Üks kohtumine põrgus

Vahel satun unes põrgusse ja saan kokku igasugu tegelastega. Viimati tuli päris põrguvärava juures mulle ligi Heinrich Himmler ja ütles, et tal on eestlastest hea meel. Ta ei kahetse, et sõja lõpul Eestile laialdast autonoomiat lubas: vaprad eestlased olid selle täiesti ära teeninud. Ja nüüd ta imetleb Varro Vooglaidu ja tema tegevust. Himmler on kindel, et Vooglaid on ehtne Põhja rassi esindaja, ehtne aarialane, kes ei saa leppida oma rassi allakäiguga ja võitleb Põhja inimeste eest, selle eest, et rassiliselt alaväärtuslik element ja juutlik-vabamüürlik ideoloogia ei laostaks Põhjalas perekondi, ei langetaks puhtatõuliste inimeste sigivust. Aga eestlaste visadus annab temalegi lootuse, et kõik pole kadunud, Põhja rass tõuseb kord jälle.

Принудительная свобода

Можно ли человѣка принудить быть свободнымъ? Тутъ противорѣчіе: принудительная свобода почти то же самое что несвободная свобода. А въ той цивилизаціи, которая нами ныне повелеваетъ, свобода какъ разъ и является принудительной. Особенно свобода выбора. Выбора между десятками, сотнями брэндовъ, моделей... Навѣрно мы неспособны не выбирать, если есть возможность выбора. Было бы цѣлесообразней взять, купить что-то изъ предложеннаго просто такъ, наугадъ, бросая монету. Но обычно мы такъ не дѣлаемъ, мы какъ будто вѣримъ, что между брэндами есть нѣкое важное различіе. И сравнивая ихъ, думая, ломая голову, мы въ самомъ дѣлѣ теряемъ драгоцѣнное время, тратимъ безсмысленно наши умственные ресурсы.

Иногда мнѣ кажется, что т.н. свободный міръ въ самомъ дѣлѣ менѣе свободенъ чемъ былъ напримѣръ СССР въ шестидесятыхъ годахъ. Тамъ отсутствіе свободы было очевиднымъ. А ныне несвобода искусно маскирована, поддѣлана подъ свободу. Насъ не заставляютъ действовать, работать, покупать, идти на выборы принужденіемъ, угрозами, а приманками. Современная капиталистическая цивилизация является своего года наркотиком, превращающимъ насъ в колесики гигантской машины потребительскаго общества, системы, которая уже не управляется, а управляетъ нами. Эта машина, эта система намного болѣе совершенна чемъ неуклюжая громоздкая совѣтская система. Но въ той громоздкой системѣ после сталинской эры было множество лазеекъ, пробѣловъ, мѣстъ, гдѣ человѣкъ могъ чувствовать себя свободнымъ, могъ бездѣльничать, проводить дни просто такъ в размышленіи, общаясь съ друзьями. Было много свободнаго времени, а это безцѣнная вѣщь для мыслящего человѣка. Въ нынешнемъ дивномъ новомъ мірѣ такихъ лазеекъ осталось очень мало, какъ и свободнаго времени. А свободное, действительно свободное время, что мы не объязаны, не воспитаны тратить на развлеченіе, на потребленіе продукціи развлекательнаго бизнеса, въ самомъ дѣлѣ и есть свобода, есть неотдѣлимая часть того, что мы называемъ свободой.

Riik ja Maa

Loen Sirbist Filimonovi lugu "Pidu sinus eneses..."

ja saan aru, et mõtlen peaaegu täpselt sedasama, aga pole mõist seda nii selgelt kirja panna. Pole ehk tihanud ka, sest ikkagi kahtlane inimene, pole päris eestlane või kuidas. Aga jah, päris eestlasel kipuvad maa ja riik ühte langema, kuigi on väga eri asjad. Maa, see ilus armas ja parasjagu laastatud ja saastatud maa. Ja riik, kes ajab oma asja, oma piire, oma suveräänsust, oma poliitikat, oma vahekordi teistega, liitusid, ohtusid... Aga mis riigile oluline, ei pea alati maale ja maa asukatele olema. Riik pole püha, maa võib olla, vahest ongi. Rahvas pole püha, aga on oma. Või peaaegu oma. Kui nii väga ei taha keegi, miski teine olla. Õigem, euroopalikum, saksem.

Jah, Stalini kõige suuremaid kuritegusid polnud mitte see, et ta mõne riigi annekteeris, vaid see, et ta inimesi tappa ja piinata lasi. Olgu siin maal või mõnel teisel maal.

Riik ei peaks nii palju meile ette kirjutama. Riik ei peaks korraldama meie keelt, otsustama, kas naine tohib raha eest seksida, kas lapsele tohib laksu anda, kas küla puutöökojas peab olema duŠŠ, kas külamees tohib ise oma siga tappa ja oma surnud vasika aia taha matta, kas vene koolides peab matemaatikat ja keemiat eesti keeles õpetama. Ei peaks linnasaksaks kippuva matsi ülipüüdlikkusega täitma lolle euronorme ja ise uusi sama lolle välja mõtlema.

Aga Filimonovil on õigus: ega paremat riiki pole ka kuskilt võtta, tuleb see oma võõras riik välja kannatada. Kuni ta olemas on. Aga olla valmis ka selleks, et tuleb mingi teine. Vahest praegusest parem, vahest halvem. Lõpuks pole see ka nii oluline. Riiki on vähem vaja kaitsta kui maad ja inimesi. Inimesi ei tohi käskida või keelitada riigi eest surema ja tapma. Maa eest ehk küll. Ja rahva eest, inimeste, omade eest. Aga riik pole maa. Riik pole rahvas, pole inimesed. Maa kestab kauem kui riik, loodetavasti kauem kui kõik riigid. Kui inimene. Kui rahvas, rahvad.

Rahva, inimeste kõige õigem enesekaitse on olla valmis edasi elama ka ilma riigita või mõnes teises riigis. Hoida vanu talupojaoskusi, osata niita, künda, külvata, lehma lüpsta, saagi teritada, kirvele korralikku vart vesta. Nii on siin maal elatud üle riigid, nende tulekud ja minekud. Elatakse ehk veel. Hää osa maast jääb alles ka siis, kui maailmameri tõuseb. Kuigi Pärnu linna saja aasta pärast oletatavasti sellisena enam ei ole.

Separatists condemning separatists

Estonian politicians and press are now very much engaged in the psychological war against Russia and especially against Putin. What reminds me of the warning by Henry Kissinger against demonisation of Putin. But in war, nearly everything goes, be it truth, half-truth or even lies. And, of course - labeling your adversary with signs like "dictator", "madman", "terrorist", "separatist". But we Estonians should be more careful in condemning "separatists". Our republic was born as a separatist project in 1918, advanced by a group of activists and supported by a part of local people, first of all ethnic Estonians. We should understand that according to the Western view of things our people were Russians, citizens of Russia. The western understanding of nationality differs from our understanding, it's based on citizenship, not ethnicity as our understanding of it that is more or less similar to the Russian one. For Russians, Russian-speakers in Eastern Ukraine are Russians, and as such should have right to self-determination. As Estonians in 1918. For the West, these people are Ukrainians, separatist rebels supported by a foreign country. Here, we Estonians tend to forget our own history, our understanding of nationality and accept the western one. According to the western view, the Republic of Estonia was created by separatist Russians who were supported by some western powers in their interest. Now too, our independence is supported by the West, i.e. the United States. As far and as long as it is in their interest. Not more and not much longer. Our servility, our eagerness to fight American wars, including psychological wars is not a guarantee of their continuing support. We should at least see clearly what is the role assigned to us in the present geopolitical confrontation between "West" and "East". Perhaps it's still possible to change our behaviour, at least preserve some dignity and not rush to serve our masters without second thoughts.

Иногда я доволенъ

что могу писать не только по-эстонски. Какъ напримѣръ читая в Sirp'ѣ статью о моемъ сборникѣ стиховѣ, гдѣ употребляется слово rõhkur. Не знаю, кто изобрѣлъ такое безобразное словечко, меня оно просто раздражаетъ, портитъ настроеніе. И тогда хорошо думать, что могу писать по-русски. Русскій язык иногда становится моимъ убѣжищемъ отъ эстонскихъ языковыхъ инженеровъ, коверкающихъ нашъ языкъ.

US Allies, Take Care!

To those who are happy with the US troops stationed in Estonia, with the US promises to defend and help us, I strongly recommend an article from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/opinion/the-iraqi-friends-we-abandoned.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

Wõitlus maarjalillede wasta

Mind ehmatas periselt ära, kui lugesin Maalehe lisast õpetust, kuda maarjalillikeste wasta piab wõitlema, et neist on raske lahti saada. No kurat on ikka lolle olemas siin Eestimaa pääl. Nigunii niidetakse ruutmiilisi roheliseks kõrbeks, nii et botaanikud juba mures on. Saksa kõrralikkus tõises astmes. Maha maarjalillikesed, wõilillikesed, niimoodu ka sis liblikud, mesilinnud, kimalased. Õige eesti inimese aid ja aiatagune tohib olla ainult roheline kõrrelistekõrb. Rahwussport -- murutraktoriga sõit. Surm sitikatele, konnadele ja kimalastele. Piab otsima üles ühe kõrraliku kabalistide needmise nende kõrralikkude inimeste jaoks. Olen Inglismaal omajagu ringi käind ja maarjalilli on küll pia igal pool muru sees. Ja parkidesse jätetakse niitmata lappisi ka. Ikke liblikate ja tõiste pisitiiwuliste jaoks.

Geopoliitilised mängud

Et Ukrainas ei olevat kodusõda, vaid võitlus Vene agentidest terroristide vastu. Eks ka Eestis polnud metsavendi, vaid Ameerika imperialistide poolt toetatud ja ässitatud bandiidid...

USA analüütik George Friedman kirjutab:
The single greatest American fear should not be China or al Qaeda. It is the amalgamation of the European Peninsula's technology with Russia's natural resources. That would create a power that could challenge American primacy. That was what the 20th century was all about. Friedman seletab, kuidas hirm alternatiivse võimu tekkimise ees Euraasias viis USA sekkuma kahte maailmasõtta, sõtta Koreas ja Vietnamis. Ning oli aluseks president Wilsoni poliitikale, mis viis impeeriumide lammutamisele, rahvusriikide tekkimisele Euroopas. Parv varblasi ei saa kunagi nii tugevaks kui üks kotkas...

Nii püüab USA praegu takistada suurvõimu, riigi või riikide bloki tekkimist Euraasias. Selle tekkimist, mida tema entusiastid nimetavad Eurussiaks. Ameeriklased eelistavad sõdida võõraste kätega ja kui võimalik, kasutada relvade asemel sanktsioone, sabotaaži, propagandat ja muidugi raha. Eurussiale vastutöötamiseks on oluline tekitada lõhe eurooplaste vahel, nende vahel, kellele meeldiks mingi integratsioon Lääne ja Ida vahel, meeldiks liit Venemaaga ja nende vahel, kes Venemaad kardavad. Meie, Ida-Euroopa oleme kiil, mille USA osavalt lööb Venemaa ja "vana Euroopa" vahele. Esialgu on ameeriklastele edu. 

Eesti riik loobus oma iseseisvusest, kui 6. veebruaril Eesti koos teiste Ida-Euroopa riikidega kirjutas alla USA Iraagi-interventsiooni toetavale kirjale. Tagantjärele on asjaosalised ise meenutanud, et allkirja andmata jätmine oleks nad jätnud USA suure malaka alla... Siis veel kõheldi, nüüd ilmselt enam mitte. Ometi peaks veidigi arutama, mida USA retooriline ja sümboolne toetus Venemaa ääreriikidele tähendab. Lubatakse meid kaitsta. Ilus. Kuid tegelikult pole asi kaitses. Tegelikult tahetakse Balti riike, Poolat ja teisi kasutada Venemaa ohjeldamiseks, Saksamaa-Venemaa võimaliku liidu torpedeerimiseks. Friedman, nagu mitmed teised analüütikud (endine USA Moskva-saadik Jack Matlock näiteks) osutavad sellele, et USA poliitika eesmärk on ikka olnud Venemaa isoleerimine, Vene mõjusfääri ahendamine, Venemaa liitlaste äraostmine ja äratõmbamine näiteks "värviliste revolutsioonide" abil. 

"Aga mis sest!" võidakse öelda. "Oluline on, et USA toetab meie iseseisvust, ükskõik mis motiividel." See ei ole siiski päris nii. Kuna USA nüüd aktiviseerib oma Venemaa vastast tegevust, tähendab see, mis retoorikas on meie kaitsmine, tegelikult meie lükkamist ohu ette. Ning kuigi otsene sõjaline kokkupõrge Venemaa ja NATO, st. USA vahel siin pole kuigi tõenäoline, oleks sellel siin Eestile katastroofilised tagajärjed.

Mis mind kõhedaks teeb, on paljude idaeurooplaste entusiasm, millega USA strateegilises projektis kaasa lüüakse. Sven Mikser, kes särasilmi astub NATO sõjalevale ja surub Ameerika kindrali kätt. Kas tõesti rõõmuga tõttame eesliinile? Mõtlemata, et eesliinil on ohtlik ja veel üks suurem kaotus võib tähendada seda, et Eesti riiki tulevikus enam olla ei saa -- rahvast jääb liiga väheks.

Ma tunnen sõjandust halvasti. Kuid on üsna ilmne, et võimaliku sõjalise kokkupõrke korral ei suuda ja ei kavatse NATO Balti riike iga hinna eest kaitsta, vaid siin peetaks taandumislahinguid, takistataks Vene vägede edasitungi, et koguda-koondada jõudusid lääne pool ja siis edaspidi edu korral Baltikum Vene käest tagasi võtta. Mida see meie rahvale tähendaks, pole vaja seletada. Minu esimeste lapsepõlve mälestuste hulgas domineerivad sõjapao-pildid...

Kas oleks võimalik sellist eesliinile, esimese löögi alla sattumist vältida? Kardan, et see on raske, kui mitte võimatu. Oleme juba saanud USA klientriigiks, kuulume ka NATOsse, USA mõjusfääri. Sellest välja astuda ei saa. Kuid muuta saaks siiski suhtumisi, saaksime asju avameelselt arutada. Ja kui meenutada populaarseid Valdur Mikita mõtteid -- saame hoida metsa poole, minna metsa. Eemale suurriikide geopoliitilistest mängudest, vähemalt oma südames. Jätta sportlik kaasaelamine Ukraina praegustele liidritele, kelle tegelikku tausta ja taotlusi me ju ei tea. Kui parajasti ei saa olla iseseisev välispoliitikas, saab seda olla vaimus ja sobival hetkel, sobiva võimaluse tekkides ka saada iseseisvamaks poliitiliselt, liikuda tõeliselt vaba Eesti poole, eemale USA klientriigi staatusest.

Kord Siberis küsiti minult "Ты за кого болеешь?" Ma ei saanud aru, siis ütles mees, et tema "болеет за Киевское Динамо". Mina Kiievi Dünamo fänn ei ole...

P. S. Loen ajalehest artiklit sellest, kuidas Venemaalt kihutati minema tšerkessid. Genotsiid. Tükk ajalugu, ent ka tükk Vene-vastast propagandat. Sellest, mida tegid jänkid indiaanlastega või inglise kolonistid austraalia pärismaalastega, me lehest ei loe. Ikkagi on propaganda teadlik või alateadlik eesmärk näidata, kui halvad ja hirmsad olid Vene valitsejad läbi ajaloo. Sellist propagandat oleks küll targem tegemata jätta. 

Seven Deadly Sins and Economy

Our economy is based on the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, lazyness, wrath, envy and pride. Each one of these sins sponsors and supports a branch of industry. We have many allegorical pictures of these deadly sins from the past, for example the famous painting by Hieronymus Bosch: http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hieronymus-bosch/the-seven-deadly-sins-and-the-four-last-things-1485#supersized-artistPaintings-195443
Nowadays we could illustrate the deadly sins and their power over our economy with ads, e.g. an ad of fashionable clothing is a good illustration of what is called pride, an ad of an action game is a good illustration of what is called wrath, an ad of sweets or chips points to the sin of gluttony, etc. The main sin of our civilization is probably gluttony, the desire of getting more and more, an insatiable desire that is both satisfied and stimulated by the machinery of modern economy. We want this machinery to work more efficiently, to give us more and more things, more and more pleasure. If it slows a bit, we see this as a disaster. Now, Estonian economy doesn't grow any more, we are in a slump. perhaps it means we are not yet sinful enough. A virtuous person, an ideal Christian is an economic criminal: he consumes little, produces little, and gives things away without asking for pay.

An Old Poem

About forty years ago I wrote a poem. After the big changes in Europe after the collapse of the USSR I thought it had lost its actuality. Now I feel it hasn't. Plus cela change, plus cela reste la même chose




I READ YET ANOTHER POEM
describing how the end will come
with the nuclear holocaust. Suddenly
I felt very sure nothing such
will ever happen. There will be no big bang,
only some tiny ones perhaps. But surely
a long big whimper: Big powers
insulting one another, serious crises,
disarmament conferences in Geneva,
drug addicts in Washington, dissidents in Moscow,
hunger in Sahel, terrorism in the Middle East,
new cars, fashions and hits,
breakthroughs in computing and space technology,
more handicapped children and mentally disturbed people,
more revolutionary and ecological movements,
fewer trees, fewer birds and less time
to be aware of the high midsummer sky turning slowly
above you and around you and of the mild night breeze
touching gently your hair and stirring up
some strange feelings and childhood memories.

Julgeolek meie-vormis

Öeldakse, et MEIE võime end nüüd julgemalt tunda, sest Eesti pinnal on USA sõjaväeüksus. Mulle ei meeldi see enesekindel meie-vormis kõnelemine. MINA ei tunne end sugugi turvalisemalt kui enne nende ameerika poiste maabumist. Võibolla on muidki selliseid inimesi, kes meie-vormis rahvusliku hirmu või vaimustusega kaasa ei lähe.

Toward a New Cold Civil War?

Both the First and Second World Wars have been called Western civil wars. What they were, in essence. The cold war was different: at least initially it was really a confrontation between different ideologies, between the liberal West and messianistic Communism, calling the «servile masses» to the «last fight». Of course, this internationalist-revolutionary battle cry little by little changed into a slogan hiding clear geopoltical aims and ambitions of the USSR, a country that had to realize it had to take over part of the role the former Russian Empire had played in the world. Still, it didn't completely renounce the aggressivity it had inherited from its revolutionary past. It happened only after the deal between Gorbatchev and the Western leaders in the eighties. Now, after a pause of about thirty years, a new cold war between Russia and the West is looming again. It's immediate cause is recent annexation of Crimea, formally a part of Ukraine, by Russia, and Russia's other aggressive steps toward its smaller neighbour. Here, by and large, the Western opinion seems to agree: Russia has returned to its Soviet past, becoming an expansionist power striving to reconquer its former sphere of influence. Naturally, this expansionism must be met with stiff resistance, the West must mobilize its resources to push the Russians back and show them such a behaviour is not acceptable.

However, there are some dissident voices in this choir of Russia-bashers. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former US ambassador in Moscow Jack Matlock and the CEO of the prestigious Stratfor Institute George Friedman consider Russian moves in Ukraine a reaction to Western moves, first of all the expansion of NATO, as gravely jeopardizing its security. In his book «The Next Hundred Years» Dr Friedman writes that Russia «will take actions that will appear to be aggressive but in fact are defensive. It will focus on recovering influence and control in the former Soviet Union, re-creating the system of buffers it once had.» This was written in 2009. In the same book, he explains his views more in detail:

«The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, from December 2004 to January 2005, was the moment when the post-Cold War world genuinely ended for Russia. The Russians saw the events in Ukraine as an attempt by the United States to draw Ukraine into NATO and thereby set the stage for Russian disintegration. Quite frankly, there was some truth to the Russian perception. If the West had succeeded in dominating Ukraine, Russia would have become indefensible. The southern border with Belarus, as well as the southwestern frontier of Russia, would have been wide open.»

He predicts too that the West will not accept this attempts by Russia to extend its zone of influence: «The United States -- and the countries within the old Soviet sphere -- will not want Russia to go too far.» This prediction has come true: the West has vigorously responded to the annexation of Crimea and other Russian steps in Ukraine. Mostly, this response has been demonstrative and symbolic. There are no signs of an imminent military confrontation between «East» and «West», but the cold war is gaining momentum. And, as always, the first victim in any cold or hot war is truth. In both Russia, and in the West, propagandistic discourse is taking over. Thus, it is very important to listen to other voices, to the dissidents as the analysts I mentioned. 

Now, I have some reason to include another authoritative person to this group of dissidents, namely the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In his recent speech. Mr. Blair considers the most grave threat to the Westas well as to Russia and China, i.e. to the (more or less) civilized and developed world, the creeping advance of the islamic extremism. He says «that Western leaders must "elevate the issue of religious extremism to the top of the agenda". And they must co-operate with other countries - "in particular, Russia and China" - regardless of "other differences".» to quote from the BBC's summary of his speech. We can see Mr Blair's speech as a warning to both Western and Russian leaders to put aside their differences, even the present grave crisis, not to engage in a new civil cold war, but find ways to counter the danger of obscurantist ideology gaining ground in many regions. We chould take this warning very seriously. In some aspects, the Islamic extremism is similar to Fascism and Communism. It is a militant ideology that strives to destroy the old world with its institutions and values and replace it with something that, for Europeans, belong to the dark ages. Unfortunately, this ideology is propagated by circles closely connected with ruling groups in some close allies of the West, as in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. For this reason, the West tends to be more or less silent about the grave abuses (and in some case, the virtual absence) of human rights in these and other islamic countries and the spread of the jihadist ideology in the Islamic and even non-Islamic World. This complacency, understandable in short perspective, can become disastrous in future. I think the West and Russia must find ways to reach an understanding. It is not impossible, and it is important. 

I'd like to add a link to a blog by M. K. Bhadrakumar, former ambassador of India i.a. in Moscow: http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2014/04/17/ukraine-no-winners-only-losers/. 

Revolution against Human Nature

I have read that in Latvia, children in elementary school (or was it kindergarten) had to take part in an ideological masquerade : boys had to put on skirts and girls – pants. It was done to avoid what the authors of such an initiative think is to neutralize the influence of what they call gender stereotypes. In their view, human gender is a social construct...

In the past, revolutions were mostly revolutions against social order, more or less radical protest movements of the underprivileged against the privileged. Nowadays in the West we can see a different kind of revolutionary movements gaining momentum and in some cases even succeeding in overturning previous policies. These movements are directed less against the existing social order than against what is called human nature. This is a common feature of such initiatives as prohibition of prostitution, prohibition of slapping children, prohibition of death penalty, gender feminism with similar ideologies (e.g. queer theory), multi-culturalism, opposition against hard learning (learning by heart), even flirting. Such initiatives are often accepted by legislature, although most people oppose such ideas. A proof of the influence of well-organized activists who often do not belong to the underprivileged, but are strongly motivated by ideologies. Here, we have an analogy with Communists who, representing a minority, were still able to achieve their aims and establish a type of government according to their views. I sometimes wonder whether the activists who try to overturn many traditional attitudes, can overcome the resistance of the silent majority, the « dark masses » and introduce their (sometimes extremist) ideas into practice. In their own way, they too want to educate people, to create a new human being, free of old beliefs and prejudices, as once the Bolsheviks. But I am very sceptical about the results of such a revolution. The human nature they ignored or negated finally triumphed against the attempts to change it, it will probably triumph agains the gender and queer theories whether we like it or not. Still, I feel sorry about all the waste of human resources in such dubious experiments with us and our children.

Much of what is called modern art can also be explained as a kind of revolt against human nature, against our inborn aesthetic criteria, our inborn sense of beauty. In fact, this attitude to art is an attempt to overturn this sense of beauty, a protest movement against beauty. Of course, the ultramodernists consider beauty also a social construct that has to be deconstructed in order to create a new human being, a new world. Once Fyodor Dostoyevski said that beauty will save the world. Now, some people seem to believe that the world will be saved if we succeed in doing away with this conservative bourgeois thing called beauty. 

I  would add to this list of neo-Bolshevist initiatives the so-called political correctness we could call linguistic or discourse revolution. And, what is possibly the most dangerous development -- the Western masochism, the tendency to overlook and justify inhuman practices, despotism, religious bigotry, ideologies glorifying terror and violence with the pretext that all this is an expression of the third world revolt against Western imperialism and colonialism. This is a kind of masochism I find hard to accept: I don't feel guilty of what has happened in Africa, India or Indonesia before I was born.

The fact that there are more black people in prisons in the US is explained by the liberal left as a proof that the blacks are underprivileged and discriminated against. Perhaps. But how to explain the ratio of men and women in prisons in Western countries? E.g. in the prison of Funchal on Madeira there are about two hundred male and twenty female inmates. Does it mean that in Western societies, men are underprivileged and discriminated against?

Increasing Tensions, Increasing Security?

American fighter planes in our skies, NATO troops possibly stationed permanently in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Applauses. Politicians, journalists writing that now, under the NATO umbrella we can feel ourselves more secure, have nothing or less to fear from Russia.

I would like to say as eleven years ago said Joschka Fischer: «I am not convinced». More troops mean increased tensions. And in longer perspective, increasing tensions is most often not a good way to increase security.

Putin's Real Ideals

The assertion that Putin is trying to restore the USSR has become a cliché in many articles in Western Press. In fact, he is not. What Putin would like to return to is not the USSR but the Russian Empire. Probably not an empire with an Emperor, but definitely not a communist state. Putin seems to have little sympathy for the Communists or Bolsheviks. Partly because, in his opinion, they dismantled the old tzarist Empire. Perhaps is it not well known that Putin gave a speech on the tomb of general Anton Denikin, one of the main commanders of the anti-bolshevik White forces during the civil war in Russia between 1918 and 1920. Denikin's ashes were reburied in a church in Moscow together with the remains of a Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin in 2005. In his speech Putin praised Denikin as a real Russian patriot, stressing general's firm belief in the unity and indivisibility of Russia. It is worth mentioning that one of Russia's best know cineasts, Nikita Mikhalkov whose views, in my opinion, quite well reflect the official ideology of the Kremlin, has made several nearly panegyric documentaries on the white generals Denikin, Kolchak and Wrangel. In the late movies by Mikhalkov, there is no sympathy for the Bolsheviks, and Stalin. As to Ilyin, his conservative views on Russia seem to have become a source of inspiration for Putin and his inner circle. Ilyin is a monarchist and Russian nationalist, but definitely not an advocate of irredentism or militarism. Ilyin sees Russia as a different civilization that must not become neither a pupil nor a teacher for other nations. At the same time, Ilyin advocates tolerance for other, non-Russian peoples living in the future Empire as well as for other nations. Of course, Ilyin was an outspoken opponent of Bolshevism. He has written a pathetic essay with the title «Soviet Union is not Russia». Perhaps this title too points to the real sympathies of President Putin and his entourage.

We will soon see whether Russia will resemble more to the Soviet Union or to the Russian Empire. I would definitely hope the latter will come true. But some ugly parallels between Mussolini's Italy and Putin's Russia, especially in the style of their propaganda, trouble me. It's not impossible that instead of becoming a real successor of the Russian Empire, Russia will become it's parody, reviving it's worst features as pogromist (nowadays it's less antisemitic than homophobic) mentality and aggressive religiosity with strong patriotic overtones.

To understand what Ilyin really thought and wrote about these topics I recommend to those who still read Russian his abovementioned article:
 http://www.eshatologia.org/554-sovetskiy-soiuz-ne-rossiya.html. 

Just one quote from it in original:

Ведь нужно быть законченным слепцом, чтобы воображать, будто советская оккупация или инфильтрация сделала Русское национальное государство чтимым или «популярным» в Финляндии, Эстонии, Латвии, Литве, Польше, Галиции, Австрии, Германии, Чехии, Венгрии, Румынии, Болгарии, Югославии, Албании и Греции; будто солдатские изнасилования женщин, чекистские аресты, увозы и казни, насаждение политического доносительства, избиения и расстрелы лидеров крестьянской и либеральной оппозиции в этих странах, пытки в тюрьмах, концлагеря, фальшивые голосования, а также преднамеренная повсеместная инфляция, все эти имущественные переделы, конфискации и социализации — приветствуются этими несчастными народами, как «заря свободы» или как «истинная демократия», как «желанные дары» «великой России»... На самом же деле в этих странах сеется дьявольское семя и растет ненависть к национальной России.
Мировое общественное мнение доселе не научилось отличать советское государство от национальной России и интернационально-коммунистическое правительство от замучиваемого им русского народа. Все творимое Советами вписывается в воображаемый кондуит России; все «художества» и «качества» Советской власти приписываются ей; и против нее накапливается все негодование других народов. Ея неповинное имя клянут на стогнах всего мира; ее воспринимают ныне, как вселенскую язву; от нее ждут бесчисленных бед и страданий, третьей мировой войны и революционных преобразований.
Мы, русские патриоты, скорбим об этом вот уже тридцать лет, разоблачая повсюду эту ошибку и восстанавливая правду: советское государство не есть национальная Россия. А советские патриоты знают эту правду не хуже нас, видят истинное положение вещей и становятся на сторону Советов, помогая им компрометировать, насиловать и губить национальную Россию.

Lennart ja operett

Ta oleks saanud täna 85. Mul on temast hulga mälestusi, häid ja mitte kõige paremaid. Aga huvitavaid ikka. Üks tema hinnang oma rollile: Et ta on elus operette küll vaadanud, aga igat vaid üks kord. Aga kui teataks, kui palju hõbenaelu on tal tulnud lipuvarrastesse lüüa...

Kui toonane Poola president Lech Walesa Tallinnas oli ja mina Riigikogus, sattusin minema Toomkiriku vastas mööda kõnniteed, kui äkki kuulsin valjut vilet: see oli Lennart, kes teiselt poolt tänavat mulle vilistas. Karjapoisi kombel, kaks sõrme suus. Tahtis midagi öelda.

Maarjamaa rist rikkus meie suhted, aga respekt jäi. Ja mõneski asjas olime ühte meelt. Ta lootis tõsiselt, et ameeriklased ei lähe Iraaki. Ja ideed millestki Euraasia liidu taolisest ühendusest teda huvitasid, võibolla isegi talle meeldisid. Ning ta pidas lugu Poola sõjaväelise riigipöörde juhist kindral Jaruzelskist.

Time to Leave

Having visited the islands of Madeira and Porto Santo I feel I'd like to write a short story where God tells to a man that after all we humans have done to our planet it's time for us to leave. But before that, we must restore what we have destroyed. Including the extinct species as moas, dodos and the passenger pigeon. Then, we should go, leaving the Earth alone.

The Visitor/ a short story

The Visitor

The Director of the N. zoological museum didn't especially like his job, but it gave him plenty of free time and a study where he could sit in peace, to work on his doctoral thesis. There were serious problems with the museum. Lack of money and lack of interest on the part of the University bosses made it nearly impossible to reverse the slow degradation of exhibits and furniture. There were yellowish spots on the ceiling that had been there when he visited the museum for the first time as a young student. On the floor above a water pipe had leaked or a tap was not working properly. It had been repaired, but nobody had whitewashed the damaged ceiling. There were many other things in need of repair, refurbishment or simply cleaning up. He had himself put new locks on some glass cabinets containing rare specimens of tropical butterflies and exotic worms in alcohol. These locks had been broken by Soviet soldiers during the war: they had looked for spirits and drank every drop, even from the jar where a large tapeworm found in the intestines of an elk was preserved. The tapeworm had survived - if we can use the word in speaking of a parasite dead for a hundred years - this act of vandalism; whether the soldiers survived, nobody knew.

Worst of course were the exhibits themselves, and although his experiences had made of him a nearly accomplished fatalist, he was still disturbed and even angry when he found new traces of moths in the fur of the grizzly bear or even worse: in the piece of mammoth skin found in Siberia in the 1880's and brought to his town by a renowned explorer, geographer and zoologist whose name had been given to some newly discovered species of rodents in China and South Asia. The Director had even bought some insecticide with his own money, frustrated by the lack of interest from his superiors in the fate of the bear, the mammoth skin or the stuffed tropical birds which had preserved the colours of their feathers despite the moths and the dust. Yes, the dust was even worse than the moths, it gathered in the hair of little marsupials and in the feathers of hummingbirds, and was nearly impossible to wipe away without damaging these rare specimens, collected and brought here about one hundred and fifty years ago by an eccentric noblemen who spent most of his time traveling in Australia, New Zealand and South America. When he died, little was left of his former wealth, his heirs had to sell his manor houses and his collections that were bought by the university. Possibly the dust was nowadays more aggressive, containing something acid or oily. It seemed to eat into hair and feathers, making them look dull and greyish.

But despite all of that he liked the museum: after the collapse of what had been the USSR, when people became free to visit Western countries, he had rarely seen anything similar to it. Some of the old museums in Europe had been destroyed during the war, some had been modernized, made more attractive and entertaining for the general public. He thought it was perhaps his egoism that made him oppose such modernization: in the old-fashioned nineteenth-century museum it was easier for him to do his work undisturbed by unwelcome visitors and the constant need to invent new ways to attract more of them. He disliked advertizing, all the noisiness, humbug and banality that had invaded the country after the coming of freedom. Maybe he was a traditionalist by character, maybe the years spent in the museum had made him a traditionalist; anyhow he found his study and the museum a kind of a lonely island amidst the muddy currents of innovation and entrepreneurship that were rapidly changing everything around him.

Here he had the feeling that time had stopped or was moving at a quiet pace as it probably had when the museum was founded and everything still seemed stable and solid. One of his friends, a mathematician, once said he liked pre-first-world-war furniture: it was not designed for people who moved, but for people who lived all their lies in the same flat, in the same house. Like these heavy oak desks, massive glass cabinets and built-in bookcases full of books on zoology and geography. There were some rare volumes he kept in a well-locked cabinet: books with autographs by von Baer, Cuvier, Darwin, Haeckel and Alexander von Humboldt. They all had been in contact, corresponded with professors here: some of whom were quite famous during their lifetime. It was something to show to foreign visitors, some of whom confessed they had a liking for the genuine nineteenth-century atmosphere in the museum, and - as some of them were frank enough to admit - in the university in general. Something his bosses wouldn't have been happy to hear: they were engaged in a P.R. campaign trying to prove that after the gloomy years of Communist dictatorship the university was once again a wholly modern scientific institution doing important research in IT, semiconductors and computing.

As for himself, he was happy enough to be able to study the dynamics of some bird populations that were quite healthy and numerous in his country, in sharp contrast to their decay in more advanced and rich European countries. Not all his visitors shared nostalgic feelings for the nineteenth-century atmosphere in the university, but all of them admired the abundace of wildlife they could observe on shorter or longer field trips he organized for them. They were happy to offer him help and possibility of cooperation in studying wildlife that didn't any longer exist in the West. Thus he could take the best of both worlds, making use of laboratory facilities in the West and getting necessary software from his European colleagues while living and making field studies in his own country, which was still less populated, polluted and developed than the rich ones. Sometimes he found he felt a kind of perverse gratitude to the Soviet system which had transformed huge areas of formerly agricultural landscape in his country into nature parks jealously guarded from both local people and foreigners by the all-powerful military.

After all, the Soviet system had also preserved this nineteenth-century atmosphere in the museum and university. His friend the mathematician thought the musem was less a museum of zoology than a museum of good and bad old times. The mathematician wished he were a dictator: he would preserve the university, the town and maybe the whole country as a museum exhibit, a historical reservation: wasn't every epoch in itself worth being preserved for future generations? Yes, the Director nearly agreed with him: the museum was really something more than a museum of zoology. But he himself? Wasn't he too a museum exhibit, something belonging to his time, something visitors could look at and study as a rare specimen of Homo soveticus soveticus?

Yes, in principle the museum was there for visitors, but there were not many of them, clearly even fewer than in Soviet times when there was much less entertainment for young and old, fewer TV serials about wildlife and fewer trips to France, Italy and Greece. But still, every spring, busloads of kids from provincial schools arrived in his town: their parents had no money to pay for excursions to Scandinavia or Western Europe, and their teachers considered it their duty to take them to all museums in the town, although the boys and girls, especially the teenagers, demonstrated very clearly their total lack of interest for everything smelling of history and dust. At best they exchanged obscene comments on their teachers and the stuffed animals (he had to concede they sometimes bore some similarity to each other, clearly belonging to a very different world than the students), before rushing out to buy more coke and chips from the nearest kiosk.

The little kids were different: they even seemed to have a feeling of awe standing before the skeleton of a mammoth and the two stuffed bisons. They stopped to look at the bears and the lynx. Once a little girl asked him "Sir, is this big cat alive?" Usually he didn't guide the excursions himself: he had an aide, often a student eager to earn a little extra money. But there were some groups of students he liked and wanted to meet personally, if possible: these were the naturalists, children with a real, sometimes passionate, interest for animals and nature. Some of them were already well-read in biology, some had done some serious research, observed birds, small rodents or insects. Once a year there was a gathering of them at the university. He really admired these youngsters who pursued their interest with such gentle determination, paying little attention to the lures of the emerging consumer society and to their own poverty: a few of them came from small townships and were really poor, their parents having lost their jobs, and living on unemployment benefits. But he felt sure these guys would go on and enter the university: they were predestined to become biologists despite all the ups and downs of economics and politics. They were born to carry rubber boots and backpacks, to sleep in tents and wade through muddy streams. Like him: he had been such a passionate naturalist himself, and had a special relationship with them. Sometimes he even could help them, giving them a little money as prizes for papers they presented to the university biologists who acted as a jury. And during the gathering they were taken to the university canteen and had free dinners there.

Every weekend, families came to the museum. Most often dads with their little children, rarely moms. Either the furry stuffed animals had some special attraction for the little boys still lurking in the grown-up men, or taking the kids to the museum was just the easiest way for them to do something with the children. Perhaps they really wanted to be with them, perhaps they had been just sent out by mom who was cleaning up the flat.

Rarely were there other visitors in the museum. Of course, retired people sometimes came, sometimes a group of elderly Finns or Swedes was brought here, sometimes some Mormons or Christian fundamentalists came to try to convert him and gave him books on Creationist biology. He observed these people like rare specimens of birds - for some reason they reminded him first of all of birds - and noticed that mostly they were just satisfied with the work they had done and not worried by its results. They had fulfilled their duty, they had tried to save him, they had gathered some merit points for themselves, and the rest was his and God's.

There were a couple of lunatics who visited him from time to time too. Fortunately they were not very troublesome. One wrote long treatises explaining that his people came from a sunken continent and had a special mission here on Earth; according to him it was proven by their peculiar anthropometric characteristics. He believed that it was absolutely necessary to forbid all mixed marriages and restore the pure race of the chosen people who had once left their homeland. Now the time was ripe, if there were enough people of this ancient race on Earth, the sunken continent would rise again and the golden age would return... The other believed he could understand the language of birds and told the Director stories he believed he had heard from crows, jackdaws and pigeons; curiously enough, mostly frivolous stories of common small town gossip.

When the girl student manning the reception desk this late afternoon came over with the visitor he saw at once that the man was a loony too. He was dressed in a sheepskin coat and had on massive boots and an old fur hat such as the peasants used to wear a generation ago. On his back he carried a cloth bag.

The girl announced a bit uneasily that the man wanted to speak with the Director; she probably felt that it should have been her duty not to let this strange man in.

- OK, - the Director said, - thank you. You can go home, I'll stay here for an hour or two. And turning to the man, he asked:

- What can I do for you? noticing at the same time that the stranger had beautiful, childishly blue eyes. He couldn't tell his age, perhaps he was was about sixty.

- The man smiled, and his face seemed for a moment even more childish.

- My greetings to you and thank you for receiving me in this honorable institution. I would appreciate it if you could answer some of my questions about certain animals that once lived on Earth.

He couldn't but feel real curiosity. A man who spoke solemnly using such old-fashioned expressions, could be an interesting specimen of Homo. And there was something pleasant in him, he was probably not aggressive, hopefully not too talkative either.

- Thanks for the compliments, I am ready to answer your questions, if I only can.

- Thank you. I was told by some lads and lasses in the vicinity that there are some stuffed ancient animals in your institution. Are there some among them that are now extinct, exterminated by man?

- Sure, - he answered. - One or two species of hummingbirds, one species of toad, and some marsupials which have not been spotted for many years. And the famous migratory pigeon from America you may know about.

- Yes, of course, - nodded the visitor. - I remember it quite well. One moment please, I must search for them in my book.

He picked up the bag, untied its laces and took out an old thick book.

- Can you please tell me the names of these creatures, preferably in Latin?

The Director said he certainly could, but that he must check them up in his books. Couldn't the visitor sit down, he may have come a long way.

- Yes, quite a long way according to your criteria, - was the answer. The visitor sat on a chair and began browse through his big book. Catching a glimpse of it, the Director noticed that it was handwritten, possibly not in Latin characters, but he couldn't be sure of that. Maybe the old man had invented a script of his own: he had heard of mentally ill people who did precisely this.

He found the Latin names of the extinct species, told them to the visitor and asked him if he would like to see them in the glass cabinets. The man said yes, and they went into the museum proper. As they stopped in front of the cabinet of hummingbirds, he showed the visitor a bird that was extinct according to the latest information he had. The visitor nodded. Suddenly a veil of melancholy had fallen on the merry childishness of his clear-blue eyes.

As they walked on towards the showcase holding the migratory pigeon the visitor said, as if to himself:

- Yes,man,man, I should have listened to my angels, they warned me, they warned me, but it was too late, I had already done it...

The he turned to the Director and asked:

- What do you think, was it a mistake that I created you, Homo sapiens?

So that was it! The visitor considered himself to be God himself. It was certainly not a common thing even among the psychiatric patients. In asylums you could easily find prophets, kings, dictators, Napoleons and Gengis Khans, but he had never heard of anybody pretending to be God himself. The poor man was probably worrying about ecological problems and thought himself, as the creator of mankind, responsible for all the mess the genus Homo had made on Earth. He couldn't but feel some sympathy for him: it would certainly not be easy to be God, real or imaginary.

- You know, we biologists often think man is a kind of a failure,a mighty neural computer serving the interests of a little capricious child. But as men ourselves, we can't be too self-critical, we can't deny our own right to exist, despite the fact that we are now denying this right to so many other living beings.

They stopped in front of the pigeon, an old, already damaged bird fastened to a branch and looking at the visitors with its dark-brown glass eyes. The visitor nodded once more and said:

- Yes, it's really a problem both for me and for you. But what is your opinion: would it be reasonable to resuscitate these extinct animals, at least some of them? Could they survive in the world, if man is still there, or is it hopeless?

The Director said he didn't have any definite opinion on this subject. It had never been even an academic problem for biologists, although it could become one, thanks to the advances in genetic engineering. Some researchers had already discussed the possibility of re-creating the mammoth. But yes, for some species the situation was really hopeless, there was no place left for them, as Homo was colonizing the last remaining patches of wilderness.

- I am really worrying about this issue: I feel I should do something. But for me too it would be woeful to destroy a species it took me such an effort to create and on whom I have placed so many hopes. And there are still some really righteous people on Earth, how could I send them back to Nothing? Maybe there is still a compromise possible. What do you think?

The old lunatic seemed so genuine in his worries that the Director couldn't but feel some sympathy for him. Unfortunately he could do very little to help him, but maybe a reassuring, optimistic answer would somehow calm him down. He tried to summarize his ideas in a more positive tone:

- I think it could be possible. The demographic explosion (he wondered whether the visitor knew this expression) shows signs of slowing down; if the number of people on Earth remained stable or began to diminish, there would still be hope for both nature and mankind...

He caught himself formulating a serious plea for the genus Homo to a madman who believed he was God himself. It was ridiculous, he had to cut it short and send the man away. He had more serious things to do.

- After all, you know, our species is a relatively young one, maybe we are still able to learn something. But I must excuse myself, I have some work to do, and the museum is officially closed already. Do you wish to see something more?

- No, thank you very much, it was really generous of you ... yes, you are right, you are a young species, yes, you should perchance have some more time to learn. But still, it will be very hard for you to respond, when I will come and ask what you have done with all the beings I demanded you rule and take care of ... Oh, still one little question, if you permit...

- You are welcome.

- It's about this pigeon. Do you think it would have a chance to survive, to have a - what was the word, o yes, habitat - if it were to reappear on Earth?

- The pigeon, Ectopistes migratorius. Yes, I think there could be enough habitat for the pigeon, it could manage quite well.

- Thank you very much indeed. Now it's time for me to depart. It was really pleasurable to meet you. I am sure we will meet in the future world. Farewell.

The old man put the book back into his bag and bowed; he escorted him to the door, and watched as he went down the large stairs leading to the hall and from there to the front door. There, the visitor turned around and waved the Director goodbye. The Director went back to the museum. The student had left, he had to turn the lights off himself. Going to the switches he heard a strange noise from the far end of the room. He went over. The noise came from the showcase of the migratory pigeon, Ectopistes migratorius. The bird was fluttering around, hitting the glass panes in its attempt to get out.

Written in English, edited by Fiona Sampson

Europe as Machine

Machine as the European Ideal

The architect Le Corbusier wrote that a house is a machine of living. He also wanted to do away with spontaneously arisen cities and highways replacing them with man-made modern, functional and «geometrical» ones. More less at the same time the Estonian linguist Johannes Aavik wrote that language is a machine of communication, and must be re-engineered and remodelled according to the needs of modern communication. The language of the past that evolved at slow pace in village communities was not fit for our times. Now we know better than our ancestors how a language should look like.

Both these men were children of their times. The beginning of the twentieth century gave birth to Italian and Russian futurism with similar ideas, similar cult of technology, of machines and similar rejection of the past they considered to have been irrational and dark. But they were also children of their culture, of the Western civilization. Formal rules that can be written down and scrupulously observed are an integral part of this civilization. The tendency of formalisation is present in this culture from its beginnings. We can see its emergence already in Pythagorean vision of the cosmos (and music) as a mathematical construct, in the formalisation of logic by Aristotle, in the development of astrology, and later, of the formalistic catholic theology, but also of musical theory, of harmony and point counter point. We can also mention the ideas of Raimundus Lullus as well as Leibniz about the possibility to find a machine or a calculus permitting us to find out all truthful expressions, i.e. to find the hidden mathematical foundations, the real mathematical essence of everything. The West took over and integrated some Near Eastern legalistic and ideas that led to the rise of Roman law and the ideas of the rule of law. In the West, law is often considered to be an absolute, rule of law is an ideal of the West. Nowadays this rule of law and rule of rules and regulations has reached an apotheosis in the EU. The EU is designed to become a machine, a well-programmed computer, running flawlessly. This is the ideal, and in the name of this ideal both common sense and humanism are sometimes put aside.

The problem with such machinery is that they never work flawlessly, nature is most probably not a calculus, and all formulae, equations and theories describing it are necessarily limited and uncomplete. This is most probably a corollary of the famous Gödel theorem of incompleteness. In practice, the impossibility of regulating all human activity with laws and rules, the impossibility of a complete rule of law leads to increasing problems and crises as we see now in Europe. These crises cannot probably be overcome by more rules and regulations, more formal steps. They need a critical reevaluation of the hidden philosophical foundations of our policies, of our ideals.

I think that what we need is a reappraisal of our belief in formalism, a step away from legalism that has shaped our societies and our thinking for centuries, if not thousands of years. We can perhaps find some inspiration from one cradle of our civilization, from the Near East, namely from Judaism. Judaism is very legalistic, the rabbis have worked out a tremendous system of rules with their interpretations. But despite the importance of rules, there is a metarule rending nul and void nearly all the rules, stopping the halakhic machinery. It is the rule that saving a life, a living soul is more important than observing any rule. There are some exceptions, namely one is not permitted to save one's life by denying God's existence or worshipping false gods. But the fact is that there is something more important than laws and rules, and this something is human life.

There is perhaps also something to learn from the Chinese social system where the rule of law was not so important than in the West. Traditionally, here the law was mostly criminal law and the courts dealt with thieves, robbers and murderers, not for example with financial disputes between businessmen or other people. These were handled by families or professional organizations, guilds. Thus there were fewer laws and codices in traditional China than in Europe. Still, the Chinese society was relatively much more stable than the western ones, what is proven by the continuity of its culture and tradition. Confucius was a contemporary of Plato. We don't know much about Plato's family or descendants nor abpout the genealogy of other major figures of the antique. In China, the direct descendants of Confucius are still there, as well as the manor, the tomb and even the chariot of the philosopher.

You cannot build a machine from fuzzy, fluffy and fluid components. Details, wheels, levers,

switches of a machine must be made of solid metal. When we want to see things social, moral or spiritual functioning as machines, they too must have solid components. The components of our European machinery are made of words and concepts. What in practice is nearly the same as things called essences. Essence is what makes a rose a rose, a human being a human being, happiness happiness, etc. A deeply ingrained European belief is that everything has an essence, and the way to find out essences of things is to try to define them. Thus, the European machine is being constructed, and this construction is a permanent process, of well-defined words, concepts. This is true of science, of philosophy, but also of jurisprudence and morals. Laws are written with words, and to apply them we must find out the differences e.g. between manslaughter and murder, theft and robbery. This is also happening in politics: we are talking about democracy, human rights, freedom and corruption as something clearly definable. And being accustomed to such concepts we take for granted that such things, such essences as democracy, freedom, egality, rights, etc. exist as clear-cut, definable entities. They resemble measuring sticks, rules with clear centimetre or inche lines drawn on them. And we use these rules to measure and evaluate things, lifeless and living, ourselves and other people. We tend to believe that we are able to measure their rights and wrongs, to find out whether they are fit to function as components of our economical, moral or spiritual machine. The basic European religion, its first and foremost belief is the belief in words, concepts and essences. This is a belief shared by nearly all Western systems of thought, liberals and conservatives, religious fundamentalists and communists, revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries. Thus it is perhaps important to keep in mind that this belief is not shared at least by one Chinese school way of looking at things, namely Taoism. The Taoists believe that most important thoughts cannot be put into words. Who knows, doesn't speak, who speaks, doesn't know as has said Laozi. And they have found many common points with Buddhists who deny the existence of any essences.

The Western tendency of formalization has already created a situation where legislative acts must be processed with special computer programmes, creating an ordered database of normative acts, otherwise even a person reasonably competent in law is lost. This computerized processing, comparing, editing juridical texts can be compared to processing of medical information. Computerization has here led to computerized diagnostics. Sometimes a computer can here achieve better results than a qualified doctor. Could in future juridical procedures be computerized too, e.g. will computers take over litigations and pass judgments and sentences? This possibility is, of course, a reductio ad absurdum of the logic of development in the Western societies, and probably will never become a reality. But the fact is that the formalization of nearly everything, be it evaluation of science, arts, personalities, etc, has reached an astonishing and troubling level. I think that we need a return to humanism, to human understanding, to human language that is very often non-formalistic, «non-Aristotelian». And we need an authority who can change legislation, override legal acts and court judgments. How such an authority could be established and what should guarantee that this authority cannot abuse its supreme powers? I don't know. Perhaps we can learn something from the history, be it the history of various monarchies, be it in Europe, Asia, Africa or America. I think that here too, the Chinese example could be worth studying.

Одиночество случайнаго Бога

Въ послѣднее время физики-теоретики и философы нерѣдко возвращаются къ проблемѣ «больцмановского мозга». Это мышленный экспериментъ, гдѣ предполагаютъ, что

вселенная безконечна во времени и въ пространствѣ, а число ея элементовѣ, т. е. частиц конечно. Тогда всѣ возможныя комбинаціи частицъ рано или поздно осуществляются. Это значитъ, кромѣ прочего, что и пишущій эти строки не уникаленъ, а существуетъ вѣ безконечном множествѣ копій, двойниковъ (многовиковъ). Какъ и то, что гдѣ-то и когда-то во вселенной появится и порожденный случайными комбинаціями атомовъ мозгъ, способный мыслить. Можетъ быть вместѣ съ онымъ мозгомъ появится и его міръ, или что-то, кажущееся ему міромъ, реальностью. Но можетъ появиться и нѣкій супер-мозгъ, обладающій сверхчеловѣческимъ, «божественнымъ» интеллектом. Короче: въ результатѣ случайныхъ колебаній и комбинацій элеметарныхъ частицъ можетъ появиться Бог. Этотъ Бог можетъ обладать и способностью сотворить міръ, будь то міръ, что мы считаемъ настоящимъ, или нѣкій виртуальный, иллюзорный 3D міръ. Импульс, привѣдшій этого созданнаго случайностью создателя къ сотворенію вселенной можетъ быть его чувство одиночества. Вѣдь не можетъ обладающій разумомъ существо не обладать эмоціями; нейрофизиологи доказали, что человѣкъ, потерявшій из-за нѣкого несчастнаго случая эмоціи, неспособенъ къ принятію решеній, къ эффективному мышленію. Идея страдающаго отъ одиночества Бога-создателя не нова, но я не увѣренъ, что эту идею кто-то связывалъ съ идеей больцмановскаго мозга. Но эта идея имѣетъ нѣкоторыя общія черты съ мистической философіей Исаака Лурия, еврейскаго каббалиста XVI вѣка, гдѣ Богъ, чтобы сотворить міръ, сперва создаетъ пустоту, небытіе, не-себя, гдѣ потомъ и развертывается процессъ самаго сотворенія-возникновенія всѣго сущаго. То есть, Бог отходитъ, отрѣкается отъ своего одиночества, но частично и отъ самаго себя, чтобы могло возникнуть что-то еще. Параллели неполныя, но все-таки интересныя.