Escritores e intelectuales contra Correa: del oportunismo al oportunismo
Escritores e intelectuales con Correa: del oportunismo al oportunismo
¿Hasta cuándo durará la mediocridad política ecuatoriana?
¿Hasta cuándo durará la mediocridad del periodismo ecuatoriano?
De la necesidad de que las momias cocteleras de Cancillería no vuelvan nunca más
De la necesidad de que Patiño aclare lo de la coca en la valija diplomática
¿Es Correa realmente un dictador?
¿Son los Pérez realmente periodistas?
¿Es Emilio Palacio realmente periodista?
Los puntos débiles del presidente ecuatoriano
Los puntos débiles del periodismo ecuatoriano
Luego del "perdón" del Todopoderoso, mayor es la soberbia de los perdedores
El poder mediático internacional
¿Quiénes carajo hacen la famosa SIP?
¿Quiere realmente el pueblo que continúe Correa?
¿Quiere realmente el pueblo que vuelva la (ultra) derecha al poder?
Paralelismo innegable entre Correa y Nebot
De por qué los socialcristianos/madera de guerrero tienen pésima formación cultural
Del "mal gusto" de la burguesía (oligarquía) guayaquileña
De por qué en la Costa nunca ganará un serrano
De por qué en la Sierra nunca ganará un costeño
¿Es realmente honesto Correa?
¿Son realmente honestos los dueños de los diarios?
¿Quiénes son los "escritores" que firmaron contra Correa? (amor a la libertad o al dinero)
Ecuador: Comedia de enredo y tragedia griega
Aquí, para variar, todos somos perdedores
etc etc etc
lunes, 27 de febrero de 2012
miércoles, 11 de enero de 2012
An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish: Un ensayo ejemplar de Bertrand Russell
Bertrand RussellPassages from
An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish
(1943)
Note
The unconventional mind of Bertrand Russell appears once again in these notes on intellectual rubbish. Here the passages on political rubbish have been selected. Besides making very pleasant reading, they might also stimulate original ideas, away from the quagmire of unsubstantiated statements, inconsistent arguments and obsolete beliefs that characterize, largely, the current political and social scene.
Politics is largely governed by sententious platitudes which are devoid of truth.One of the most widespread popular maxims is, "human nature cannot be changed." No one can say whether this is true or not without first defining "human nature." But as used it is certainly false. When Mr. A utters the maxim, with an air of portentous and conclusive wisdom, what he means is that all men everywhere will always continue to behave as they do in his own home town. A little anthropology will dispel this belief. Among the Tibetans, one wife has many husbands, because men are too poor to support a whole wife; yet family life, according to travellers, is no more unhappy than elsewhere. The practice of lending one's wife to a guest is very common among uncivilized tribes. The Australian aborigines, at puberty, undergo a very painful operation which, throughout the rest of their lives, greatly diminishes sexual potency. Infanticide, which might seem contrary to human nature, was almost universal before the rise of Christianity, and is recommended by Plato to prevent over-population. Private property is not recognized among some savage tribes. Even among highly civilized people, economic considerations will override what is called "human nature." In Moscow, where there is an acute housing shortage, when an unmarried woman is pregnant, it often happens that a number of men contend for the legal right to be considered the father of the prospective child, because whoever is judged to be the father acquires the right to share the woman's room, and half a room is better than no room.
In fact, adult "human nature" is extremely variable, according to the circumstances of education. Food and sex are very general requirements, but the hermits of the Thebaid eschewed sex altogether and reduced food to the lowest point compatible with survival. By diet and training, people can be made ferocious or meek, masterful or slavish, as may suit the educator. There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action. Plato intended his Republic to be founded on a myth which he admitted to be absurd, but he was rightly confident that the populace could be induced to believe it. Hobbes, who thought it important that people should reverence the government however unworthy it might be, meets the argument that it might be difficult to obtain general assent to anything so irrational by pointing out that people have been brought to believe in the Christian religion, and, in particular, in the dogma of transubstantiation. If he had been alive now, he would have found ample confirmation in the devotion of German youth to the Nazis.
The power of governments over men's beliefs has been very great ever since the rise of large States. The great majority of Romans became Christian after the Roman emperors had been converted. In the parts of the Roman Empire that were conquered by the Arabs, most people abandoned Christianity for Islam. The division of Western Europe into Protestant and Catholic regions was determined by the attitude of governments in the sixteenth century. But the power of governments over belief in the present day is vastly greater than at any earlier time. A belief, however untrue, is important when it dominates the actions of large masses of men. In this sense, the beliefs inculcated by the Japanese, Russian, and German governments are important. Since they are completely divergent, they cannot all be true, though they may well all be false. Unfortunately they are such as to inspire men with an ardent desire to kill one another, even to the point of almost completely inhibiting the impulse of self-preservation. No one can deny, in face of the evidence, that it is easy, given military power, to produce a population of fanatical lunatics. It would be equally easy to produce a population of sane and reasonable people, but many governments do not wish to do so, since such people would fail to admire the politicians who are at the head of these governments.
There is one peculiarly pernicious application of the doctrine that human nature cannot be changed. This is the dogmatic assertion that there will always be wars, because we are so constituted that we feel a need of them. What is true is that a man who has had the kind of diet and education that most men have will wish to fight when provoked. But he will not actually fight unless he has a chance of victory. It is very annoying to be stopped by a speed cop, but we do not fight him because we know that he has the overwhelming forces of the State at his back. People who have no occasion for war do not make any impression of being psychologically thwarted. Sweden has had no war since 1814, but the Swedes were, a few years ago, one of the happiest and most contented nations in the world. I doubt whether they are so still, but that is because, though neutral, they are unable to escape many of the evils of war. If political organization were such as to make war obviously unprofitable, there is nothing in human nature that would compel its occurrence, or make average people unhappy because of its not occurring. Exactly the same arguments that are now used about the impossibility of preventing war were formerly used in defense of duelling, yet few of us feel thwarted because we are not allowed to fight duels.
I am persuaded that there is absolutely no limit to the absurdities that can, by government action, come to be generally believed. Give me an adequate army, with power to provide it with more pay and better food than falls to the lot of the average man, and I will undertake, within thirty years, to make the majority of the population believe that two and two are three, that water freezes when it gets hot and boils when it gets cold, or any other nonsense that might seem to serve the interest of the State. Of course, even when these beliefs had been generated, people would not put the kettle in the ice-box when they wanted it to boil. That cold makes water boil would be a Sunday truth, sacred and mystical, to be professed in awed tones, but not to be acted on in daily life. What would happen would be that any verbal denial of the mystic doctrine would be made illegal, and obstinate heretics would be "frozen" at the stake. No person who did not enthusiastically accept the official doctrine would be allowed to teach or to have any position of power. Only the very highest officials, in their cups, would whisper to each other what rubbish it all is; then they would laugh and drink again. This is hardly a caricature of what happens under some modern governments.
The discovery that man can be scientifically manipulated, and that governments can turn large masses this way or that as they choose, is one of the causes of our misfortunes. There is as much difference between a collection of mentally free citizens and a community molded by modern methods of propaganda as there is between a heap of raw materials and a battleship. Education, which was at first made universal in order that all might be able to read and write, has been found capable of serving quite other purposes. By instilling nonsense it unifies populations and generates collective enthusiasm. If all governments taught the same nonsense, the harm would not be so great. Unfortunately each has its own brand, and the diversity serves to produce hostility between the devotees of different creeds. If there is ever to be peace in the world, governments will have to agree either to inculcate no dogmas, or all to inculcate the same. The former, I fear, is a Utopian ideal, but perhaps they could agree to teach collectively that all public men, everywhere, are completely virtuous and perfectly wise. Perhaps, when the war is over, the surviving politicians may find it prudent to combine on some such programme.
Generalizations about national characteristics are just as common and just as unwarranted as generalizations about women. Until 1870, the Germans were thought of as a nation of spectacled professors, evolving everything out of their inner consciousness, and scarcely aware of the outer world, but since 1870 this conception has had to be very sharply revised. Frenchmen seem to be thought of by most Americans as perpetually engaged in amorous intrigue; Walt Whitman, in one of his catalogues, speaks of "the adulterous French couple on the sly settee." Americans who go to live in France are astonished, and perhaps disappointed, by the intensity of family life. Before the Russian Revolution, the Russians were credited with a mystical Slav soul, which, while it incapacitated them for ordinary sensible behavior, gave them a kind of deep wisdom to which more practical nations could not hope to attain. Suddenly everything was changed: mysticism was taboo, and only the most earthly ideals were tolerated. The truth is that what appears to one nation as the national character of another depends upon a few prominent individuals, or upon the class that happens to have power. For this reason, all generalizations on this subject are liable to be completely upset by any important political change.
To avoid the various foolish opinions to which mankind are prone, no superhuman genius is required. A few simple rules will keep you, not from all error, but from silly error.
If the matter is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don't is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone. I believe myself that hedgehogs eat black beetles, because I have been told that they do; but if I were writing a book on the habits of hedgehogs, I should not commit myself until I had seen one enjoying this unappetizing diet. Aristotle, however, was less cautious. Ancient and medieval authors knew all about unicorns and salamanders; not one of them thought it necessary to avoid dogmatic statements about them because he had never seen one of them.
Many matters, however, are less easily brought to the test of experience. If, like most of mankind, you have passionate convictions on many such matters, there are ways in which you can make yourself aware of your own bias. If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.
A good way of ridding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to become aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country in France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution.
Becoming aware of foreign customs, however, does not always have a beneficial effect. In the seventeenth century, when the Manchus conquered China, it was the custom among the Chinese for the women to have small feet, and among the Manchus for the men to wear-pigtails. Instead of each dropping their own foolish custom, they each adopted the foolish custom of the other, and the Chinese continued to wear pigtails until they shook off the dominion of the Manchus in the revolution of 1911.
For those who have enough psychological imagination, it is a good plan to imagine an argument with a person having a different bias. This has one advantage, and only one, as compared with actual conversation with opponents; this one advantage is that the method is not subject to the same limitations of time or space. Mahatma Gandhi deplores railways and steamboats and machinery; he would like to undo the whole of the industrial revolution. You may never have an opportunity of actually meeting any one who holds this opinion, because in Western countries most people take the advantage of modern technique for granted. But if you want to make sure that you are right in agreeing with the prevailing opinion, you will find it a good plan to test the arguments that occur to you by considering what Gandhi might say in refutation of them. I have sometimes been led actually to change my mind as a result of this kind of imaginary dialogue, and, short of this, I have frequently found myself growing less dogmatic and cocksure through realizing the possible reasonableness of a hypothetical opponent.
Be very wary of opinions that flatter your self-esteem. Both men and women, nine times out of ten, are firmly convinced of the superior excellence of their own sex. There is abundant evidence on both sides. If you are a man, you can point out that most poets and men of science are male; if you are a woman, you can retort that so are most criminals. The question is inherently insoluble, but self esteem conceals this from most people. We are all, whatever part of the world we come from, persuaded that our own nation is superior to all others. Seeing that each nation has its characteristic merits and demerits, we adjust our standard of values so as to make out that the merits possessed by our nation are the really important ones, while its demerits are comparatively trivial. Here, again, the rational man will admit that the question is one to which there is no demonstrably right answer. It is more difficult to deal with the self esteem of man as man, because we cannot argue out the matter with some non-human mind. The only way I know of dealing with this general human conceit is to remind ourselves that man is a brief episode in the life of a small planet in a little corner of the universe, and that, for aught we know, other parts of the cosmos may contain beings as superior to ourselves as we are to jellyfish.
Other passions besides self-esteem are common sources of error; of these perhaps the most important is fear. Fear sometimes operates directly, by inventing rumors of disaster in war-time, or by imagining objects of terror, such as ghosts; sometimes it operates indirectly, by creating belief in something comforting, such as the elixir of life, or heaven for ourselves and hell for our enemies. Fear has many forms - fear of death, fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, fear of the herd, and that vague generalized fear that comes to those who conceal from themselves their more specific terrors. Until you have admitted your own fears to yourself, and have guarded yourself by a difficult effort of will against their mythmaking power, you cannot hope to think truly about many matters of great importance, especially those with which religious beliefs are concerned. Fear is the main source of superstition and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom, in the pursuit of truth as in the endeavor after a worthy manner of life.
Under the influence of great fear, almost everybody becomes superstitious. The sailors who threw Jonah overboard imagined his presence to be the cause of the storm which threatened to wreck their ship. In a similar spirit the Japanese, at the time of the Tokyo earthquake took to massacring Koreans and Liberals. When the Romans won victories in the Punic wars, the Carthaginians became persuaded that their misfortunes were due to a certain laxity which had crept into the worship of Moloch. Moloch liked having children sacrificed to him, and preferred them aristocratic; but the noble families of Carthage had adopted the practice of surreptitiously substituting plebeian children for their own offspring. This, it was thought, had displeased the god, and at the worst moments even the most aristocratic children were duly consumed in the fire. Strange to say, the Romans were victorious in spite of this democratic reform on the part of their enemies.
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd. So it was in the French Revolution, when dread of foreign armies produced the reign of terror. And it is to be feared that the Nazis, as defeat draws nearer, will increase the intensity of their campaign for exterminating Jews. Fear generates impulses of cruelty, and therefore promotes such superstitious beliefs as seem to justify cruelty. Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear. And for this reason poltroons are more prone to cruelty than brave men, and are also more prone to superstition. When I say this, I am thinking of men who are brave in all respects, not only in facing death. Many a man will have the courage to die gallantly, but will not have the courage to say, or even to think, that the cause for which he is asked to die is an unworthy one. Obloquy is, to most men, more painful than death; that is one reason why, in times of collective excitement, so few men venture to dissent from the prevailing opinion. No Carthaginian denied Moloch, because to do so would have required more courage than was required to face death in battle.
Perhaps the world would lose some of its interest and variety if such beliefs were wholly replaced by cold science. Perhaps we may allow ourselves to be glad of the Abecedarians, who were so-called because, having rejected all profane learning, they thought it wicked to learn the ABC. And we may enjoy the perplexity of the South American Jesuit who wondered how the sloth could have traveled, since the Flood, all the way from Mount Ararat to Peru - a journey which its extreme tardiness of locomotion rendered almost incredible. A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet, in our own age as in every other.
An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish
(1943)
Note
The unconventional mind of Bertrand Russell appears once again in these notes on intellectual rubbish. Here the passages on political rubbish have been selected. Besides making very pleasant reading, they might also stimulate original ideas, away from the quagmire of unsubstantiated statements, inconsistent arguments and obsolete beliefs that characterize, largely, the current political and social scene.
Politics is largely governed by sententious platitudes which are devoid of truth.One of the most widespread popular maxims is, "human nature cannot be changed." No one can say whether this is true or not without first defining "human nature." But as used it is certainly false. When Mr. A utters the maxim, with an air of portentous and conclusive wisdom, what he means is that all men everywhere will always continue to behave as they do in his own home town. A little anthropology will dispel this belief. Among the Tibetans, one wife has many husbands, because men are too poor to support a whole wife; yet family life, according to travellers, is no more unhappy than elsewhere. The practice of lending one's wife to a guest is very common among uncivilized tribes. The Australian aborigines, at puberty, undergo a very painful operation which, throughout the rest of their lives, greatly diminishes sexual potency. Infanticide, which might seem contrary to human nature, was almost universal before the rise of Christianity, and is recommended by Plato to prevent over-population. Private property is not recognized among some savage tribes. Even among highly civilized people, economic considerations will override what is called "human nature." In Moscow, where there is an acute housing shortage, when an unmarried woman is pregnant, it often happens that a number of men contend for the legal right to be considered the father of the prospective child, because whoever is judged to be the father acquires the right to share the woman's room, and half a room is better than no room.
In fact, adult "human nature" is extremely variable, according to the circumstances of education. Food and sex are very general requirements, but the hermits of the Thebaid eschewed sex altogether and reduced food to the lowest point compatible with survival. By diet and training, people can be made ferocious or meek, masterful or slavish, as may suit the educator. There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action. Plato intended his Republic to be founded on a myth which he admitted to be absurd, but he was rightly confident that the populace could be induced to believe it. Hobbes, who thought it important that people should reverence the government however unworthy it might be, meets the argument that it might be difficult to obtain general assent to anything so irrational by pointing out that people have been brought to believe in the Christian religion, and, in particular, in the dogma of transubstantiation. If he had been alive now, he would have found ample confirmation in the devotion of German youth to the Nazis.
The power of governments over men's beliefs has been very great ever since the rise of large States. The great majority of Romans became Christian after the Roman emperors had been converted. In the parts of the Roman Empire that were conquered by the Arabs, most people abandoned Christianity for Islam. The division of Western Europe into Protestant and Catholic regions was determined by the attitude of governments in the sixteenth century. But the power of governments over belief in the present day is vastly greater than at any earlier time. A belief, however untrue, is important when it dominates the actions of large masses of men. In this sense, the beliefs inculcated by the Japanese, Russian, and German governments are important. Since they are completely divergent, they cannot all be true, though they may well all be false. Unfortunately they are such as to inspire men with an ardent desire to kill one another, even to the point of almost completely inhibiting the impulse of self-preservation. No one can deny, in face of the evidence, that it is easy, given military power, to produce a population of fanatical lunatics. It would be equally easy to produce a population of sane and reasonable people, but many governments do not wish to do so, since such people would fail to admire the politicians who are at the head of these governments.
There is one peculiarly pernicious application of the doctrine that human nature cannot be changed. This is the dogmatic assertion that there will always be wars, because we are so constituted that we feel a need of them. What is true is that a man who has had the kind of diet and education that most men have will wish to fight when provoked. But he will not actually fight unless he has a chance of victory. It is very annoying to be stopped by a speed cop, but we do not fight him because we know that he has the overwhelming forces of the State at his back. People who have no occasion for war do not make any impression of being psychologically thwarted. Sweden has had no war since 1814, but the Swedes were, a few years ago, one of the happiest and most contented nations in the world. I doubt whether they are so still, but that is because, though neutral, they are unable to escape many of the evils of war. If political organization were such as to make war obviously unprofitable, there is nothing in human nature that would compel its occurrence, or make average people unhappy because of its not occurring. Exactly the same arguments that are now used about the impossibility of preventing war were formerly used in defense of duelling, yet few of us feel thwarted because we are not allowed to fight duels.
I am persuaded that there is absolutely no limit to the absurdities that can, by government action, come to be generally believed. Give me an adequate army, with power to provide it with more pay and better food than falls to the lot of the average man, and I will undertake, within thirty years, to make the majority of the population believe that two and two are three, that water freezes when it gets hot and boils when it gets cold, or any other nonsense that might seem to serve the interest of the State. Of course, even when these beliefs had been generated, people would not put the kettle in the ice-box when they wanted it to boil. That cold makes water boil would be a Sunday truth, sacred and mystical, to be professed in awed tones, but not to be acted on in daily life. What would happen would be that any verbal denial of the mystic doctrine would be made illegal, and obstinate heretics would be "frozen" at the stake. No person who did not enthusiastically accept the official doctrine would be allowed to teach or to have any position of power. Only the very highest officials, in their cups, would whisper to each other what rubbish it all is; then they would laugh and drink again. This is hardly a caricature of what happens under some modern governments.
The discovery that man can be scientifically manipulated, and that governments can turn large masses this way or that as they choose, is one of the causes of our misfortunes. There is as much difference between a collection of mentally free citizens and a community molded by modern methods of propaganda as there is between a heap of raw materials and a battleship. Education, which was at first made universal in order that all might be able to read and write, has been found capable of serving quite other purposes. By instilling nonsense it unifies populations and generates collective enthusiasm. If all governments taught the same nonsense, the harm would not be so great. Unfortunately each has its own brand, and the diversity serves to produce hostility between the devotees of different creeds. If there is ever to be peace in the world, governments will have to agree either to inculcate no dogmas, or all to inculcate the same. The former, I fear, is a Utopian ideal, but perhaps they could agree to teach collectively that all public men, everywhere, are completely virtuous and perfectly wise. Perhaps, when the war is over, the surviving politicians may find it prudent to combine on some such programme.
Generalizations about national characteristics are just as common and just as unwarranted as generalizations about women. Until 1870, the Germans were thought of as a nation of spectacled professors, evolving everything out of their inner consciousness, and scarcely aware of the outer world, but since 1870 this conception has had to be very sharply revised. Frenchmen seem to be thought of by most Americans as perpetually engaged in amorous intrigue; Walt Whitman, in one of his catalogues, speaks of "the adulterous French couple on the sly settee." Americans who go to live in France are astonished, and perhaps disappointed, by the intensity of family life. Before the Russian Revolution, the Russians were credited with a mystical Slav soul, which, while it incapacitated them for ordinary sensible behavior, gave them a kind of deep wisdom to which more practical nations could not hope to attain. Suddenly everything was changed: mysticism was taboo, and only the most earthly ideals were tolerated. The truth is that what appears to one nation as the national character of another depends upon a few prominent individuals, or upon the class that happens to have power. For this reason, all generalizations on this subject are liable to be completely upset by any important political change.
To avoid the various foolish opinions to which mankind are prone, no superhuman genius is required. A few simple rules will keep you, not from all error, but from silly error.
If the matter is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don't is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone. I believe myself that hedgehogs eat black beetles, because I have been told that they do; but if I were writing a book on the habits of hedgehogs, I should not commit myself until I had seen one enjoying this unappetizing diet. Aristotle, however, was less cautious. Ancient and medieval authors knew all about unicorns and salamanders; not one of them thought it necessary to avoid dogmatic statements about them because he had never seen one of them.
Many matters, however, are less easily brought to the test of experience. If, like most of mankind, you have passionate convictions on many such matters, there are ways in which you can make yourself aware of your own bias. If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.
A good way of ridding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to become aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country in France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution.
Becoming aware of foreign customs, however, does not always have a beneficial effect. In the seventeenth century, when the Manchus conquered China, it was the custom among the Chinese for the women to have small feet, and among the Manchus for the men to wear-pigtails. Instead of each dropping their own foolish custom, they each adopted the foolish custom of the other, and the Chinese continued to wear pigtails until they shook off the dominion of the Manchus in the revolution of 1911.
For those who have enough psychological imagination, it is a good plan to imagine an argument with a person having a different bias. This has one advantage, and only one, as compared with actual conversation with opponents; this one advantage is that the method is not subject to the same limitations of time or space. Mahatma Gandhi deplores railways and steamboats and machinery; he would like to undo the whole of the industrial revolution. You may never have an opportunity of actually meeting any one who holds this opinion, because in Western countries most people take the advantage of modern technique for granted. But if you want to make sure that you are right in agreeing with the prevailing opinion, you will find it a good plan to test the arguments that occur to you by considering what Gandhi might say in refutation of them. I have sometimes been led actually to change my mind as a result of this kind of imaginary dialogue, and, short of this, I have frequently found myself growing less dogmatic and cocksure through realizing the possible reasonableness of a hypothetical opponent.
Be very wary of opinions that flatter your self-esteem. Both men and women, nine times out of ten, are firmly convinced of the superior excellence of their own sex. There is abundant evidence on both sides. If you are a man, you can point out that most poets and men of science are male; if you are a woman, you can retort that so are most criminals. The question is inherently insoluble, but self esteem conceals this from most people. We are all, whatever part of the world we come from, persuaded that our own nation is superior to all others. Seeing that each nation has its characteristic merits and demerits, we adjust our standard of values so as to make out that the merits possessed by our nation are the really important ones, while its demerits are comparatively trivial. Here, again, the rational man will admit that the question is one to which there is no demonstrably right answer. It is more difficult to deal with the self esteem of man as man, because we cannot argue out the matter with some non-human mind. The only way I know of dealing with this general human conceit is to remind ourselves that man is a brief episode in the life of a small planet in a little corner of the universe, and that, for aught we know, other parts of the cosmos may contain beings as superior to ourselves as we are to jellyfish.
Other passions besides self-esteem are common sources of error; of these perhaps the most important is fear. Fear sometimes operates directly, by inventing rumors of disaster in war-time, or by imagining objects of terror, such as ghosts; sometimes it operates indirectly, by creating belief in something comforting, such as the elixir of life, or heaven for ourselves and hell for our enemies. Fear has many forms - fear of death, fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, fear of the herd, and that vague generalized fear that comes to those who conceal from themselves their more specific terrors. Until you have admitted your own fears to yourself, and have guarded yourself by a difficult effort of will against their mythmaking power, you cannot hope to think truly about many matters of great importance, especially those with which religious beliefs are concerned. Fear is the main source of superstition and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom, in the pursuit of truth as in the endeavor after a worthy manner of life.
Under the influence of great fear, almost everybody becomes superstitious. The sailors who threw Jonah overboard imagined his presence to be the cause of the storm which threatened to wreck their ship. In a similar spirit the Japanese, at the time of the Tokyo earthquake took to massacring Koreans and Liberals. When the Romans won victories in the Punic wars, the Carthaginians became persuaded that their misfortunes were due to a certain laxity which had crept into the worship of Moloch. Moloch liked having children sacrificed to him, and preferred them aristocratic; but the noble families of Carthage had adopted the practice of surreptitiously substituting plebeian children for their own offspring. This, it was thought, had displeased the god, and at the worst moments even the most aristocratic children were duly consumed in the fire. Strange to say, the Romans were victorious in spite of this democratic reform on the part of their enemies.
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd. So it was in the French Revolution, when dread of foreign armies produced the reign of terror. And it is to be feared that the Nazis, as defeat draws nearer, will increase the intensity of their campaign for exterminating Jews. Fear generates impulses of cruelty, and therefore promotes such superstitious beliefs as seem to justify cruelty. Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear. And for this reason poltroons are more prone to cruelty than brave men, and are also more prone to superstition. When I say this, I am thinking of men who are brave in all respects, not only in facing death. Many a man will have the courage to die gallantly, but will not have the courage to say, or even to think, that the cause for which he is asked to die is an unworthy one. Obloquy is, to most men, more painful than death; that is one reason why, in times of collective excitement, so few men venture to dissent from the prevailing opinion. No Carthaginian denied Moloch, because to do so would have required more courage than was required to face death in battle.
Perhaps the world would lose some of its interest and variety if such beliefs were wholly replaced by cold science. Perhaps we may allow ourselves to be glad of the Abecedarians, who were so-called because, having rejected all profane learning, they thought it wicked to learn the ABC. And we may enjoy the perplexity of the South American Jesuit who wondered how the sloth could have traveled, since the Flood, all the way from Mount Ararat to Peru - a journey which its extreme tardiness of locomotion rendered almost incredible. A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet, in our own age as in every other.
martes, 3 de enero de 2012
De la Historia Sucia de la Literatura Ecuatoriana
Pensamientos (no tan) secretos de algunos escritores
1. Mami, soy poeta maldito: cómprame un carro nuevo;
2. Si escribieran como yo, la literatura ecuatoriana seria grandiosa;
3. Mi estilo se basa en usar adjetivos sorprendentes;
4. Los que sólo escriben de lo que conocen son autores limitados;
5. Cuando escriban historias de otros paises y épocas, serán universales, como yo;
6. ¿Por qué quieren que represente a este pais de mierda?
7. Estoy más alla del bien y del mal, obviamente;
8. Odio al Correa pero me gusta que me invite a sus Ferias del Libro;
9. Odio a la derecha pero me gusta ver mi foto en sus diarios;
10. Si no me invitan al nuevo Evento Cultural, igual me les aparezco;
11. Les voy a enseñar a escribir de verdad;
12. Mami: ¿qué será lo que quiere el negro?
13. TIENEN que leer mi último libro;
14. Debo viajar al extranjero a lanzar mi libro
15. Cuando lancen su libro en el extranjero me avisan (jajajaja)
16. Los que no escriben como yo son resentidos;
17. ¿Cuba o Estados Unidos? ¿Colombia o Venezuela?
18. Deben hacerme miembro de la Academia de la Lengua;
19. El gobierno del Correa es de monos brutos;
20. Cedo el paso a los otros escritores para que ganen premios;
21. Mami: ¿es verdad que el negro no puede?
22. …….
lunes, 21 de noviembre de 2011
Bibliografía desordenada y material musical para el Curso de Música Popular
[Pongo abajo de manera desordenada algunos materiales que hemos escuchado este semestre en mi Seminario de Análisis de Letras de Canciones Populares. Excluyo el syllabus/programa de curso por obvias razones. Espero que alguien se interese en meterse por estos campos]
esta es una guía sencilla y práctica de los tópicos: leerla y aplicar lasque puedan (no se preocupen por no aplicar todas). f http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%B3pico_literario
Mester de Clerecíahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kl4CyoMuGA&feature=related
Tópicos literarioshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHf0FCY2ARg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AuH7jte0Ow&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVVJ76H3BQ4&feature=related
Jarchas actualeshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmvsXKdTIQo&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL566412648073B0E7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epPzGyrRN4U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epPzGyrRN4U&feature=related
Morena me llaman,yo blanca naci,de pasear, galana,mi color perdi.D'aquellas ventanicas,m'arronjan flechas.Si son de amores,Vengan derechas.Vestido de verdey de alteli.Qu'ansi dize la noviacon el chelibi.Escalerica le hizode oro y de marfil.Para que suba el novioa dar qiddushim.Dizime galanasi queres venir?Los velos tengo fuertes,non puedo yo venir.Morena me llama,El hijo del rey.Si otra vez me llamaYo me vo con el.Morena me llamanlos marineros.Si otra vez me llamanyo me vo con ellos.Morena me llaman,yo blanca nazi.El sol del enveranoa mi me hizo ansi.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4KBwgYGVE0&feature=related
Durme durme, mi alma donzellaDurme durme, sin ansia y dolor. Que tu 'sclavo que tanto deseaver tu suenyo con grande amor. Hay dos anyos que sufre mi almapor ti joya, mi linda dama.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Ccy3if1hg&feature=related
Tres hermanicas eranBlancas de roz, ay, ramas de florTres hermanicas eranTres hermanicas son Las dos eran cazadasBlancas de roz, ay, ramas de florLas dos eran casadasLa una se deperdio Su padre con verguenzaBlancas de roz, ay, ramas de florSu padre con verguenzaA Rodes l'anbio Varon es que lo supoBlancas de roz, ay, ra,as de florVaron es que lo supoA la mar ya se echo.TAREA PARA EL LUNES:Escuchar y leer canciones y encontrar los tópicos renacentistas en cadauna y sus variacionesBienvenido Granda y La Sonora Mantancera (cubano, bolero)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VycDwY1dUI
http://www.yomarnathalia.com/sonando-contigo-bienvenido-granda/
Julieta Venegas (mexicana, polka)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgD-SNj2yiE
http://www.metrolyrics.com/el-presente-lyrics-julieta-venegas.html
Andrés Calamaro (argentino, balada rock)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88t8Az1-yI
http://www.lyricsmania.com/loco_lyrics_andres_calamaro.html
Pablo Milanés (nueva trova cubana)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAkXXCT9Eyk
http://www.lyricstime.com/pablo-milan-s-cu-nto-gan-cu-nto-perd-lyrics.html
Narco-corridoshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMAjSb5v5As
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcZbMghlRF8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc_QuBB5Cz8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy02_8hzAfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekhJbTSmzAo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BYQsoa7LLc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dXvGIwoy7s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZfqHAAwMe4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a67RhYROHeM
Corrido mexicanohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNA_bKhdgU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yae7lpKnoBc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2gWDHS0EZk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_27Hi1In6o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5-ohl1E3Q8&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Rz7PqcG08&feature=relmfu
TIGRES DEL NORTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnzcxY94Eh8&feature=related
Molotov - Ya te vele 4:34 272 2 Ely Guerra - La tumba falsa 3:09 5,665 3 Maldita Vecindad y Los Hijos del Quinto Patio - El Circo 3:10 412 4 El Gran Silencio - America 4:16 662 5 
Botellita De Jerez - Jefe de Jefes 4:27 12,868 6 Fidel Nadal - La Puerta Negra 2:09 1,569 7 Pesdeyet - Golpes en el Corazon free download 3:35 112 8 Café Tacuba - Futurismo y Tradicion 5:16 226 9 Julieta Venegas - La Jaula de Oro 3:44 9,176 10 La Barranca - La Banda del Carro Rojo 4:03 3,416 11 Titan - Pacas de a Kilo 3:57 289 12 Los Lobos - El Mojado Acaudalado 3:20 3,441 13 El haragán - Un Dia a la Vez
Botellita De Jerez - Jefe de Jefes 4:27 12,868 6 Fidel Nadal - La Puerta Negra 2:09 1,569 7 Pesdeyet - Golpes en el Corazon free download 3:35 112 8 Café Tacuba - Futurismo y Tradicion 5:16 226 9 Julieta Venegas - La Jaula de Oro 3:44 9,176 10 La Barranca - La Banda del Carro Rojo 4:03 3,416 11 Titan - Pacas de a Kilo 3:57 289 12 Los Lobos - El Mojado Acaudalado 3:20 3,441 13 El haragán - Un Dia a la VezBOLEROS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9KUHS9nLHA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDR4ym5Zkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK4xg1KJ6rE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D729UuvSAUU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXlXbC5vPKg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlW-v_8Int4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7BBm6URyas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1mpdGwtHfI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy3i-x9lsEA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEIrkUULEjY&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL073E8648E2F7C022
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVHYnL08gIM
hoy jueves: tigres, rockeros y barthes. jajaja http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQNqmHxPAy8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igRCUGswzNE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPbfnsue56E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5GkvM5lwc&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnzcxY94Eh8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iijzaM-MzAw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMTDdivRNto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6L_I3zvao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnsBKsYJf7w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRbMC2aZVQ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v02fw3PttwE
Bolero, Cha-cha-chá, guaracha, etc (Cuba y México)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgEhyCxlmjw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYkDVf7SRU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ILA0vLaohA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShtsrEoJ-uE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWSGougPjXw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S07CG-9yDJU&feature=related
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108435?&Search=yes&searchText=songs&searchText=ideology&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dideology%2Bsongs%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=5&ttl=20641&returnArticleService=showFullText
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwxz3waLmwc
El romance primerodice cómo el Cid vengó a su padrePensativo estaba el Cidviéndose de pocos añospara vengar a su padrematando al conde Lozano;miraba el bando temidodel poderoso contrario,que tenía en las montañasmil amigos asturianos;miraba cómo en la cortede ese buen rey don Fernandoera su voto el primeroy en guerra el mejor su brazo;todo le parece pocopara vengar este agravio,el primero que se ha hechoa la sangre de Laín Calvo;no cura de su niñez,que en el alma del hidalgoel valor para crecerno tiene cuenta a los años. Romance del juramento que tomó el Cid al rey don Alfonso En santa Águeda de Burgos,do juran los hijosdalgo,le toman jura a Alfonsopor la muerte de su hermano;tomábasela el buen Cid,ese buen Cid castellano,sobre un cerrojo de hierroy una ballesta de paloy con unos evangeliosy un crucifijo en la mano.Las palabras son tan fuertesque al buen rey ponen espanto.—Villanos te maten, Alfonso,villanos, que no hidalgos,de las Asturias de Oviedo,que no sean castellanos;mátente con aguijadas,no con lanzas ni con dardos;con cuchillos cachicuernos,no con puñales dorados; En el condado del Carmen In El Carmen Countymiren lo que ha sucedido, See what has happened:Murió el sherife mayor The sheriff is deadquedando Román herido. and Román is wounded.Otro día por la mañana The next morningcuando la gente llegó, when everyone showed up,Unos a los otros dicen they said to each other:no saben quien lo mató. "Nobody knows who killed him."Se anduvieron informando They started investigatingcomo tres horas después, some three hours later,Supieron que el malhechor and found that the culpritera Gregorio Cortez. was Gregorio Cortez. Insortaron a Cortez Cortez was an outlaw
por toditito el estado throughout the state,Vivo o muerto que se aprehenda wanted dead or aliveporque a varios ha matado. for killing several people. Decía Gregorio Cortez Gregorio Cortez saidcon su pistola en la mano, with his gun in his hand,--No siento haberlo matado "I'm not sorry I killed him.al que siento es a mi hermano.-- I'm sorry my brother is dead."Decía Gregorio Cortez Gregorio Cortez said,con su alma muy encendida, his very soul ablaze,--No siento haberlo matado "I'm not the murderer here.la defensa es permitida.-- A man can defend his family."Venían los americanos The Americans were on their way,que por el viento volaban, riding hell for leatherporque se iban a ganar because they stood to gettres mil pesos que les daban. a $3000 bounty.Siguió con rumbo a Gonzáles, He hightailed it for Gonzáles,varios sherifes lo vieron, and some lawmen saw him go,no lo quisieron seguir but they didn't want to chase himporque le tuvieron miedo. because they were scared.Venían los perros jaunes Then came the bloodhounds,venían sobre la huella Came to the manhunt,Pero alcanzar a Cortez But could no more catch Cortezera alcanzar a una estrella. Than a star in the sky.Decía Gregorio Cortez Gregorio Cortez said,--Pa' qué se valen de planes, "What do they plan to dosi no pueden agarrarme if they can't catch me,ni con esos perros jaunes.-- even with bloodhounds?"Decían los americanos The Americans said,--Si lo vemos qué le haremos, "When we see him, what we'll do to him!si le entramos por derecho If we flank him on the rightmuy poquitos volveremos.-- we'll be home before we know it."En el redondel del rancho They arrived at a ranch corrallo alcanzaron a rodear, in time to surround it,Poquitos más de trescientos more than 300 meny allí les brincó el corral. arrayed all around it.Allá por el Encinal There at the Encinal,a según por lo que dicen just as they'd said,Se agarraron a balazos they opened fire.y les mató otro sherife. Another sheriff was dead. [killed by friendly fire!]Decía Gregorio Cortez Gregorio Cortez said,con su pistola en la mano, pistol in hand,--No corran rinches cobardes "All those cowardly rangerscon un solo mexicano.-- can't keep up with one Mexican." Giró con rumbo a Laredo He headed for Laredo,sin ninguna timidez, without any fear,--¡Síganme rinches cobardes, "Right this way, you cowards,yo soy Gregorio Cortez!-- I am Gregorio Cortez!" Gregorio le dice a Juan Gregorio said to Juanen el rancho del Ciprés, at the Cypress Ranch,--Platícame qué hay de nuevo, "What's the latest news?yo soy Gregorio Cortez.-- I am Gregorio Cortez." Gregorio le dice a Juan, Gregorio said to Juan,--Muy pronto lo vas a ver, "Pretty soon you'll see.anda háblale a los sherifes I'm going to talk to those sheriffsque me vengan a aprehender.-- who have come to arrest me."Cuando llegan los sherifes When the sheriffs arrivedGregorio se presentó, Gregorio made his appearance,--Por la buena si me llevan "It's the only way they'll get me,porque de otro modo no.-- they'd never catch me otherwise."Ya agarraron a Cortez They've got him, anyway.ya terminó la cuestión, So much for that question.la pobre de su familia The poor people of his familyla lleva en el corazón. took that to heart.Ya con esto me despido And so here I am,con la sombra de un Ciprés, in the shade of the Cypress,aquí se acaba cantando Finished singing aboutla tragedia de Cortez. the tragedy of Cortez.1- Leer 30 primeras páginas de "Fragmentos" (de Barthes)2- Leer y escuchar:Música colonial latinoamericanahttp://amusindias.free.fr/en/discos/muscolmo.php3
http://www.revistas.uchile.cl/index.php/RMCH/article/viewFile/13455/13723
http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0716-27902009000100011&script=sci_arttext
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTwXTqEdhw8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaQXft1trbU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eHb9Qu0_PI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VM9fpDxKjE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXfUqs96eK4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aii-bwMVRKo&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TczIOrgLj8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUXvL21yfZ4
HIP HOP HISPANO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_music
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27647997?&Search=yes&searchText=Hop&searchText=Hispanic&searchText=Hip&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DHispanic%2BHip%2BHop%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=10&ttl=540&returnArticleService=showFullText
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPTarwwaksA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xExSdzkZZB0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P92LIZVTcx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwwx5nszs3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHhkw8HuHgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POBEHqrQUkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hI2-yLKZmE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY_9n1RB-ag&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FnDvgF0RPg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7DZuW60b2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPJKutKF1QY&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL7764D1AA09B56B2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcS3yhL61Ck
DE CIGARRO EN CIGARRO Vivo solo sin ti, sin poderte olvidarni un momento nomas,vivo pobre de amor en espera de quienno me da una ilusion. Miro al tiempo pasar, al infierno llegar,todo menos a ti,si otro amor me viniera a llamarno lo quiero ni oir. Otra noche espere, otra noche sin ti,aumento mi dolor,de cigarro en cigarrocenizas y humo en mi corazon. Vivo solo sin ti, sin poderte olvidarni un momento nomas...etc. http://books.google.com/books?id=t21JVdvFmIMC&pg=PA3&dq=De+la+canci%C3%B3n+de+amor+medieval+a+las+soleares:+profesor+Manuel+Alvar+I&hl=en&ei=xrZ8ToHxF9S80AHPnODwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.lyraminima.culturaspopulares.org/actas/sevilla/35-rodriguez.pdf
ENAMORADA La palidez de una magnolia invadeTu rostro de mujer atormentadaY en tus divinos ojos verde jadeSe adivina que estás enamorada,Se adivina que estás enamorada. Dime si tu boca, diminuto coral,Pequeñito panal, es para mi.Habla de tus penas, dime si tu dolorEs sólo desamor o frenesí. Sueña con el beso que te cautivaráRompiendo el bacará de tu tristeza.Enamorada de lo imposibleRosa que se marchitó.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)