(from "Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time" by Erik von Kuhnelt-Leddihn)
To be is to be contingent: nothing of which it can be said that "it is" can be alone and independent. But being is a member of paticca-samuppada as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance.
Destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, than consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no ignorance than it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in M Sutta 22)
Nanamoli Thera
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Friday, March 13, 2020
Ostracism, as a political institution, flourished in democratic Athens, and was primarily directed against outstanding persons
"The Marquis de Sade, one of the most original defenders of democratic dictatorship, combined his immoralism with the notion that the principle of equality should be extended to plants and animals, not only to man. N. D. Fustel de Coulanges considered levelling tendencies to be instrumental in keeping the power of the tyrants of antiquity: With two or three honourable exceptions, the tyrants who arose in all the Greek cities in the fourth and third centuries reigned only by flattering whatever was worst in the mob and violently suppressing whoever was superior by birth, wealth or merit. This technique, already noted by Plato, is intrinsically democratic—in the classic sense. It must be remembered that ostracism, as a political institution, flourished in democratic Athens, and was primarily directed against outstanding persons. Dostoyevski, on the other hand, with his interest turned toward the future rather than the past, saw in the egalitarian madness the cause rather than the result of tyranny. Thus he speaks of Shigalyov, the leftist ideologist in The Possessed: Shigalyov is a man of genius. He has discovered “equality.” He has it all so beautifully written down in his copy-book. He believes in espionage. He wants the members of society to control each other and be in duty bound to denounce their neighbours. Everybody belongs to all and all belong to each single one. All are slaves and equals in slavery. As a final resort there will be calumny and murder; but the most important thing remains equality."
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Misinterpretations of the term "democracy"
It is outside the scope of this book to investigate here the history of the popularization of the term democracy for the American Constitution or American ideals. We will merely consider it as a fact that there is not one, but that there are dozens of modern, popular interpretations of this expression. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the population of the United States uses it to denote anything at random with which they agree in the realm of politics, social life, and economics. We will only quote a few examples:
Mr. Green, the millionaire, shakes hands with workers. He is “democratic.” (He is, as a matter of fact, demophil, but not democratic which latter word is derived from demos, the [common] people, and krátos, power.)
Mr. Gray protests against censorship as undemocratic. (Censorship may be illiberal — against freedom — but not necessarily against the majority.)
Mr. Black is against Negro lynching, denouncing it as undemocratic. (As soon as the majority of a township wants to hang a Negro this action is un-Christian, illegal, but certainly very democratic.)
Mr. Red extols the icebox and the shower as the pillar of our “democratic life.” (This is plain nonsense but of frequent occurrence.)
Finally one and the same thing can be considered to be democratic and undemocratic at the same time: for instance, the New Deal, Tuxedo Club, Presidential acts, prices of fur coats, British accents, China, Russia, England — all according to individual likes and dislikes. Communists call their creed “streamlined democracy” or “Twentieth-Century Americanism.”
We see, then, from the plurality of present-day connotations of democracy that it would be thoroughly unjustified to use the term “democracy” in any other sense than in the classical and universal one.* We may well agree that the mischief started by uneducated popularizers has already reached such proportions that a Hercules is needed to clean this Augian stable of popular misconceptions, false labels, and mispresented ideologies. Even some of the more intelligent writers have become a prey to popular pressure, and as modern intellectuals do not lead the masses any more, but follow them and subordinate their ideas and language to the demands of the market, the confusion has now reached its climax.
Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
The Menace of the Herdo or
Procrustes at Large
Mr. Green, the millionaire, shakes hands with workers. He is “democratic.” (He is, as a matter of fact, demophil, but not democratic which latter word is derived from demos, the [common] people, and krátos, power.)
Mr. Gray protests against censorship as undemocratic. (Censorship may be illiberal — against freedom — but not necessarily against the majority.)
Mr. Black is against Negro lynching, denouncing it as undemocratic. (As soon as the majority of a township wants to hang a Negro this action is un-Christian, illegal, but certainly very democratic.)
Mr. Red extols the icebox and the shower as the pillar of our “democratic life.” (This is plain nonsense but of frequent occurrence.)
Finally one and the same thing can be considered to be democratic and undemocratic at the same time: for instance, the New Deal, Tuxedo Club, Presidential acts, prices of fur coats, British accents, China, Russia, England — all according to individual likes and dislikes. Communists call their creed “streamlined democracy” or “Twentieth-Century Americanism.”
We see, then, from the plurality of present-day connotations of democracy that it would be thoroughly unjustified to use the term “democracy” in any other sense than in the classical and universal one.* We may well agree that the mischief started by uneducated popularizers has already reached such proportions that a Hercules is needed to clean this Augian stable of popular misconceptions, false labels, and mispresented ideologies. Even some of the more intelligent writers have become a prey to popular pressure, and as modern intellectuals do not lead the masses any more, but follow them and subordinate their ideas and language to the demands of the market, the confusion has now reached its climax.
Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
The Menace of the Herdo or
Procrustes at Large
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)