weakened, though this is merely speculation on my part. Whatever the real reason, perversion was slowly applied to any field in which a turning away from a right course or a proper state was observed. Subsequently, everything could, in essence, be perverted – law, justice, language, and yes, even sex. By the time we get to the Victorian Age, it seems the bulk of what was labelled perversion centered on sex, reflecting the rigid, normophilic mores of the time. By the twentieth century I imagine perversion had all but lost its original religious connotations and was used almost exclusively in reference to sex practices (kink, swingers, homosexuality, etc.) that turned away from normophilia Otherwise, perversion simply came to mean something similar to distortion or corruption when used in phrases such a perversion of justice.
In our contemporary world, it is becoming increasingly difficult to use the word perversion, be it in noun, verb, or adjective form. Though phrases like perversion of justice still appear now and then, they are growing scarcer as our definition of justice changes and blurs. The infrequency of the word perversion to describe a turning away from the good, the natural, and the acceptable has much to do with the current state of our culture and society, which has all but abandoned the good, the natural, and the acceptable of the past and Christianity in favor of the establishment of a new mos maiorum built upon the progressive philosophical and political movements of the past two hundred years alone.
I would argue Modern Western culture has not only turned away from its ancestral customs, mores, and religion, but is openly and vehemently hostile to them all. Unlike Ancient Rome, or Medieval Europe, looking to the past for guidance is considered backward and regressive. The past is a dungeon; its customs, behaviors, and religion – chains and barbaric torture devices. Progress dictates individuals and societies liberate themselves and others from the shackles of the past oppression and create new values, new principles, and new virtues. The good that once was is no longer good, but its opposite; accordingly, taking an extreme turn away from or leading people away these inherently malevolent and evil structures cannot, therefore, be considered perverted acts. Thus, what a mere century ago was considered perverted by the vast majority of society, is today not only accepted, but encouraged and celebrated, which makes using the word perversion tricky business indeed.
In the end, I believe perversion, both as a word and as a concept, will not lose its meaning. It will survive, and it will survive with its meaning intact. The only thing that has changed and continues to change is the definition of what constitutes the “good, natural, and acceptable.”
In light of this, one does not need to think too hard about possibilities to understand what will or already defines perversion today. The bigger question is how will those who embody the new mos mairorum, this more modern sense of what is good, natural, and acceptable ultimately deal with those who deviate from the course.
Thus far, the outlook for those turning away from this new good is rather bleak to say the least.
The word gay is perfect example of this. Mention gay today and nearly everyone will assume you are referring to homosexuality rather than happiness or joy (though for some individuals, the word could mean both simultaneously, but that's another story). In any case, you will have a difficult time convincing people gay once meant happy. When I was a high school teacher, I often had to explain the original definition of gay to a class after the word appeared in some nineteenth-century novel or other we happened to be reading. More often than not, my students simply could not accept that gay merely meant happy back then and implied no other connotations within the confines of the text. Thus, whenever the word appeared, they instantly assumed some sudden revelation of an author’s or a character’s sexual orientation; my attempts to counter this usually failed, especially when we read Oscar Wilde, but that’s a different matter entirely.
I think about words and their meanings quite often, especially perfectly straightforward words that seem to be on the cusp of losing their meaning, not simply through their ascription to other things, as in the example above, but rather through the transformation of society (though gay could qualify under this category, too). Put another way, some words are becoming increasingly meaningless because changes in society no longer reflect the meaning the word represents. The verb “to pervert” might be a perfect exemplar. The word continues to exist, but the boundaries of what it defines have blurred and it is often difficult to know in what situations or circumstances perversion can be appropriately applied.
Ten minutes of extremely hasty and sloppy internet research revealed the word pervert has undergone considerable transformations since it was incorporated into the English language. Originally from the Latin, the word is combination of per (meaning thoroughly or to an extreme degree) and vertere (to turn). Thus, the original Latin meaning of the word was an extreme or thorough turn. This matches the Proto-Indo-European wert, which means to turn or rotate. The word eventually found its way into French and then migrated to English, but the essential meaning of pervert - an inherently positive, natural, acceptable, or good thing being turned in the wrong direction, or being turned away from, or leading someone away from something considered good and acceptable - has remained intact regardless of which language it called home. As we shall see, what can be perverted tends to change as the perceived good, natural, and acceptable thing changes.
I imagine the Romans considered perverted anyone or anything that took an extreme turn away from the core values of fides, pietas, religio, disciplina, gravitas, dignitas, and virtus, known collectively as the mos mairorum, which roughly translates to “ancestral code.” Unlike the written law, the mos mairorum was more of less an unwritten set of principles that dictated virtues, behavior, and social practices. Oddly enough, the Romans had no qualms about their orgies, slavery, or gladiatorial games, none of which crossed the threshold of perversion in their minds.
When the word was employed in English in the thirteenth century, it was used almost exclusively to delineate the act of turning away or turning someone away from Christianity, which was considered the highest good at the time, reflecting the religiousness of the age. I imagine as the centuries passed, the definition of perversion expanded beyond the realm of religious belief at the same pace Christianity weakened, though this is merely speculation on my part. Whatever the real reason, perversion was slowly applied to any field in which a turning away from a right course or a proper state was observed. Subsequently, everything could, in essence, be perverted – law, justice, language, and yes, even sex. By the time we get to the Victorian Age, it seems the bulk of what was labelled perversion centered on sex, reflecting the rigid, normophilic mores of the time. By the twentieth century I imagine perversion had all but lost its original religious connotations and was used almost exclusively in reference to sex practices (kink, swingers, homosexuality, etc.) that turned away from normophilia Otherwise, perversion simply came to mean something similar to distortion or corruption when used in phrases such a perversion of justice.
In our contemporary world, it is becoming increasingly difficult to use the word perversion, be it in noun, verb, or adjective form. Though phrases like perversion of justice still appear now and then, they are growing scarcer as our definition of justice changes and blurs. The infrequency of the word perversion to describe a turning away from the good, the natural, and the acceptable has much to do with the current state of our culture and society, which has all but abandoned the good, the natural, and the acceptable of the past and Christianity in favor of the establishment of a new mos maiorum built upon the progressive philosophical and political movements of the past two hundred years alone.
I would argue Modern Western culture has not only turned away from its ancestral customs, mores, and religion, but is openly and vehemently hostile to them all. Unlike Ancient Rome, or Medieval Europe, looking to the past for guidance is considered backward and regressive. The past is a dungeon; its customs, behaviors, and religion – chains and barbaric torture devices. Progress dictates individuals and societies liberate themselves and others from the shackles of the past oppression and create new values, new principles, and new virtues. The good that once was is no longer good, but its opposite; accordingly, taking an extreme turn away from or leading people away these inherently malevolent and evil structures cannot, therefore, be considered perverted acts. Thus, what a mere century ago was considered perverted by the vast majority of society, is today not only accepted, but encouraged and celebrated, which makes using the word perversion tricky business indeed.
In the end, I believe perversion, both as a word and as a concept, will not lose its meaning. It will survive, and it will survive with its meaning intact. The only thing that has changed and continues to change is the definition of what constitutes the “good, natural, and acceptable.”
In light of this, one does not need to think too hard about possibilities to understand what will or already defines perversion today. The bigger question is how will those who embody the new mos mairorum, this more modern sense of what is good, natural, and acceptable ultimately deal with those who deviate from the course.
Thus far, the outlook for those turning away from this new good is rather bleak to say the least.
January 9, 2019
Palestrina - Music I Have Been Listening to Lately
Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (c. 1525 – 2 February 1594) was an Italian Renaissance composer of sacred music and the best-known 16th-century representative of the Roman School of musical composition. He had a lasting influence on the development of church music, and his work is considered as the culmination of Renaissance polyphony. (excerpted from Infogalactic)
Wonderful to listen to full focus, or as background when reading/working.
Wonderful to listen to full focus, or as background when reading/working.
January 7, 2019
What Lifelong Learning Really Implies
On the surface there does not seem to be anything particularly negative or suspicious about the term lifelong learning. It has become quite trendy in education and human resources circles over the past decade or two and tends to surface with increasing regularity at most workplaces. On the surface, the overall implication of lifelong learning seems innocuous enough. The term seems to suggest the days of learning something once and then doing that one thing for the rest of your life are history; hence, one is told, lifelong learning is crucial to ensuring one's viability and success in the global workforce. Seems practical and pragmatic enough, like a reassuring piece of advice that just makes sense.
Nevertheless, those who lobby for lifelong learning usually handle the concept as one of unfathomable profundity that seems to supercede the understanding of most average people who simply assume lifelong learning refers to acquiring new workplace related skills such as mastering a new computer program or obtaining some other concrete form professional development. New skills can be positive since many industries require the consistent updating of acquired skills. Formal training of this kind truly can help one maintain some sense of security or possibility at promotion. To be clear, gaining new hard skills to earn a promotion or embark on a new job is positive and good, which is why most people do not find the idea of lifelong learning objectionable. Nevertheless, they fail to notice that this type of skill or knowledge acquisition is merely the surface that hides the murky depths of what lifelong learning truly is or is in the process of becoming.
A broader overall definition of lifelong learning is required before we proceed further. A quick look on Wikepedia yields the following definition:
Lifelong learning is the "ongoing, voluntary, and self-motivated" pursuit of knowledge for either personal or professional reasons. Therefore, it not only enhances social inclusion, active citizenship, and personal development, but also self-sustainability, as well as competitiveness and employability.
Even after reading something like this, many people will continue to comprehend lifelong learning as a means to validate the necessity of never-ending formal or self-education, especially for working adults who wish maintain some sense of security in a fast-moving, ever-changing, and increasingly complex labor market. Yet is this all that lifelong learning is? Take another look at the definition Wikipedia provides. What is implied by social inclusion, active citizenship, and personal development? How will being an active citizen make you a better sales manager? Truth is, it probably won't, and that's the crux of the matter. In my experience, lifelong learning has proven to be less about the acquisition or improvement of hard skills, and more about the inculcation of cultural and ideological doctrines or, for lack of a better expression essential soft skills.
Hence, the bulk of what can be classified as lifelong learning comprises diversity training, implicit bias training, sexual conduct training, sensitivity training, human rights training, anti-racism training, and a slew of other training programs created to ensure you completely comply with contemporary social, cultural, and corporate values. Put another way, lifelong learning is a way of guaranteeing people "get with the program." Once again, on the surface most people do not find this objectionable. We all want to get along at the workplace, right? Sure, but what if this kind of lifelong learning were presented in a more sincere and transparent way? What if people were told lifelong learning meant they were guilty before being tried, and that the true objective of the training sessions was to force them compromise and reject nearly everything they had once considered true, beautiful, and good?
Of course, the successful acquisition of the soft skills learned at these trainings are now of far greater importance than the acquisition or improvement of any concrete skills could ever be. That is where the "self-sustainability, as well as competitiveness and employability" aspect of the definition above come into play. The equation boils down to something exceptionally simple - if people want to work, they must prove they are completely compliant at all times, which is why they must learn these soft skills for as long as they live. Job security and promotion possibilities will hinge almost exclusively on the successful implementation and acceptance of the concepts learned in these trainings.
If you think I am exaggerating, pause for a moment and consider how many competent, highly-skilled individuals have lost their situations because they outright refused or were merely suspected of refusing to comply to some cultural tenent pegged to the sacred trinity of diversity, inclusivity, and equality. Go to an interview for a job for which you are perfectly qualified and skilled and frankly tell the interviewer you do not agree with the whole implicit bias training thing, or that you do not honestly believe that all people are inherently equal. Then go home and wait for the job offer. I can guarantee you it will never come because you have essentially expressed contempt for lifelong learning, and this has instantly rendered you unemployable.
Now despite what I have written, I am actually a hardcore advocate for lifelong learning. Lifelong learning truly is necessary and crucial, but not the kind described above. No, the lifelong learning I recommend is figuring out means through which you may be able to survive and perhaps even prosper outside the confines of this repressive, totalitarian lifelong learning framework.
If you can figure out a way to do that, you not only win the philosopher's stone, but you may even retain possession of your soul.
Nevertheless, those who lobby for lifelong learning usually handle the concept as one of unfathomable profundity that seems to supercede the understanding of most average people who simply assume lifelong learning refers to acquiring new workplace related skills such as mastering a new computer program or obtaining some other concrete form professional development. New skills can be positive since many industries require the consistent updating of acquired skills. Formal training of this kind truly can help one maintain some sense of security or possibility at promotion. To be clear, gaining new hard skills to earn a promotion or embark on a new job is positive and good, which is why most people do not find the idea of lifelong learning objectionable. Nevertheless, they fail to notice that this type of skill or knowledge acquisition is merely the surface that hides the murky depths of what lifelong learning truly is or is in the process of becoming.
A broader overall definition of lifelong learning is required before we proceed further. A quick look on Wikepedia yields the following definition:
Lifelong learning is the "ongoing, voluntary, and self-motivated" pursuit of knowledge for either personal or professional reasons. Therefore, it not only enhances social inclusion, active citizenship, and personal development, but also self-sustainability, as well as competitiveness and employability.
Even after reading something like this, many people will continue to comprehend lifelong learning as a means to validate the necessity of never-ending formal or self-education, especially for working adults who wish maintain some sense of security in a fast-moving, ever-changing, and increasingly complex labor market. Yet is this all that lifelong learning is? Take another look at the definition Wikipedia provides. What is implied by social inclusion, active citizenship, and personal development? How will being an active citizen make you a better sales manager? Truth is, it probably won't, and that's the crux of the matter. In my experience, lifelong learning has proven to be less about the acquisition or improvement of hard skills, and more about the inculcation of cultural and ideological doctrines or, for lack of a better expression essential soft skills.
Hence, the bulk of what can be classified as lifelong learning comprises diversity training, implicit bias training, sexual conduct training, sensitivity training, human rights training, anti-racism training, and a slew of other training programs created to ensure you completely comply with contemporary social, cultural, and corporate values. Put another way, lifelong learning is a way of guaranteeing people "get with the program." Once again, on the surface most people do not find this objectionable. We all want to get along at the workplace, right? Sure, but what if this kind of lifelong learning were presented in a more sincere and transparent way? What if people were told lifelong learning meant they were guilty before being tried, and that the true objective of the training sessions was to force them compromise and reject nearly everything they had once considered true, beautiful, and good?
Of course, the successful acquisition of the soft skills learned at these trainings are now of far greater importance than the acquisition or improvement of any concrete skills could ever be. That is where the "self-sustainability, as well as competitiveness and employability" aspect of the definition above come into play. The equation boils down to something exceptionally simple - if people want to work, they must prove they are completely compliant at all times, which is why they must learn these soft skills for as long as they live. Job security and promotion possibilities will hinge almost exclusively on the successful implementation and acceptance of the concepts learned in these trainings.
If you think I am exaggerating, pause for a moment and consider how many competent, highly-skilled individuals have lost their situations because they outright refused or were merely suspected of refusing to comply to some cultural tenent pegged to the sacred trinity of diversity, inclusivity, and equality. Go to an interview for a job for which you are perfectly qualified and skilled and frankly tell the interviewer you do not agree with the whole implicit bias training thing, or that you do not honestly believe that all people are inherently equal. Then go home and wait for the job offer. I can guarantee you it will never come because you have essentially expressed contempt for lifelong learning, and this has instantly rendered you unemployable.
Now despite what I have written, I am actually a hardcore advocate for lifelong learning. Lifelong learning truly is necessary and crucial, but not the kind described above. No, the lifelong learning I recommend is figuring out means through which you may be able to survive and perhaps even prosper outside the confines of this repressive, totalitarian lifelong learning framework.
If you can figure out a way to do that, you not only win the philosopher's stone, but you may even retain possession of your soul.
