jump to navigation

why does one write his diaries? 13 September, 2009

Posted by nousha in Books, Quotes.
add a comment

لماذا أدون حياتي في يوميات؟ ألأنها حياة هنيئة؟ كلا! إن صاحب الحياة الهنيئة لا يدونها, إنما يحياها. إني أعيش مع الجريمة في أصفاد واحدة. إنها رفيقي و زوجي أطالع وجهها في كل يوم, و لا أستطيع أن أحادثها على  انفراد. هنا في هذه اليوميات أملك الكلام عنها, و عن نفسي, و عن الكائنات جميعًا. أيتها الصفحات التي لن تنشر! ما أنت إلا نافذة مفتوحة أطلق منها حريتي في ساعات الضيق!…

توفيق الحكيم – يوميات نائب في الارياف

Trading the world! 20 August, 2009

Posted by nousha in Albania, Books, Quotes.
4 comments
“Ok, you can have France and Canada, but give me Luxembourg.”
“You’re kidding! You really want Luxembourg?”
“If it’s all right with you.”
“Well, give me Abyssinia for two Polands, and we could do a deal.”
“No, not Abyssinia. Take France and Canada for two Polands.”
“No way!”
“All right, then, give me back the India I gave you yesterday for Venezuela.”
“India? Here, it’s yours. What do I want with India anyway? To tell you the truth, I changed my mind about it last night.”
“Did you change your mind about Turkey too by any chance?”
“I sold Turkey already. Otherwise, I’d give it back to you.”
“In that case you don’t get the Germany I promied you yesterday. I’d rather tear it up.”
“Big deal. You think I care?”
We had been haggling for an hour, sitting in the middle of the street trading stamps. We were still arguing when Javer came by. He said, “Still carving up the world, I see.”

Chronicle in Stones – Ismail Kadare

More Quotes from the Fountainhead 1 April, 2009

Posted by nousha in Books, Quotes.
add a comment

“You mean you saw the things I’ve done, and you like them–you–yourself–alone–without anyone telling you that you should like them
or why you should like them–and you decided that you wanted me, for that reason–only for that reason–without knowing anything about me or giving a damn–only because of the things I’ve done and…and what you saw in them–only because of that, you decided to hire me, and you went to the bother of finding me and coming here, and being insulted–only because you saw–and what you saw made me important to you, made you want me? Is that what you mean?”
“Just that,” said Roark.

(Talking about a book he read) “it’s true that there’s no such thing as free will. We can’t help what we are or what we do. It’s not our fault. Nobody’s to blame for anything. It’s all in your background and…and your glands. If you’re good, that’s no achievement of yours–you were lucky in your glands. If you’re rotten, nobody should punish you–you were unlucky, that’s all.” He was saying it defiantly, with a violence inappropriate to a literary discussion. He was not looking at Toohey nor at Dominique, but speaking to the room and to what that room had witnessed.
“Substantially correct,” said Toohey. “To be logical, however, we should not think of punishment for those who are rotten. Since they suffered through no fault of their own, since they were unlucky and underendowed, they should deserve a compensation of some sort–more like a reward.”
“Why–yes!” cried Keating. “That’s…that’s logical.”
“And just,” said Toohey.

p. 372
—-

Two sides of the opinions spectrum. One side expressing the need to find your own interpretations of things without considering what others think (i.e. Roark), and the other can not function without knowing what others think and transmit it back (i.e. Keating).

Quotes from Makram Ebeid 1 April, 2009

Posted by nousha in Quotes.
Tags: ,
add a comment

“نحن مسلمون وطناً ونصارى ديناً، اللهم اجعلنا نحن المسلمين لك، وللوطن انصارا.. اللهم اجعلنا نحن نصارى لك، وللوطن مسلمين”

“أفرحوا لا لشهوة نلتموها بل لشهوة أذللتموها”

إن مصر ليس وطناً نعيش فيه بل وطناً يعيش فينا”

The Shadow of the Snake – ظل الأفعى 25 March, 2009

Posted by nousha in Arabic, Books, Quotes, Women.
Tags: , , , , ,
3 comments

أثناء حضوري مناقشة كتاب (عزازيل) التي نُظمت في PTP في مكتبة ديوان بمصر الجديدة, و التي ناقش فيها الكاتب د. يوسف زيدان الآراء التي دارت حول القصة, تطرق الكاتب إلى روايته الأولى: ظل الأفعى. منذ ذلك اليوم و أنا أبحث عن تلك الرواية, و علمت أن الطبعات الأولى التي نشرتها دار الهلال يصعب الحصول عليها, و سعدت كثيرا عندما وجدت دار الشروق قد نشرتها في إصدار جديد. من الصفحة الأولى للرواية, أحسست أن الرواية بعيدة تماما عن أجواء (عزازيل) و لكنها تحمل نفس الطابع الفلسفي الذي يبين الجهد الأكاديمي المبذول لإخراج الرواية على هذه الصورة. تتشابه الرواية أحياناً مع (نون) للكاتبة د. سحر الموجي, خاصة فيما يخص الأساطير القديمة المرتبطة بالأنثى..

ظل الأفعى - يوسف زيدان

أحداث الرواية تدور في ليلة واحدة, هي “التي يُسفر صباحها عن يوم الثلاثاء الموافق للتاسع من ذي القعدة سنة 1441 هجرية… الموافق أيضاً للثلاثين من يونيو سنة 2020 ميلادية, و هي سنة 1736 القبطية المصرية, و سنة 2012 القبطية الأثيوبية, و سنة 1399 الشمسية الفارسية, و سنة 5780 بحسب التأريخ التوراتي البادئ من آدم اليهود”. مما يبين أن الرواية تدور أحداثها في المستقبل, و لكنها ستتأثر بالثقافات القديمة. مزيج غريب, و لكنه جدير بالاهتمام!

تدور القصة حول امرأة, متزوجة من شخص عادي جداً ذو تفكير متواضع و شخصية مهزوزة, جدها ذو الخلفية العسكرية الصارمة انتزعها من أمها بعد وفاة زوجها, و أمها باحثة مشهورة تعيش بالخارج. حاول الجد طوال تلك السنين عزل الفتاة عن أمها بشتى الطرق, فلم تستطع حتى أن تقابلها و لو مرة خلال أكثر من عشرين عاماً. و لكنها استطاعت بعد عدة سنوات من زواجها, أن تتصل بأمها و تتبادل معها الرسائل. و منذ ذلك الحين لم تعد تستطيع تحمل الحياة تحت سيطرة جدها و ضيق أفق زوجها. قد يكون الجزء الأول من القصة ممل نوعاً ما, و بعيد عن الفكرة الأساسية للرواية, و لكني بعد الانتهاء من الرواية وجدته مناسبا لتوضيح الأجواء المصاحبة للرسائل.

بعض الجمل شدتني بشكل خاص, منها:

اسأليني يا ابنتي, لأن السؤال هو الإنسان. ….

بالسؤال بدأت المعرفة, و به عرف الإنسان هويته. فالكائنات غير الإنسانية لا تسأل, بل تقبل كل ما في حاضرها و كل ما يحاصرها….

و أنت يا ابنتي معذورة في حيرتك, و في ترددك في طرح السؤال. فقد نشأت في بلاد الإجابات, الإجابات المعلبة التي اختُزنت منذ مئات السنين, الإجابات الجاهزة لكل شئ, و عن كل شئ. فلا يبقى للناس إلا الإيمان بالإجابة, و الكفر بالسؤال.

اسألي نفسك, و اسأليني, و اسألي الوجود الزاخر من حولك, عن كل ما كان, و عما هو كائن, و عما سيكون. عساك بذلك أن تعرفي, كيف ما كان, و لم صار العالم إلى ما هو عليه الآن… تعرفين فتسألين. ثم تسألين, فعرفين.. فتكونين أنتِ, لا هم!

ص 116 – 117

المزيد من الاقتباسات:

ص 53

أنا أم الأشياء جميعا

سيدة العناصر

بادئة العوالم

حاكمة ما في السماوات من فوق,

و ما في الجحيم من تحت

أنا مركز القوى الربانية

أنا الحقيقة الكامنة وراء كل الإلهات و الآلهة

عندي يجتمعون كلهم في شكل واحد و هيئة واحدة

بيدي أقدر نجوم النساء و رياح البحر و صمت الجحيم

يعبدني الناس بطرق شتى و تحت أسماء شتى

لكن اسمي الحقيقي هو إيزيس.

به ارفعوا إلي أدعيتكم و صلواتكم.

(ترنيمة مصرية, الدولة القديمة)

ص 55

أنا الطبيعة, أنا الأم الكونية,

سيدة كل العناصر

عبدت بطرق شتى و أطلقت علي أسماء كثيرة

لأن جميع أهل الأرضي يقدسونني.

الفريجيون سموني بيسينونتيكا, أم الألهة.

و الأثينيون سموني أرتميس.

و عند سكان قبرص, أنا أفروديت.

و في كريت, أنا آناوكينيا.

آخرون عرفوني باسم: بروسيبيرين, و باسم: بيلونا, و باسم: هيكاتي, و باسم رامومبيا.

المصريون المتفوقون في العلم القديم, و في عبادتي بما يليق بألوهيتي, سموني باسمي الحقيقي:

إيزيس.

(من كتاب الحمار الذهبي, القرن الثاني الميلادي)

ص 80

ما هذا الديكور يا ابنتي! ما هي الصلة بين لون الحوائط, و لون ما تناثر عليها من تمائم و حليات.. و ما هذا الأثاث؟ لا بد أن زوجك هو الذي اختاره, فلا طراز يجمع بين مفرداته. أم أن جدك اشتراه لك, خالطاً كعادته بين كل تراث الإنسانية. لا يا ابنتي. إذا عمرت بيتًا آخر, فلتجعليه متآلفاً. و ليكن بيتك مرآة يتجلى على صفحتها تناغمك الداخلي العميق. لا تضعي قطعة أثاث أو لوحة أو حلية جدار, إلا إذا خفق قلبك أولا بحبها. فالحب هو الأصل في إيجاد الأشياء. بالحب أنجبتك, و بالحب أنجبت الأنثى العالم.

ص 88

إن أشهر مترادفات الأفعى العربية, هو لفظ الحية و هو اللفظ الذي اختاره كل من ترجموا التوراة إلى نسختها العربية….

تمتاز الحية في وعي العرب اللغوي, بأنها مشتقة من (الحياة) و منها سميت أم البشر, بحسب اعتقادهم: حواء. و للحية و الحيا في العربية معانٍ, كلها خطيرةٌ و دالة. المعنى الأول, الألصق بالمرأة, هو أن الحيا فرج المرأة و في لسان العرب: الحيا فرج الناقة.. و الحيُّ فرج المرأة! و حية و حواء و حيا, ألفاظ اقتربت أصولها و معانيها. هذا هو ما قدروه, و سجلوه بأقلامهم في المعاجم العربية القديمة…..

ص 99

صحيح أن اللغات كلها تحفل ألفاظها بفوارق بين الدلالة المعجمية و الدلالة المجازية, لكن العربية تنفرد بأنها تستخدم لفظةً واحدة للدلالة على الشئ, و نقيضه! مثل لفظة (الجون) التي تعني الأبيض, و تعني الأسود,,, و لفظة (القُرء) القرآنية التي جمعُها: قروء, تعني الحيض, و تعني الطهر من الحيض!

ص 100

و انظري إلى الدلالات كيف صار بعضها في اللغة العربية مضادًا لألفاظها! أذكر أن الناس في بلادك, كانوا إذا أرادوا السخرية من شخص, وصفوه بأنه (فالح) و إذا استخدموا وصف (فلاَّح / فلاَّحة) فالمراد ازدراء هذا الرجل أو تلك المرأة, مع أن الفعل (فلح) فعل مدح, و الممدوحون في القرآن هم: المفلحون!

و في المقابل, فالناس في بلادك إذا أرادوا مدح الولد أو البنت, قالوا: شاطر, شاطرة. مع أن (الشاطر) في الأصل, هو الذي شطر على أهله و انفصل عنهم, و تركهم مراغماً أو مخالفاً! …… و يقول الفيروزآبادي في القاموس المحيط: الشاطر هو من أعيا أهله خبثاً! ….

و كذلك, فالناس في بلادك إذا أرادوا الإعلاء من قدر شخص وصفوه بأنه (ابن ناس) أو بأنها (بنت ناس) مع أن هذا التعبير ظهر في الزمن المملوكي للسخرية الشعبية الغير معلنة من هؤلاء الحاكمين الذين لا يعرف لهم أصل, و لا أب لهم, فهم: أولاد الناس!

و الناس في بلادك, يصفون الرجل الشاذ جنسياً بأنه (لوطي) نسبة إلى النبي التوراتي (لوط) الذي كره أن يمارس الرجلُ الجنسَ الشاذَ مع الرجل.

Quotes, Book Fair, and other 2 February, 2009

Posted by nousha in Books, Cairo, Quotes.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

I have recently discovered that the criteria of books I like is the impression some of its paragraphs leave on me and to what degree I feel compelled to copy them or write them down somewhere. And when I return to a book after a couple of years, evidently I discover myself drawn to different quotes and indifference to other phrases I deemed interesting. Is this a sign that my mind if looking for answers to questions that I’m not consciously aware of? Or is it because I just liked the idea behind these phrases?

———————–

I went to the Book Fair at last. I was afraid that I would miss my yearly tradition. Thank God I was able to go!

I went very early (@ 9:20 am), and I was happy to find them open the gate at 9:30 instead of 10 am. I didn’t make a thorough visit, just ran around with a list and the map, which is something I didn’t do before :) It was a good idea cause I saved lots of time and retunred with most of what I was looking for! And YES, I found a book I was searching for for a looooong time: نداءات إلى الشباب العربي – د. زكريا إبراهيم, I heard about this book two years ago, and I was deeply intrigued with it. Here is a glimpse I shared in April 2007:

أننا نفترض سلفا صحة بعض الأفكار, ثم نعمد من بعد ذلك إلى تبريرها. و معنى هذا أننا كثيرا ما نلتمس الحجج لتبرير ما اعتقدنا -منذ البداية- أنه صحيح, و كأن كل مهمة الفكر عندنا هي إلتماس “المبررات” أو “المسوغات” لتأييد “رأي سابق” أو تبرير “فكرة مسبقة”. ….. و المشاهد في أساليبنا التربوية أنها -في العادة- تنمي لدى أطفالنا هذه الطريقة العقيمة في التفكير: لأنها تزودهم بمجموعة من “الإكليشيهات” المحفوظة التي يرددها الأطفال ترديدا ببغاويا, دون أن يكون في وسعهم التمييز بين المواقف المختلفة التي تنطبق عليها -أو لا تنطبق- مثل هذه الإكليشيهات”. و فات أهل التربية -عندنا- أنه ليس المهم -كما قال كانت- أن نلقن أطفالنا بعض الأفكار ( الجاهزة) , بل المهم أن نعلمهم كيف يفكرون.

إن شبابنا-مع الأسف- يحيا في (تسكع عقلي)، و كثيرا ما يكون (الفراغ) الذي يشكو منه شبابنا من عجزهم عن شغله، مجرد صدى لذلك (الخواء النفسي) الذي يستشعرونه في أعماق ذواتهم، و بالتالي فإنهم قد فقدوا (مبررات وجودهم) و أسباب بقائهم، و إذا كان ثمة شيء أشد هولا و أقسى مرارة على الإنسان من ان يفقد حياته، فذلك أن يفقد مسوغات حياته و أسباب وجوده

Once I read the book, I will post more of it.

The trip to the Book Fair was nice, even though I didn’t stay much. I liked how the Azbakeya area was improved. Every year hundreds of books were smudgeed with the rain and the wind, now with the rooftop that was put, it’s much better.

———————————————–

Now back to the Fountainhead quotes:

“Mandatory reading for anyone aspiring to the title of intellectual.” There seemed to be a great many aspiring to that title. Readers acquired erudition without study, authority without cost, judgment without effort. p. 63

Isn’t this what happens to many best sellers?? (Note to self: be careful, don’t go this way!)

“It doesn’t say much. Only ’Howard Roark, Architect.’ But it’s like those mottoes men carved over the entrance of a castle and died for. It’s a challenge in the face of something so vast and so dark, that all the pain on earth–and do you know how much suffering there is on earth?–all the pain comes from that thing you are going to face. I don’t know what it is, I don’t know why it should be unleashed against you. I know only that it will be. And I know that if you carry these words through to the end, it will be a victory, Howard, not just for you, but for something that should win, that moves the world–and never wins acknowledgment. It will vindicate so many who have fallen before you, who have suffered as you will suffer. May God bless you–or whoever it is that is alone to see the best, the highest possible to human hearts. You’re on your way into hell, Howard.” p. 112

There were moments when something rose within him, not a thought nor a feeling, but a wave of some physical violence, and then he wanted to stop, to lean back, to feel the reality of his person heightened by the frame of steel that rose dimly about the bright, outstanding existence of his body as its center. He did not stop. He went on calmly. But his hands betrayed what he wanted to hide. His hands reached out, ran slowly down the beams and joints. The workers in the house had noticed it. They said: “That guy’s in love with the thing. He can’t keep his hands off.” p.113

He tried to explain and to convince. He knew, while he spoke, that it was useless, because his words sounded as if they were hitting a vacuum. There was no such person as Mrs. Wayne Wilmot; there was only a shell containing the opinions of her friends, the picture post cards she had seen, the novels of country squires she had read; it was this that he had to address, this immateriality which could not hear him or answer, deaf and impersonal like a wad of cotton. p.139

Will you tell me why, when it comes to a building, you don’t want it to look as if it had any sense or purpose, you want to choke it with trimmings, you want to sacrifice its purpose to its envelope–not knowing even why you want that kind of an envelope? You want it to look like a hybrid beast produced by crossing the bastards of ten different species until you get a creature without guts, without heart or brain, a creature all pelt, tail, claws and feathers? Why? You must tell me, because I’ve never been able to understand it.”
p.141

Peter Keating read the story. And because he knew that it was an action which he would never have committed, he admired it tremendously.
p. 190

From “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand 22 January, 2009

Posted by nousha in Books, Quotes.
add a comment

“Look,” said Roark. “The famous flutings on the famous columns–what are they there for? To hide the joints in wood–when columns were made of wood, only these aren’t, they’re marble. The triglyphs, what are they? Wood. Wooden beams, the way they had to be laid when people began to build wooden shacks. Your Greeks took marble and they made copies of their wooden structures out of it, because others had done it that way. Then your masters of the Renaissance came along and made copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Now here we are, making copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Why?” p.15

“Here are my rules: what can be done with one substance must never be done with another. No two materials are alike. No two sites on earth are alike. No two buildings have the same purpose. The purpose, the site, the material determine the shape. Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless it’s made by one central idea, and the idea sets every detail. A building is alive, like a man. Its integrity is to follow its own truth, its one single theme, and to serve its own single purpose. A man doesn’t borrow pieces of his body. A building doesn’t borrow hunks of its soul. Its maker gives it the soul and every wall, window and stairway to express it.” p.15

Quote: Winds 3 December, 2008

Posted by nousha in Quotes.
1 comment so far

“There is a whirlwind in southern Morocco, the aajej, against which the fellahin defend themselves with knives. There is the africo, which has at times reached into the city of Rome. The alm, a fall wind out of Yugoslavia. The arifi, also christened aref or rifi, which scorches with numerous tongues. These are permanent winds that live in the present tense.
There are other, less constant winds that change direction, that can knock down horse and rider and realign themselves anticlockwise. The bist roz leaps into Afghanistan for 170 days–burying villages. There is the hot, dry ghibli from Tunis, which rolls and rolls and produces a nervous condition. The haboob–a Sudan dust storm that dresses in bright yellow walls a thousand metres high and is followed by rain. The harmattan, which blows and eventually drowns itself into the Atlantic. Imbat, a sea breeze in North Africa. Some winds that just sigh towards the sky. Night dust storms that come with the cold. The khamsin, a dust in Egypt from March to May, named after the Arabic word for ‘fifty,’ blooming for fifty days–the ninth plague of Egypt. The datoo out of Gibraltar, which carries fragrance.
There is also the ——, the secret wind of the desert, whose name was erased by a king after his son died within it. And the nafhat–a blast out of Arabia. The mezzar-ifoullousen–a violent and cold southwesterly known to Berbers as ‘that which plucks the fowls.’ The beshabar, a black and dry northeasterly out of the Caucasus, ‘black wind.’ The Samiel from Turkey, ‘poison and wind,’ used often in battle. As well as the other ‘poison winds,’ the simoom, of North Africa, and the solano, whose dust plucks off rare petals, causing giddiness.
Other, private winds.
Travelling along the ground like a flood. Blasting off paint, throwing down telephone poles, transporting stones and statue heads. The harmattan blows across the Sahara filled with red dust, dust as fire, as flour, entering and coagulating in the locks of rifles. Mariners called this red wind the ’sea of darkness.’ Red sand fogs out of the Sahara were deposited as far north as Cornwall and Devon, producing showers of mud so great this was also mistaken for blood. ‘Blood rains were widely reported in Portugal and Spain in 1901.’
There are always millions of tons of dust in the air, just as there are millions of cubes of air in the earth and more living flesh in the soil (worms, beetles, underground creatures) than there is grazing and existing on it. Herodotus records the death of various armies engulfed in the simoom who were never seen again. One nation was ’so enraged by this evil wind that they declared war on it and marched out in full battle array, only to be rapidly and completely interred.’”
Michael Ondaatje

Dr. Farouk El-Baz 18 November, 2008

Posted by nousha in Egypt, People, Quotes, Thoughts.
1 comment so far
http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/graphics/el-baz1.jpg

http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/graphics/el-baz1.jpg

Today I attended a lecture by Dr. Farouk El-Baz about his project: ممر التعمير في الصحراء الغربية. It was a very interesting lecture talking about his vision of making a parallel  passageway to the Nile, joined with the main populated areas with roads and railways. He started campaigning for this project in 1985, and after many articles, seminars, interviews,,, the government decided to hear from him and he met the prime minister in 2005 and in 2008, and the concerned ministers are supposed to be currently studying the idea before giving a final judgment to Dr. Nazif, to see whether or not an extensive feasability study should be or not.
For more information about the project, read the executive summary from this link: http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/sources/mamar-text.doc .

He also tackled some interesting points, but I’ll talk about it separately.

I also advise you to read another article he posted on this website:  http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/sources/article.doc ,  titled: جيل الفشل, I’m copying its conclusion for those interested:

إذا كان جيلي قد فشل في تحقيق الأمال المذكورة، فلا مكان له في قيادة الأمة العربية ويجب أن يتنحى. يلزمنا جيل أكثر حيوية ونشاطاً، أقل سناً يتصف بالشجاعة والقدرة على الريادة لينتشل العالم العربي من الوضع المأسوي الحالي. شق طريق جديد يستلزم رؤية جديدة لجيل شاب. لذلك يلزمنا أولاً أن يعترف جيلي بالفشل ويحدد الأخطاء التي أدت إليه لكي يستطيع جيل جديد نشيط من المضي في طريق آخر.
بدلاً من الاعتماد على المؤسسات كما هي في بلدنا يلزمنا بناء الفرد العربي الذي يستطيع أن يطور المؤسسات ويقودها خروجاً عن مسارها الحالي. يجب أن نضع ثقتنا في الانسان، نُعِدُه للعمل لصالح الأمة ونثق بالفكر والابتكار والتجديد. لا يتم ذلك إلا في وجود الاحترام الكامل للانسان رجلاً كان أو امرأة، ليضيف الفرد ما هو أحسن في جو يسوده تبجيل الفكر والمعرفة وتشجيع المبادرة وتقدير الامتياز في واقع تسود فيه الشفافية واحترام المبدعين في كل أرجاء العالم العربي.
ولن أكون مبالغاً إذا ما ذكرت أن العرب في كل مكان ينتظرون رفعة مصر لأن في ذلك رفعتهم جميعاً. ولم يكن للعرب مكانة في أي وقت من الزمان إلا في وجود مصر القوية كالعمود الفقري الذي تلتف حوله البلدان العربية كلها. لذلك يلزم أن يبدأ الاصلاح والتجديد في مصر على أسس علمية صحيحة.
هذا يَعنِي أننا نحتاج إلى جيل يتصف بالثقة بالنفس والشجاعة الأدبية. أي تقدم في أي مجال يستلزم الثقة بالنفس، وهذه لا تأتي إلا من خلال العلم والمعرفة والتدريب الدائم. من يثق بنفسه يحترمه الآخرون وهذا الاحترام يحث على المزيد من المعرفة وهكذا ترقى المجتمعات المتحضرة.
إقتناء العلم والمعرفة لا يتم بسهولة، فهو يستلزم احترام الوقت والتفاني في العمل. يجب أن يعتبر العمل المضني شرفاً كبيراً وليس حملاً ثقيلاً. لابد أيضاً من تغيير فكر من يلهث للوصول إلى الثروة المالية في أسرع وقت وأسهل وسيلة. الجيل الذي نحتاجه جيل يحترم العمل للصالح العام ولا يسيطر عليه فكر جمع المال وكثرة المقتنيات. معنى هذا أننا نحتاج إلى تجميل النفس البشرية في بلادنا لكي ينهض الجيل الصاعد ويحيي أمة العرب من جديد لتحتل مكانة لائقة بين الأمم كما فعل أجدادنا.

1984 24 October, 2008

Posted by nousha in Books, Quotes.
1 comment so far

But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed −if all records told the same tale _ then the lie passed into history and became truth.

‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’

And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’

His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.

That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

The past,he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed. For how could you establish eventhe most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory?

‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, butthere are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also theantonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well _ better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning, or ” doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still.

‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.

By 2050…. The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking _ not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.’

For the moment he had shut his ears to the remoter noises and was listening to the stuff that streamed out of the telescreen. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty−four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.

The fabulous statistics continued to pour out of the telescreen. As compared with last year there was more food, more clothes, more houses, more furniture, more cooking− pots, more fuel, more ships, more helicopters, more books, more babies _ more of everything except disease, crime, and insanity. Year by year and minute by minute, everybody and everything was whizzing rapidly upwards.

Always in your stomach and in your skin there was a sort of protest, a feeling that you had been cheated of something that you had a right to. It was true that he had no memories of anything greatly different.

But simultaneously, true to the Principles of doublethink, the Party taught that the proles were natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals, by the application of a few simple rules. In reality very little was known about the proles. It was not necessary to know much. So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern.

There was a vast amount of criminality in London, a whole world−within−a−world of thieves, bandits, prostitutes, drug−peddlers, and racketeers of every description; but since it all happened among the proles themselves, it was of no importance.

Day and night the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics proving that people today had more food, more clothes, better houses, better recreations _ that they lived longer, worked shorter hours, were bigger, healthier, stronger, happier, more intelligent, better educated, than the people of fifty years ago. Not a word of it could ever be proved or disproved.

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four?

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

It was assumed that when he was not working, eating, or sleeping he would be taking part in some kind of communal recreation: to do anything that suggested a taste for solitude, even to go for a walk by yourself, was always slightly dangerous. There was a word for it in Newspeak: ownlife, it was called, meaning individualism and eccentricity.

On the battlefield, in the torture chamber, on a sinking ship, the issues that you are fighting for are always forgotten, because the body swells up until it fills the universe, and even when you are not paralysed by fright or screaming with pain, life is a moment−to−moment struggle against hunger or cold or sleeplessness, against a sour stomach or an aching tooth.

What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war−fever and leader−worship. The way she put it was: ‘When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simpIy sex gone sour. If you’re happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three−Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?’

Everyone wanted a place where they could be alone occasionally. And when they had such a place, it was only common courtesy in anyone else who knew of it to keep his knowledge to himself.

He wondered vaguely whether in the abolished past it had been a normal experience to lie in bed like this, in the cool of a summer evening, a man and a woman with no clothes on, making love when they chose, talking of what they chose, not feeling any compulsion to get up, simply lying there and listening to peaceful sounds outside. Surely there could never have been a time when that seemed ordinary?

In a way, the world−view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.

When once you were in the grip of the Party, what you felt or did not feel, what you did or refrained from doing, made literally no difference. Whatever happened you vanished, and neither you nor your actions were ever heard of again. You were lifted clean out of the stream of history.

‘Oranges and lemons, say the bells of St Clement’s,

You owe me three farthings, say the bells of St Martin’s,

When will you pay me? say the bells of Old Bailey

When I grow rich, say the bells of Shoreditch.’

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM

War is Peace

The splitting up of the world into three great super−states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super−states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land−mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.

Whichever power controls equatorial Africa, or the countries of the Middle East, or Southern India, or the Indonesian Archipelago, disposes also of the bodies of scores or hundreds of millions of ill−paid and hard−working coolies. The inhabitants of these areas, reduced more or less openly to the status of slaves, pass continually from conqueror to conqueror, and are expended like so much coal or oil in the race to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, to control more labour power, to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, and so on indefinitely.

Moreover, the labour of the exploited peoples round the Equator is not really necessary to the world’s economy. They add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they produce is used for purposes of war, and the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. By their labour the slave populations allow the tempo of continuous warfare to be speeded up. But if they did not exist, the structure of world society, and the process by which it maintains itself, would not be essentially different.

For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.

Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down.

The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him. In a sense it told him nothing that was new, but that was part of the attraction. It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order. It was the product of a mind similar to his own, but enormously more powerful, more systematic, less fear−ridden. The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already.

For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again.

Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon.