هاي لما اكتشفوا العناصر المشعة ببداية القرن العشرين، محد جان يعرف بخطورتها وبالنتيجة استخدموهن بالأصباغ والثريات والزينة لأن جانن يضوّن بالظلام. بنفس الوقت إستخدموهن بصفتهن "طب بديل" يزيد الصحة ومن هالسوالف. حالهن حال إعلانات الأدوية العشبية اللي تعالج السكري والضغط والفقر وجلب الحبيب والرزق...
من بين ذولة القشامر جان واحد أمريكي طاك إسمه Eben Byers. هذا جان يشرب دواء إسمه Radithor عبارة عن ماء مخففين بيه راديوم، وجان ياخذ منه أكثر من جرعة خلال اليوم لحدما جسمه انترس سرطانات واضطروا يشيلون فكه العلوي والسفلي ومات...

Kant claimed that what humans can “know” is only the phenomena that arise out of interaction between the noumenal self and the noumenal world. All human knowledge is, thus, perspectival rather than a direct intuiting of “things in themselves.” Though there is a “Ding an Sich,” we can’t know its essence. We are forever trapped in our human perspective, processing sensations through a series of categories that yield only subjective (rather than objective) certitude.
Kant grants us certainty and knowledge, but only about the world of phenomena. We cannot possibly know anything about the world beyond phenomena.

Kant's relegation of human knowledge to the realm of phenomenal appearances thereby leads to the eternal banishment of humanity from reality itself.

Obereit’s reaction to Kant is to accuse him of nihilism, or of cutting humanity off from the ultimate, objective reality of the Ding an Sich. If Kant is correct, then humans must despair of anything but a subjective kind of knowledge. But this subjective knowledge, Obereit claims, is really empty and worthless, since it is isolated from the absolute reality of the extra-human world.

— Laughing at Nothing

A low culture has nowhere to go but up, and when it looks for higher types, it doesn’t have to look very far off. An advanced culture, on the other hand, has produced so many higher humans during its ascent that it becomes increasingly difficult for it to overcome and surpass these types. Thus, the rapidity at which a culture in its higher stages ascends is less than that at which a culture at its lower stages does so. A low culture can look forward to much, while a high culture may either revel in what it has already produced or look forward with pessimism toward its own decline. This is a depressing thought for those who, from an elevated perspective, have the vision to see all that a culture has produced and what it is now capable or incapable of producing.

— Laughing at Nothing

In the summer of 1920 the Red Army attacked Bukhara بخارى, and Russian troops under the command of Mikhail Frunze bombarded the city. As the Young Bukharans launched an uprising in the city, the Red Army, with its airplanes and armored vehicles, moved forward on 2 September, bringing Bukhara’s medieval regime to an end; the library, containing possibly the greatest collection of Moslem manuscripts in the world, went up in flames.

— A Peace To End All Peace

Why is it always the case that libraries have to suffer :")

.

الإِنْسانُ وَالكَلِمَةُ

وَاجْتَمَعَ فِي بَعْضِ الزَّمَانِ مُلُوكُ الأَقالِيمِ مِنَ الصِّينِ وَالهِنْدِ وَفَارِسَ وَالرُّومِ، وَقَالُوا: يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَتَكَلَّمَ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنَّا بِكَلِمَةٍ تُدَوَّنُ عَنْهُ عَلَـى غَابِـرِ الدَّهْرِ. فَقَالَ مَلِكُ الصِّينِ: أَنَا عَلَـى رَدِّ مَا لَمْ أَقُلْ أَقْدَرُ مِنِّي عَلَـى رَدِّ مَا قُلْتُ. وَقَالَ مَلِكُ الهِنْدِ: عَجِبْتُ مِمَّن يَتَكَلَّمُ بِالكَلِمَةِ، إِنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ لَـمْ تَنْفَعْهُ، وَإِنْ كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَوْبَقَتْهُ¹. وَقَالَ مَلِكُ فَـارِسَ: إِذَا تَكَلَّمْتُ بِالكَلِمَةِ مَلَكتْني، وإِذَا لَمْ أَتَكَلّمْ بِهَا مَلكْتُهَا. وَقَالَ مَلِكُ الرُّومِ: مَا نَدِمْتُ عَلَـى مَا لَمْ أَتَكَلّمْ بِهِ قَطُّ، وَلَقَدْ نَدِمْتُ عَلَـى مَا تَكَلَّمْتُ بِهِ كَثِيرًا. وَالسُّكُوتُ عِنْدَ المُلُوكِ أَحْسَـنُ مِـنَ الهَذَرِ² الَّـذِي لَا يُـرْجَعُ مِنْـهُ إِلَـى نَفْـعٍ، وأَفْضَلُ مَا اسْتَظَلَّ بِهِ الإِنْسَانُ لِسَانُهُ.

– كَلِيلَةَ وَدِمْنَةَ

¹أَوْبَقَتْهُ: أهلَكتْه أو أَوْهَنَتْهُ.
²الهَذَرِ: سَقَطُ الكلامِ الَّذِي لا يُعبَأُ به، الكثير الرديء.

When the Great Library burned, the first ten thousand years of stories were reduced to ash. But, those stories never really perished. They became a new story. The story of the fire itself. For man's urge to take a thing of beauty and strike the match.

— Westworld

On psychology and myths

When psychology tries to interpret the events of an individual's life, what it gives is not a "scientific explanation" but something more akin to literary interpretation. You get a "mythology" of your life; mythologies are not concerned with "accurate description of events" like science does. They are concerned with the moral of the story; why you are the way you are. When you try to explain your life through psychology then, just like in myths, your story will be full of heroes, evil entities, trauma, victims, and what feels like destiny: people often try to impose a sense of destiny on their behavior through psychology i.e. “I will always feel lonely because I wasn't loved enough as a child,” or “I will never achieve this or that because I have this or that mental illness.”

Just like in myths where the hero is entangled in a woven web of events that is destined by the gods, in psychology, the individual is entangled in a woven web of instincts, complexes, and unconscious drives which psychology subtly and implicitly convinces us that it is as much destiny and fate as if the gods themselves wove them. It is no coincidence that Freud used Oedipus as a namesake for a psychological condition: just like when the mythological Oedipus tried to evade fate and failed, so does the psychological Oedipus (the patient, and the individual).

Freud's psychoanalysis is full of mythological symbols and explanations. his idea of the id might as well be identified with the religious devil. This happens for a reason: what psychoanalysing does is that it creates a "story" or a "myth system" that tries to explain "the deeper meaning" of an individual's life. In other words: it shows the moral of the story of a person's life.

.

That's where psychology becomes dangerous: precisely because its explanations of our behavior and personality is ingrained with a sense of destiny and fate; that we are the way we are, and do what we do because of some psychological determinism.

.

حَسب نيتشه ومما فَسرتهُ، إنَ التمَسُك بالذات قد يَهدِر المَرء دون إلماح هذهِ الجوانب:

- يجب أن يختبر المَرء نفسهُ، ويَكِفَ عن حُب الإمرة.
- نحنُ شهود و قُضاة ذواتنا، علينا ألا نركن لأي شخص.
- إنَ أحب الأشخاص إلينا قَد يكون سِجننا.
- الوَطن فكرةٌ تُضعِف كيان الذات، لأنَ أعز الأوطان تبحثُ عما هو نقصُ حاجتها.
- العِلم قد يُدمر ذواتَنا، لأنَ تصديقه على دوام يجعل ذواتنا محل إختبار "الطب كمثال وتجاربه".
- إنَ شهوة البُعد والبحث عن الذات في الغُربة خَطِرة.
- الإستقلال يبدأ حينَ نعرف كيف نُميز.
- إنَ الوثوق بالفضائل يُحطمُ الهَدف الذي تريدهُ منا كُلياتنا، أي ذواتنا قد تقع في إغواء الجُزئيات.

Alice in Wonderland,
by George Dunlop Leslie

.