![[info]](../../../img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
aculeata) wrote,@ 2002-05-19 20:09:00
| Yulya Fridman (aculeata) wrote, @ 2002-05-19 20:09:00 |
verba, не влезет к Вам в комментарии.krylov, очень krylov перестраховщик. И |  privet, xyu
2002-05-19 09:52 (link) |
| Krylov prosto realist. V luboi situacii luchshe znat fakty i osnovyvatsa na realnosti. Igry na polyane nikogo ne nakormyat i ne spasut |
|  verba
2002-05-19 10:32 (link) |
| Ужасно любопытно и хочется отвечать подробно, но попробую себя ужать. 1. Виктимизация вредна всегда, потому что парализует и в конечном итоге развращает. Это беда, которая произошла с неграми и индейцами в США. 2. То, что Вы имели в виду скорее ближе к сознательному (или нет) изоляционизму. Например, через идею избранности, праведности, противопоставленности злу. На очень коротком этапе такая идея может работать, но она исключает нормальное течение жизни. У малых или угнетенных народов эта идея достаточно оправдана, хоть и всегда опасна, потому что тесно смыкается с фашизмом. Польский народ не выжил бы 150 лет без национализма, но и Пилсудский порождение того же национализма. 3. Еврея на улице бьют не потому, что он ощущает себя жертвой, а потому что он один на ватагу молодцов. Если бы евреи ощущали себя так же и не в одиночестве, Израиля уже давно бы не было. Что было бы с Израилем без враждебного арабского окружения (пожалуй, более точная аналогия с тем, что Вы имели в виду) -- отдельный вопрос. Думаю, что нормальное государство (см. пункт 2). 4. Мифологическая реальность хороша в литературе. Как идеология (политика, экономика) она чудовищно опасна. Прямое ее следствие -- охота на ведьм, которое, конечно, сплачивает народ вокруг единой идеи. Мы это уже видели в Германии. Вряд ли это то национальное объединение, которого Вы хотите. Если совсем коротко, то да, некотороый национальный изоляционизм и чувство превосходства (ценностей, образа жизни) необходимы для выживания нации. Вопрос, как всегда, (а) в степени и (б) в отношении к "другим". Если "другие" (внешние или внутренние) воспринимаются как враги, общество превращается в орвелловский кошмар. (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| aculeata
2002-05-19 12:04 (link) |
| Ya, pokhozhe, vyrazilas' slishkom nevnyatno. Net, net, vse ne tak. To est', mnogoe tak, no tol'ko ya pytalas' skazat' ne o tom. Budu dumat', otkuda strannoe nedorazumenie. Poka dva slova vsego (ostal'noe mne neponyatno). 1) Dashin tekst (sejchas tol'ko soobrazila) Vy prochli neozhidannym obrazom. On veselyj. Tam net takogo, chtoby my po vine amerikancev, ili, chto to zhe, polulyudej-polusvinej s golovoj zemlerojki, my okazalis' v bezvykhodnom polozhenii. Tam est' nash mir, v kotorom my zhivem, i v nem zamechatel'nye, ochen' interesnye opasnosti. Kotorye podstroili vsyakie gady iz drugikh mirov. Ehti opasnosti nado preodolevat' i na obmany ne poddavat'sya. 2) Naschet "drugikh", vosprinimaemykh kak "vragi". Ya dumayu, chto v mifologicheskom soznanii mir ulozhen koncentricheskimi krugami, kak Leningrad Gorcheva. Chem dal'she ot nas, tem strashnej, a sosedi esche kuda-to godyatsya. I esche, obychno gde-to daleko nashi utrachennye brat'ya, kotorye vernutsya i pomogut v kriticheskij moment (topologiya skleennykh polyusov). Situaciya polnoj izolyacii -- krug odin, nash, dal'she nachinayutsya strashnye svinolyudi. Ehto chasto znachit, chto obschestvo obrecheno, no ne potomu, chto v nem carit paranojya. A potomu, chto trudno, kogda vokrug svinolyudi. Tem ne menee, stalinskij SSSR, kak by ni otnosit'sya k Stalinu lichno, na pitatel'noj paranoje vystoyal mnogie trudnye gody, a gorbachevskij -- razvalilsya i obednel, i soshel na net. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
|  cema
2002-05-19 21:02 (link) |
| 1) Veselye opasnosti Dashinogo mira -- eto vrode inzhenerov-vreditelej (30-e gody) ili inturistov, daryaschix detyam vzryvayuschiesya avtoruchki (80-e gody). Struktural'nejshim lingvistam, istorikam kul'tury i etnografam dolzhno byt' chrezvychajno interesno. Psixologam, uvy, tozhe. 2) SSSR, konechno, vystoyal pri Staline trudnye gody, no ved' bez Stalina eti gody ne byli by takimi trudnymi. Tak chto spasibo Gorbachevu: on razrushil gosudarstvo i tem samym, vozmozhno, soxranil naciyu. (Vprochem, v takix terminax mne trudno rassuzhdat' bez smexa.) Naschet koncentricheskix krugov, mozhno vspomnit' populyarnye obrazy kolec vrazhdebnosti Vojnovicha. Uzh izvinite, chto po-prostomu. :-) Tak chto nichego novogo. A naschet evreev -- kazhutsya legkoj dobychej, vot i napadayut. Kto-to napadaet v smysle b'et po morde, kto-to v smysle stebetsya. Nu tak ne nado byt' legkoj dobychej, i vse budet putem. (Reply to this) (Parent) |
| verba
2002-05-20 08:17 (link) |
| Я действительно не увидела веселости в Дашином сочинении. Личной злобы или обиды тоже впрочем не увидела. Она просто описывает мир так, как его видит. Весь сыр-бор разгорелся впрочем не из-за ее текста как такового, а из-за философии, которая за ним стоит, не Дашиной личной философии и даже не личной философии ее родителей, а много-много шире. И вопрос о мифологическом сознании возник именно в этом ключе. Конечно, черно-белый мир способствует объединению. Недаром любое общество сплачивается во время оборонительной войны. Сколько времени общество способно пребывать в состоянии войны -- другой вопрос. И тут дело не в Сталине или Горбачеве (оставив опять же в стороне моральные оценки), а в том, что по вполне объективным социално-психологическим законам сталинская параноидальная идеология была жизнеспособна только на очень коротком историческом отрезке. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| kaledin
2002-05-20 14:55 (link) |
Verba, Vy naverno pravy pro "korotkij istoricheskij otrezok". No my sejchas zhivem v takoj "korotkij istoricheskij otrezok". Tipa smutnogo vremeni. Ehto sil'no sdvigaet ocenki. Polyaki ved' tozhe sovershenno ne khoteli ni okkupirovat' Rossiyu, ni vsekh v nej ubivat' -- khoteli chego-to prostogo i ponjatnogo: nu, chtoby byl porjadok, chtoby bylo predskazuemoe, legitimnoe pravitel'stvo. Im mozhno posochuvstvovat' dazhe, kak oni v Moskve osazhdennoj v konce koncov eli konej i drug druga. No takoe sochuvstvie khorosho tol'ko postfaktum. A poka, --- Privet, Dima. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Re: verba
2002-05-20 15:06 (link) |
| Простите, Дима, но мне кажется Вы смешиваете два вопроса -- один аналитический, другой нормативный. В аналитическом плане на коротком отрезке работают разнообразные способы сплочения населения. Война, поиски врагов народа, погромы, диктатура. Все эти способы делят мир на своих и чужих и дают "своим" чувство локтя, правоты и оправданности. Допустимы ли они, даже если работают -- это уже вопрос нормативный. С моей точки зрения, нет. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| kaledin
2002-05-20 16:24 (link) |
| A kakie imenno normy narushayutsya? Ya vizhu tol'ko uproshchennoe videnie mira -- svoj/chuzhoj. Kuda menee uproshchennoe, chem to, chto sejchas standart na zapade (good guys/evil dictators, my i fashist Le Pen, i t.d.); no kuda bolee uproshchennoe, chem khotelos' by. Nu, vremya takoe. Vran'ya, vo vsjakom sluchae, ne proiskhodit -- vse v bukval'nom smysle pravda. Dazhe pro poleznye iskopaemye. Vot tol'ko chto Rossiya otkazalas' ogranichit' dobychu nefti dlya podderzhaniya cen -- vzamen na yakoby obeshchanie vklyuchit' Rossiyu v oficial'nye postavshchiki neftyanogo rezerva SShA. Privet, Dima. (Reply to this) (Parent) |
| aculeata
2002-05-21 06:24 (link) |
| Verba, ya uzhe pisala nizhe strannomu angloyazychnomu cheloveku, skazhu i Vam: cherno-belyj mir -- ehto ne Dashino vospriyatie mira, a Vashe vospriyatie teksta. Ehto chto-to schelknulo takoe, ne znayu, chto. Ved' vot, tam zhe napisano: est' 4 (a ne dva) "logicheskikh mira"; odin iz nikh nash, odin normal'nyj, dva amerikanskikh. Ili "cherno-beloe" znachit nechto drugoe, chem otsutstvie promezhutochnykh variantov? Personifikaciya vraga -- sama po sebe otnyud' ne vrednaya, a metodologicheski poleznaya vesch', rekomenduemaya, naprimer, psikhoanalizom (imenno po analogii s drevnimi praktikami). Ya ne znayu, o kakoj filosofii Vy govorite (kak-to Vy ee oboznachili, no ne detal'no, navernoe, v predpolozhenii, chto vsem yasno, o chem rech' -- no mne ne yasno). Naskol'ko mne izvestno, v dome u Dashi nikomu ne prikhodit v golovu vinit' v bedakh russkikh kogo-libo, krome russkikh: tam schitayut, chto ANTANTA, oslablyaya Rossiyu, NATO, razvalivaya SSSR, dejstvovali ne po zlobe kakoj, a prosto v svoikh interesakh. A vot russkie, dopustivshie svoe porazhenie po manilovskomu li blagodushiyu, po prichine li strannoj gosudarstvennoj slepoty, bezotvetstvennosti ili pochemu-libo esche -- dejstvovali vopreki svoim interesam, oni i vinovaty v krushenii tradicionnykh bazovykh cennostej, v razvale strany. Ne to, chtoby ehto pryamo otnosilos' k zhurnalu "Barsuk", vprochem, no tut snova nachinayutsya veschi, kotorykh ya nikogda ne ponimala i uzhe ne nadeyus' ponyat'. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Re: verba
2002-05-21 15:19 (link) |
| Бог с ним, Юля. Может, и вправду что-то щелкнуло. (Reply to this) (Parent) |
|  kaax
2002-05-19 10:57 (link) |
| Думала я отвечать по пунктам, о виктимизации -- это интересная тема, полезна она или вредна. Let's define terms first. "Victimization", as used in and around this thread in LJ, is not an admission of weakness. It's main point is, rather, irresponsibility. "I am a weak victim" -- it says -- "not because of my own faults or errors, but because of some evil, alien, foreign force that made me poor/suffering/powerless. I could and can do nothing about this except bitch and whine. I am not responsible for my current condition. I am not responsible for anything, but they, the rest of the world, owe me". As such it is clearly not a good thing. Почему еврея бьют на улице? Потому, что он заранее чувствует себя жертвой. Err... No. Because the people on the street were taught that a Jew is an enemy, a foreign devil, and he is responsible for all the troubles (see above). He is also an acceptable target for taking out one's frustrations on -- a Jew is not really a human, right? But if your point was that persecution of Jews had a side-effect of creating a very strong sense of community between Jews, and to a certain degree it became a part of Jewish self-identity, then this is correct. The price paid for this, on the other hand, was quite high. Если верно, что инстинкт выживания нации говорит в пользу виктимизации, тогда она -- явление объективное Again, big difference between feeling like a cornered rat -- which is a useful survival trait -- and whining about how somebody else is responsible for your failings, which is NOT survival-useful at all. Это настоящая, то есть мифологическая реальность. The problem with mythology is that hard physical reality has a nasty habit of ignoring what people think it should be. If your worldview is sufficiently inadequate, sooner or later it'll screw you over. This is as true for governments as it is for individuals. Куда труднее понять, почему некоторые люди хотят быть мондиалистами What do you mean "хотят"? If I look at a strawberry and see it as red, is it because I want it to be red? Are you telling me I am not jumping off tall buildings because I don't want to fly? Kaa (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| aculeata
2002-05-19 12:14 (link) |
| 1) Thank you for your comment. I, however, believe you might have missed some points. The text in question is here http://barsuk.lenin.ru/02/4mira.htm hence the talk about (supposed) victimization and (possible) applications of the term. 2) To victimize (Webster) = to make a victim of. 3) >Again, big difference between feeling like a >cornered rat -- which is a useful survival >trait -- and whining about how somebody else >is responsible for your failings, which is NOT >survival-useful at all. That is most reasonable; however, when you are a cornered rat, someone is bound to be responsible, technically at least, for the fact of you being cornered. Otherwise, you would have been an absolutely free rat to just walk away. 4) >The problem with mythology is that hard physical >reality has a nasty habit of ignoring what people >think it should be. That is a saying invented by journalists. Not even a myth, since it doesn't really mean anything. According to Borches, there exist only four plots for a novel -- and there is a myth for every happening. What is more important, the language we use to relate this or that story based upon a "real event", is derived from a myth. 5) >If I look at a strawberry and see it as >red, is it because I want it to be red? Again, you are missing the point. That was a quotation. http://barsuk.lenin.ru/02/4mira.htm But yes, in a sense. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| kaax
2002-05-19 14:45 (link) |
| :-) The talk about victimization actually came out of verba's post. Thus it properly belongs to the secondary and tertiary discussion, but in the original text itself I don't see any. This is really a separate discussion to which Darya's story was only a pretext. I'll get back to it in a second... I would actually talk about Darya's worldview not in terms of victims and victimizations, but rather in terms of what's known as "bunker mentality". Hers is a very black-and-white view, which is OK for kids (though with her being nine years old I would expect her to see shades of grey as well...). However the most striking and unsettling thing about it is that the external world is viewed as expressly hostile. "Американцы хотят завоевать нашу территорию и убить всех людей" Well, this means that they are the enemy, right? And there is a life-and-death struggle going on. A war. And war is very black-and-white time, and who is not with us, he is against us. I wonder if she thinks that all Americans should be killed -- not out of malice, but purely out of self-defence... You wrote that Dashin tekst ... On veselyj. ... Tam est' nash mir, v kotorom my zhivem, i v nem zamechatel'nye, ochen' interesnye opasnosti. I didn't get any feeling that this is a fun world with exciting adventures in it. This is a besieged world, with deadly and crafty enemies right outside the gates, and traitors inside the fortress -- people who work at McDonalds are traitors, right? Or maybe just enchanted with dark sorceries... By the way, there are striking similarities between such beliefs and the ideas of islamic extremists. I don't think that such a worldview is reasonable or does any good for child's psychological development. But that's not such a big deal. Parents do have the right to teach their children as they see fit, and the alternative -- the government (who else?) checking on the ideological correctness of kids' upbringing -- is much, much worse. However some people jumped in and said that this is the correct worldview! This is actually as it is -- the Americans do want to take over Russia and kill everyone, they did enchant (or bribe, or threaten) the Russian government to sell natural resources, they do poison the Russian children through McDonalds, etc. etc. And here the victimization discussion started -- victimization not in the Webster's sense, but rather as a shorthand for what's sometimes called "victim's syndrome" -- by now you should have a pretty good idea of what I mean by it. I am somewhat confused by you speaking of victimization as being useful for survival. Do you mean the ability to see when you are weak? But that's just seeing the world as it is and has nothing to do with being a victim. Or, perhaps, you mean hate for the stronger other? The will to not be the weakest? That's a big and different discussion -- about power and desire for it... I also disagree with you about mythology. Basically, the mythology's function is to help us understand the world, primarily by simplifying it. But there needs to be a certain degree of correspondence between hard physical reality and the mythology, or you run into problems. Certain african tribes believed that warriors can make themselves immune to bullets through certain sorceries. It wasn't a big deal for rare skirmishes with gun-bearing whites. But when a civil war started in that region, it turned out that running at machine guns believing they are harmless to you is not really a good idea. On a socio-political level, think about communism/socialism. This was also a mythology, a myth which made certain statements about reality. The statements turned out to be incorrect and the Soviet Union (along with East European satellites) collapsed. Again, the myth went against the reality and, as usual, lost. I think the point I am trying to make is that (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| aculeata
2002-05-21 05:45 (link) |
| >I would actually talk about Darya's worldview not >in terms of victims and victimizations, but rather >in terms of what's known as "bunker mentality". >Hers is a very black-and-white view, which is OK >for kids (though with her being nine years old I >would expect her to see shades of grey as well...). >However the most striking and unsettling thing >about it is that the external world is viewed as >expressly hostile. Well, if you read the text literally, turning off your own black-and-white mode of perception, you will notice that it presents FOUR logical worlds, three of them more or less external. One is normal, two are American, one is "ours". There are shades, and it's you who's refusing to see them. Or is it that, where Americans are painted black, all the other shades and colours don't count? >I didn't get any feeling that this is a fun world >with exciting adventures in it. This is a besieged >world, with deadly and crafty enemies right outside >the gates, and traitors inside the fortress -- people >who work at McDonalds are traitors, right? Or maybe >just enchanted with dark sorceries... Actually, should you care to reread any good book with adventures in it, written for and admired by children, you would notice that it is precisely about "the deadly and crafty enemies right outside the gates, and traitors inside the fortress". That was a good guess. And, certainly, it is no Disney land (which you probably mean by the "fun world") -- or perhaps it _is_ a Disney land, in Sheckeley's sense. >By the way, there are striking similarities between >such beliefs and the ideas of islamic extremists. Them islamic extremists also walk on two legs, just like Dasha. >However some people jumped in and said that this is the >correct worldview! This is actually as it is -- the >Americans do want to take over Russia and kill everyone, >they did enchant (or bribe, or threaten) the Russian >government to sell natural resources, they do poison the >Russian children through McDonalds, etc. etc. This is a purely terminological question. There are Americans who do want all that and more, for the Russians' own good, and there might be a lot of Americans who, personally, don't. To say that "the Americans" want this or that is to imply existence of a collective entity by that name. If there is, the (political) will of such an entity does not necessarily coincide with the will of any given individual -- quite to the contrary. A next-door neighbor of mine at 18 Tufts Street, Cambridge MA, might not want "Weak Russia" or "Russia on its knees" (actually, he did), but the officially voiced opinion of the US governement is altogether another matter, as is the (very impersonal) effect of the American "cultural and economical" expansion on our life here. >And here the victimization discussion started -- >victimization not in the Webster's sense, but >rather as a shorthand for what's sometimes called >"victim's syndrome" -- by now you should have a >pretty good idea of what I mean by it. Well, to tell you the truth, when I said it might be useful, I had no idea about what you might later choose to mean by the term. >I also disagree with you about mythology. Basically, >the mythology's function is to help us understand the >world, primarily by simplifying it. I am not sure we mean the same thing by "mythology". Why don't you consult a dictionary first? >Certain african tribes believed that warriors can make >themselves immune to bullets through certain sorceries What makes you think they did? Isn't that, by any chance, a myth that you have invented yourself, to fit your own, presumably realistic, perception? >This was also a mythology, a myth which made certain >statements about reality. The statements turned out to >be incorrect and the Soviet Union (along with East >European satellites) collapsed. What statements? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
|  kaax
2002-05-21 20:15 (link) |
| ...you will notice that it presents FOUR logical worlds... I don't see any shades. These four worlds are mentioned, but I know nothing about them, what are they, and why there are four of them, and which color they are supposed to be. Actually, should you care to reread any good book with adventures in it... Nine-year-old children are perfectly capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality. I have no problem at all with such books because they are fiction, fantasy, and everybody understands what they are. Dasha is not talking about a fantasy world -- she's talking about a real world as she sees it. That's what bothers me. Them islamic extremists also walk on two legs, just like Dasha. And will Dasha be willing to strap explosives onto her body and detonate them in a supermarket, just like the islamists? Or fly a couple of planes into some tall building? There are Americans who do want all that and more, for the Russians' own good, and there might be a lot of Americans who, personally, don't. Well, yeah, that's obvious to reasonable people, but the problem is that in this discussion not all people are reasonable. :-) I am not sure we mean the same thing by "mythology". Main Entry: my·thol·o·gy 1 : an allegorical narrative 2 : a body of myths : as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : MYTHOS 2 3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth 4 : a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something About immunity to bullets, quote from http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n In April 1819, the British Colony on the Cape, Grahamstown, was menaced by a large Xhosan army. The Xhosan prophet, Nxele, had promised the Xhosan king, the Ndlambe, the ability to turn white men's bullets to water. Due to the mystic's promise, the Xhosan army was ordered into harm's way and engaged the British colonial army in a rare pitched battle. Believing in the powerful magic of Nxele, they advanced in massed columns against their enemy. The British, lined-up in formation, opened a withering fire with their muskets and artillery and decimated the Xhosan ranks, led personally by Nxele.3 One hundred warriors died, and nearly a thousand were wounded. The British army then invaded Xhosan territory and accepted, at a later date, the surrender of Nxele.4 A belief in magic had brought about a military disaster for the Xhosan people. The Xhosa continued to grapple with the British army. In 1850, a sickly youth named Mlanjeni, "the Riverman," claimed it was necessary to cleanse the Xhosa nation and to make war on the whites. Mlanjeni promised the Xhosan warriors immunity from the white men's bullets, and sent them into battle with a twig from a plumbug bush to ward off evil (including bullets).5 Battlefield tragedy followed; hundreds were killed when the Riverman's protection was found to be nonexistent. By 1853, the Xhosa were exhausted by the British army and resistance came to an end. However, the belief in those professing magic power persisted. What statements? Pobeda kommunizma neizbezhna :-) I think that this discussion is losing coherency. Just for clarity let me state my position on that whole issue: (1) Barsuk had full rights to publish that story. It's completely OK. People who want to tear off certain body parts of other people (a) don't understand what "freedom of speech" means; and (b) don't understand that if it's OK to rip off somebody's balls for his views, it's fine to rip off THEIR balls for their views, too. (2) Dasha is a screwed up child and her parents are weirdos that have problems with reality. That does NOT mean that they should be taken out and shot, or that Dasha needs to be taken away from them. Just my personal opinion... Kaa (Reply to this) (Parent) |
| kaax
2002-05-19 14:50 (link) |
| Grrr... hit return key by mistake... Anyway, my point is that worldviews such as Darya's are not fun -- they are dangerous. They basically divide the world into "us" and "them" and teach that "they" are the enemies, to be shunned, distrusted, and if needed, killed. That, to me, is a bad thing. Kaa (Reply to this) (Parent) |
| (Anonymous) 2002-05-19 23:08 (link) |
| Uti-pusi kakie my umnye...
Prosto kladez' uma nemeryannyj kokoj-to. |
|  alexcohn
2002-05-20 04:07 (link) |
| Я не стану вступать в дискуссию о том, почему на улице можно еще встретить еврея. А Дашин текст я мог бы понять как вполне уместный стеб над родительскими заморочками. Но боюсь, что она пишет всерьез. В мечетях Дженина и в секторе Газа, да и в столице трех религий Иерусалиме арабских детей тоже учат, что их окружают враги. Страшные многократно потому, что никаких откровенно враждебных действий эти враги не предпринимают. Ну, разве что открыли МакДональдс. Или, хуже того, кошерный МакДэвидс. Дети растут с ощущением ужаса перед израильскими мондиалистами, и чтобы избавиться от этого ужаса, перепоясываются и отправляются в Нетанию, чтобы взорваться с еврейскими детьми или, наоборот, стариками. Голда Меир сказала давно, что мир между нами и арабами (она не признавала слово "палестинцы", она говорила "это я - палестинка") не будет достигнут, пока арабы ненавидят нас сильнее, чем они любят своих детей. Эту ненависть, этот страх они воспитывают в своих детях. Тот, кто любит ребенка, не будет воспитывать его в страхе (даже в страхе перед Богом). Страх не делает человека свободным. Я люблю вас, люди, будьте доверчивы - учил Александр Галич. |
[ Home | Update Journal | Login/Logout | Browse Options | Site Map ]