Croatian Chinese expat interested in anything and everything. Business, neurochemistry, philosophy, economy & and arts, to name a few.
Also, a Chinese son-in-law.
Quasi-Buddhist
Omega Megalomaniac
View all posts by Franjo Tušek →
That is why, I am sure, a man once grieved that white thread should be dyed in different colors, and why another lamented that roads inevitably fork. (Yoshida Kenko – Tsurezuregusa)
El temor de separación es todo lo que une. (The fear of separation is all that unites.)( – Antonio Porchia – Voices)
“Something we cannot see protects us from something we do not understand. The thing we cannot see is culture, in its intrapsychic or internal manifestation. The thing we do not understand is the chaos that gave rise to culture. If the structure of culture is disrupted, unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything–anything–to defend ourselves against that return.” (Jordan B. Peterson – Maps of meaning)
Introduction
The best part of inspiration for this text-shaped piece of shit came from:
Rammstein songs (surprisingly few of them actually)
Other parts are all due to my current situation as a stranger in a strange land, complete with an insomnia (caused by benzodiazepine-withdrawal) and of course, as it usually is the case, an utter confusion with the subject matter. I need to thank to Mr. Jordan B. Peterson for most of stuff here also, and to God Almighty, amazing ex partner Petra, beautiful borderline nutcase Nila, my Mother (not related to the former), my Father, and especially the first hamster I ever owned (forgot the name at this point, but he was a good guy).
The Purpose of this is not to say anything on one matter or another, in order to inform you about anything new under The Sun, or to impart any special knowledge on you that you might already not have. All knowledge and understanding is a from of remembering what once was forgotten. In fact, its almost amazing that everything here-written (but not said) is part of our intuitive nature as a billion year old life-form, and a sentient one at that, and, to increase the stakes, a self-conscious one. The latter is the part of the problem and also the part of the solution: the mere interaction of one’s sentience with itself, that is to say, being’s sentience of its sentience (I see that I see, but I also see that I hear – what English language somewhat mystically but very appropriately called the mind’s eye). This is the ultimate and obvious cause of all duality (animals know nothing of duality, or language, which is the same thing fundamentally) and hence the multitude as such, and in turn the Mother of all problems, questions, answers, and in fact of everything that exists in opposition to other (that is, every thing that exist, period), as Buddhist ontology firmly expounds. So, what’s the fuss all about?
Being more specific
“The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Of course, it is easy, simplistic but correct, to attach significance here to either Oneness(mystic traditions, some religions) or Difference(structuralism, deconstruction, Derrida) as being primal, and even venture into ethics and make them analogous to the good and evil, to healing and suffering (in English word “whole” is etymologically connected to the word heal. Obviously: to heal is to make whole again), and to billion another analogies that exist everywhere from mathematics, biology to physics , philosophy, as if reality is fundamentally fractally structured, and thus we thrive in understanding analogies. But this is for some other essay, where we could focus on Douglas Hofstadter, my brother in enthusiasm towards analogies.
To further elaborate. The Word (Logos) that was the Beginning was a Word, only because a self-conscious mind can be even thought of having a word to say (or on itself, as we would say: on his mind – hence thinking itself was born). On the other hand, the body is, as a certain absolutely awe inspiring Japanese person called Mishima once noticed, of a completely different nature than language: and he himself questions: “How was it possible that I started to think even before I felt my existence embodied?” (Sun and Steel) . At least he made sure that the ending of his life was a bodily experience, and was beautiful. But the point here is not to trod on, on how the things are this way or another. Why? Because, in fact, they are not. As one Sutra says: things are not what they seem, nor are they otherwise. We can see two (not one?) tendencies here emerging, of making differences where they seem to be none, or equivalences where there are apparently not. As one of the greatest Minds the World has ever Seen has once expounded:
“Hegel seems to me to be always wanting to say that things which look different are really the same. Whereas my interest is in showing that things which look the same are really different. I was thinking of using as a motto for my book a quotation from King Lear: ‘I’ll teach you differences!‘. (…) ‘You’d be surprised’ wouldn’t be a bad motto either.”
Engine of Reality
The whole process of being might as well be called learning (and teaching) the differences, and yes, I also don’t know why he added that remark in the end. But as it might be already obvious, Kent’s quote from King Lear comes from asserting ones dominance over another (poor Oswald, being humiliated and pushed off the stage, to the delight of the King). But the existence as such is existence of a hierarchy – not only the one we are most used to, as in King Lear, dominance hierarchy, but also to the physical and infinite number of other hierarchies nested upon each other – from Standard model of physics to social institutions we dwell in, from biology to chemistry to psychology, from any and every self-regulating automatic system, every feedback loop which has it’s special evolutionary purpose in the service of the Whole, and so ad nauseam. The One at the end of this hierarchy, in our experience – is God, or not even to be named (道), or void as such, or Selfhood (Atman), or even equated to the notions of Good and True and Beautiful (or Truth, Path and Life?). But we also know that our self-reflective subjective experience of ourselves is in fact It itself looking in its own mirror image. The Sun as a cover picture was chosen as an appropriate expression of The Beautiful, The One, The All Giver, but we also understand that It projects its energy on another plane, penetrates the space, makes the difference itself – duality, and multitude, unfold. There is no other thing aside of this unfolding. This other plane, the cradle of life, is the Earth, which we often endearingly call our Mother. Appropriately the Rammstein song playing while I was writing this part was „Mutter“, meaning of course Mother – which we will first think its beautiful – but at the same time we will know that it is equivalent to death as much as it is to life (going back into one’s mother) but also analogous to orgasm (la petite mort) – I will not further elaborate on this, but it is absolutely obvious, and more than just “true” (somebody once called this types of truths as meta-truths). And as much as it, the Mother, symbolizes empathy, we know that empathy is extremely dangerous and tragically counterproductive. So this concept is creative-destructive and our collective unfolding is creative-destructive, and the Love we feel or claim or suppose or identify as the root of All, is the all domineering all prevailing force that unites and separates everything (and every thing) . And as one Mind has once noticed, there is and cannot be nothing either good or bad about it – if Love is the cause of the action.
Psychology:
Borderline personality disorder & Love
But let us now be more concrete on this notion of Love. We might not yet want to talk about Love of certain quarks in relation to another (in fact we never do observe quarks in isolation, a thing called color confinement, which has nothing to do with color as you think of it, but it might have with Love), but at least in interpersonal relations – and especially in the more intense kinds of relationships – we are finding the same mechanism of union and separation. Here comes into play what I always found the most astonishing and intense form of Love, but also the most dangerous, destructive and death craving form: the Love of a person with what is in a DSM-5 known as Borderline (emotionally unstable) personality disorder. Again, it’s almost astonishing to watch this mechanisms nested upon each other unfold in almost real-time: life-times worth of Love in what now seems to be a one brief moment – and it all comes from only one source – the fear of rejection, i.e. the intense dislike toward the idea of separation: the need for unity, but also death, melting in but also against, one another.
Okay, and the ways our societies are structured, what do they have to say about Love, in this more cosmic ontological sense of the word as we use it here? You can notice that we are jumping from one nested hierarchy to other. I might as well keep on talking about quarks and astronomy, for instance. But simplicity and clarity behooves me to stop at a certain point.
Hedgehog’s dilemma
Here I will both link and quote Wikipedia, because Schopenhauer explained it better than I ever could, while at the same time his idea is uncannily analogous to what we had discussed before (click here for Wikipedia article on this concept).
Quote from the article itself:
The concept [of Hedgehog’s dilemma] originates in the following parable from the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer‘s Parerga und Paralipomena, Volume II, Chapter XXXI, Section 396:[1]
A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on a cold day in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with their quills, they were obliged to disperse. However the cold drove them together again, when just the same thing happened. At last, after many turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that they would be best off by remaining at a little distance from one another. In the same way the need of society drives the human porcupines together, only to be mutually repelled by the many prickly and disagreeable qualities of their nature. The moderate distance which they at last discover to be the only tolerable condition of intercourse, is the code of politeness and fine manners; and those who transgress it are roughly told—in the English phrase—to keep their distance. By this arrangement the mutual need of warmth is only very moderately satisfied; but then people do not get pricked. A man who has some heat in himself prefers to remain outside, where he will neither prick other people nor get pricked himself.
When Freud went to USA in the beginning of the 20th century, he said his mission was to tame the wild hedgehogs (or porcupines). He found American society to be too unruly, almost barbaric, and in a state of feral collective unconsciousness – society was prickling one another in an unhealthy manner, both mentally and physically, especially in the long run. Of course, ultimately he failed, after his students did their part in creating Sexual revolution in the late ’60s. But here I want to use this beautiful and very well thought metaphor of Freud’s. If there was such a thing as an American porcupine in the 1920s, could we also speak about the World Porcupine, in a Hegelian sense, Geist– kind of – and its development, especially in recent years? We might also conclude that in Freud’s times – although he thought American porcupines were wild – they were in fact in their best and tamest condition in the last 100 years. Especially if you look at the current problems Mankind is facing – here I don’t want to elaborate on them, because we all already know, nor is this the goal of this text. What I want to do, as somebody who so admires Chinese culture, their political and economical system, language and tradition – to use this knowledge and try to create an idea of a World Porcupine – and maybe even predict the way in which He will behave in the future. So let us first start with the application of Hedgehog’s dilemma in the case of Chinese, or any other sinospheric (Japan, Korea) society. We will see that Schopenhauer’s Hedgehog developed in Prussia and that it is product of liberalism and civil societypar excellence, and that Chinese culture and norms use vastly different ways (and yet, quite similar) to achieve the same goal – not to get too close lest they get pierced, but also, avoiding going too far from each other.
Solution in both cases is basically analogous the the Ancient Greek concept of the “right measure” or Golden mean and in Wikipedia (that is, some textbook Wiki is quoting), its is elaborated in this very convincing fashion:
“The hedgehog’s dilemma suggests that despite goodwill, human intimacy cannot occur without substantial mutual harm, and what results is cautious behavior and weak relationships. With the hedgehog’s dilemma, one is recommended to use moderation in affairs with others both because of self-interest, as well as out of consideration for others. The hedgehog’s dilemma is used to explain introversion and isolationism.”
Of course, this is almost impossible to accept from the BPD (borderline) perspective. It is a widely different perception of the world, it is a widely different world, period. But both are manifestation of the same fundamental ubiquitous force of Love, only quantitatively different, with the same essential (and primordial) quality. But it is also interesting to notice that this “middle way” or “golden mean” path of life was a very influential school of thought both in the East and in the West, from Seneca and Buddha, Aristotle and virtually all patriarchs of Buddhism, all the way to Vedas and other less known scriptures and philosophies. Again, World Porcupine always seems to develop independently from one another and simultaneously, in a truly mystical way.
What does the future bring?
The Chinese well mannered and distance loving Porcupine will have a peculiar confrontation with the Western much more closer together (but hurtful, piercing) porcupine constellation. On the other hand, Western pop culture is spreading in China like wildfire in this age of social media and decentralization. Here I am an optimist – although I consider this a profoundly realistic position. It is in everyone’s best interest, it is the work of universal force of Love as we elaborated before, and after thesis, antithesis will bring about the synthesis of this two vastly different world experiences and comprehensions.
Repetition is important
Love manifests as a driving force of Universe (which is a never ending, never beginning play between One and Many – God and Creation – Sun and Earth – Body andLanguage – I will stop here, but indeed, there are simply too many examples anyway ) . As we see from this analogies – there are many examples of the same process (don’t let me get into quarks again). Sociology, Ontology, Psychology, Physics, Biology: reproduction on all levels – energy, Astronomy, Mathematics. Even the apparently trivial distinction between discrete and continuum is fundamentally based in this analogy. And aporiaswe stumble upon if we ponder to much, they are precisely the fundamental structure of reality, because this Love is as allusive as God itself (or Laws of Nature modern physics is struggling with, or Language in it’s ambiguity, or Buddhist void in it’s inexplicable, ungraspable and allusive nature (“Turn towards the void and you shall turn It’s back“). It all falls back to one simple principle.
https://youtu.be/0-BnfC0cuvU
Instead of conclusion
Finally, an ethical turn. What are we ought to do? What is Good? So far it seems I have made everything reasonably clear. But as somebody who was always overly concerned about the destiny of Mankind, I still wouldn’t be able to properly answer this question – what we ought to do with us, with Mankind? To not let it die? Why? Because I felt a little piece of me dying at the mere writing of the capitalized question “why’ in the last sentence? Or, in one sentence, because in I personally know that I am, in essence, It manifesting itself, together with itself – and Others? I don’t know, but it sounds like a plausible enough idea for now. I have yet to see a more – for me personally – intuitive ethical idea by which to act in the world.
Everything
I would also like to just mention the Native American (I think Hopi ) myth of primordial Man and Woman creating Universe by the force of Love, via Divine Copulation: but this myth also abounds with references to Chaos and Order: this again fits really well into the gist of this theme, especially because this oral transmitted myth is estimated to be 20-30 thousand years old. And of course, these kinds of myths are ubiquitous throughout human civilization, and prehistory, and are obvious meta-truths in which we are, as beings, immersed. I would like to add more examples here, and I will do so as soon as I get inspiration. I have absolutely forgotten using the Nagarjuna’sdoctrine of two truths (let’s say for simplicity sake – Truth from the perspective of One, and conventional truth of duality) as a sort of “solution” to our ” problem here. But since Nagarjuna also expounds that Nirvana is Samsara, and Samsara is in turn Nirvana, my omission is hardly problematic – since this teaching is, again, as obvious as anything we ever intuitively comprehend.
Explanations come to an end somewhere.
What, you scoundrel, you would speak no nonsense? Go ahead and speak nonsense – it doesn’t matter! (Holy Augustine)
lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāh
The End
On the World Porcupine
Or: Why does Something exist rather than Nothing?
Oneness. Duality. Multitude.
Zwei, hier kommt die Sonne
Drei, Sie ist der hellste Stern von Allen (Rammstein – Sonne)
That is why, I am sure, a man once grieved that white thread should be dyed in different colors, and why another lamented that roads inevitably fork. (Yoshida Kenko – Tsurezuregusa)
El temor de separación es todo lo que une. (The fear of separation is all that unites.)( – Antonio Porchia – Voices)
“Something we cannot see protects us from something we do not understand. The thing we cannot see is culture, in its intrapsychic or internal manifestation. The thing we do not understand is the chaos that gave rise to culture. If the structure of culture is disrupted, unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything–anything–to defend ourselves against that return.” (Jordan B. Peterson – Maps of meaning)
Introduction
The best part of inspiration for this text-shaped piece of shit came from:
Rammstein songs (surprisingly few of them actually)
Other parts are all due to my current situation as a stranger in a strange land, complete with an insomnia (caused by benzodiazepine-withdrawal) and of course, as it usually is the case, an utter confusion with the subject matter. I need to thank to Mr. Jordan B. Peterson for most of stuff here also, and to God Almighty, amazing ex partner Petra, beautiful borderline nutcase Nila, my Mother (not related to the former), my Father, and especially the first hamster I ever owned (forgot the name at this point, but he was a good guy).
The Purpose of this is not to say anything on one matter or another, in order to inform you about anything new under The Sun, or to impart any special knowledge on you that you might already not have. All knowledge and understanding is a from of remembering what once was forgotten. In fact, its almost amazing that everything here-written (but not said) is part of our intuitive nature as a billion year old life-form, and a sentient one at that, and, to increase the stakes, a self-conscious one. The latter is the part of the problem and also the part of the solution: the mere interaction of one’s sentience with itself, that is to say, being’s sentience of its sentience (I see that I see, but I also see that I hear – what English language somewhat mystically but very appropriately called the mind’s eye). This is the ultimate and obvious cause of all duality (animals know nothing of duality, or language, which is the same thing fundamentally) and hence the multitude as such, and in turn the Mother of all problems, questions, answers, and in fact of everything that exists in opposition to other (that is, every thing that exist, period), as Buddhist ontology firmly expounds. So, what’s the fuss all about?
Being more specific
“The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Of course, it is easy, simplistic but correct, to attach significance here to either Oneness(mystic traditions, some religions) or Difference(structuralism, deconstruction, Derrida) as being primal, and even venture into ethics and make them analogous to the good and evil, to healing and suffering (in English word “whole” is etymologically connected to the word heal. Obviously: to heal is to make whole again), and to billion another analogies that exist everywhere from mathematics, biology to physics , philosophy, as if reality is fundamentally fractally structured, and thus we thrive in understanding analogies. But this is for some other essay, where we could focus on Douglas Hofstadter, my brother in enthusiasm towards analogies.
To further elaborate. The Word (Logos) that was the Beginning was a Word, only because a self-conscious mind can be even thought of having a word to say (or on itself, as we would say: on his mind – hence thinking itself was born). On the other hand, the body is, as a certain absolutely awe inspiring Japanese person called Mishima once noticed, of a completely different nature than language: and he himself questions: “How was it possible that I started to think even before I felt my existence embodied?” (Sun and Steel) . At least he made sure that the ending of his life was a bodily experience, and was beautiful. But the point here is not to trod on, on how the things are this way or another. Why? Because, in fact, they are not. As one Sutra says: things are not what they seem, nor are they otherwise. We can see two (not one?) tendencies here emerging, of making differences where they seem to be none, or equivalences where there are apparently not. As one of the greatest Minds the World has ever Seen has once expounded:
“Hegel seems to me to be always wanting to say that things which look different are really the same. Whereas my interest is in showing that things which look the same are really different. I was thinking of using as a motto for my book a quotation from King Lear: ‘I’ll teach you differences!‘. (…) ‘You’d be surprised’ wouldn’t be a bad motto either.”
Engine of Reality
The whole process of being might as well be called learning (and teaching) the differences, and yes, I also don’t know why he added that remark in the end. But as it might be already obvious, Kent’s quote from King Lear comes from asserting ones dominance over another (poor Oswald, being humiliated and pushed off the stage, to the delight of the King). But the existence as such is existence of a hierarchy – not only the one we are most used to, as in King Lear, dominance hierarchy, but also to the physical and infinite number of other hierarchies nested upon each other – from Standard model of physics to social institutions we dwell in, from biology to chemistry to psychology, from any and every self-regulating automatic system, every feedback loop which has it’s special evolutionary purpose in the service of the Whole, and so ad nauseam. The One at the end of this hierarchy, in our experience – is God, or not even to be named (道), or void as such, or Selfhood (Atman), or even equated to the notions of Good and True and Beautiful (or Truth, Path and Life?). But we also know that our self-reflective subjective experience of ourselves is in fact It itself looking in its own mirror image. The Sun as a cover picture was chosen as an appropriate expression of The Beautiful, The One, The All Giver, but we also understand that It projects its energy on another plane, penetrates the space, makes the difference itself – duality, and multitude, unfold. There is no other thing aside of this unfolding. This other plane, the cradle of life, is the Earth, which we often endearingly call our Mother. Appropriately the Rammstein song playing while I was writing this part was „Mutter“, meaning of course Mother – which we will first think its beautiful – but at the same time we will know that it is equivalent to death as much as it is to life (going back into one’s mother) but also analogous to orgasm (la petite mort) – I will not further elaborate on this, but it is absolutely obvious, and more than just “true” (somebody once called this types of truths as meta-truths). And as much as it, the Mother, symbolizes empathy, we know that empathy is extremely dangerous and tragically counterproductive. So this concept is creative-destructive and our collective unfolding is creative-destructive, and the Love we feel or claim or suppose or identify as the root of All, is the all domineering all prevailing force that unites and separates everything (and every thing) . And as one Mind has once noticed, there is and cannot be nothing either good or bad about it – if Love is the cause of the action.
Psychology:
Borderline personality disorder & Love
But let us now be more concrete on this notion of Love. We might not yet want to talk about Love of certain quarks in relation to another (in fact we never do observe quarks in isolation, a thing called color confinement, which has nothing to do with color as you think of it, but it might have with Love), but at least in interpersonal relations – and especially in the more intense kinds of relationships – we are finding the same mechanism of union and separation. Here comes into play what I always found the most astonishing and intense form of Love, but also the most dangerous, destructive and death craving form: the Love of a person with what is in a DSM-5 known as Borderline (emotionally unstable) personality disorder. Again, it’s almost astonishing to watch this mechanisms nested upon each other unfold in almost real-time: life-times worth of Love in what now seems to be a one brief moment – and it all comes from only one source – the fear of rejection, i.e. the intense dislike toward the idea of separation: the need for unity, but also death, melting in but also against, one another.
Okay, and the ways our societies are structured, what do they have to say about Love, in this more cosmic ontological sense of the word as we use it here? You can notice that we are jumping from one nested hierarchy to other. I might as well keep on talking about quarks and astronomy, for instance. But simplicity and clarity behooves me to stop at a certain point.
Hedgehog’s dilemma
Here I will both link and quote Wikipedia, because Schopenhauer explained it better than I ever could, while at the same time his idea is uncannily analogous to what we had discussed before (click here for Wikipedia article on this concept).
Quote from the article itself:
The concept [of Hedgehog’s dilemma] originates in the following parable from the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer‘s Parerga und Paralipomena, Volume II, Chapter XXXI, Section 396:[1]
A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on a cold day in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with their quills, they were obliged to disperse. However the cold drove them together again, when just the same thing happened. At last, after many turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that they would be best off by remaining at a little distance from one another. In the same way the need of society drives the human porcupines together, only to be mutually repelled by the many prickly and disagreeable qualities of their nature. The moderate distance which they at last discover to be the only tolerable condition of intercourse, is the code of politeness and fine manners; and those who transgress it are roughly told—in the English phrase—to keep their distance. By this arrangement the mutual need of warmth is only very moderately satisfied; but then people do not get pricked. A man who has some heat in himself prefers to remain outside, where he will neither prick other people nor get pricked himself.
When Freud went to USA in the beginning of the 20th century, he said his mission was to tame the wild hedgehogs (or porcupines). He found American society to be too unruly, almost barbaric, and in a state of feral collective unconsciousness – society was prickling one another in an unhealthy manner, both mentally and physically, especially in the long run. Of course, ultimately he failed, after his students did their part in creating Sexual revolution in the late ’60s. But here I want to use this beautiful and very well thought metaphor of Freud’s. If there was such a thing as an American porcupine in the 1920s, could we also speak about the World Porcupine, in a Hegelian sense, Geist– kind of – and its development, especially in recent years? We might also conclude that in Freud’s times – although he thought American porcupines were wild – they were in fact in their best and tamest condition in the last 100 years. Especially if you look at the current problems Mankind is facing – here I don’t want to elaborate on them, because we all already know, nor is this the goal of this text. What I want to do, as somebody who so admires Chinese culture, their political and economical system, language and tradition – to use this knowledge and try to create an idea of a World Porcupine – and maybe even predict the way in which He will behave in the future. So let us first start with the application of Hedgehog’s dilemma in the case of Chinese, or any other sinospheric (Japan, Korea) society. We will see that Schopenhauer’s Hedgehog developed in Prussia and that it is product of liberalism and civil societypar excellence, and that Chinese culture and norms use vastly different ways (and yet, quite similar) to achieve the same goal – not to get too close lest they get pierced, but also, avoiding going too far from each other.
Solution in both cases is basically analogous the the Ancient Greek concept of the “right measure” or Golden mean and in Wikipedia (that is, some textbook Wiki is quoting), its is elaborated in this very convincing fashion:
“The hedgehog’s dilemma suggests that despite goodwill, human intimacy cannot occur without substantial mutual harm, and what results is cautious behavior and weak relationships. With the hedgehog’s dilemma, one is recommended to use moderation in affairs with others both because of self-interest, as well as out of consideration for others. The hedgehog’s dilemma is used to explain introversion and isolationism.”
Of course, this is almost impossible to accept from the BPD (borderline) perspective. It is a widely different perception of the world, it is a widely different world, period. But both are manifestation of the same fundamental ubiquitous force of Love, only quantitatively different, with the same essential (and primordial) quality. But it is also interesting to notice that this “middle way” or “golden mean” path of life was a very influential school of thought both in the East and in the West, from Seneca and Buddha, Aristotle and virtually all patriarchs of Buddhism, all the way to Vedas and other less known scriptures and philosophies. Again, World Porcupine always seems to develop independently from one another and simultaneously, in a truly mystical way.
What does the future bring?
The Chinese well mannered and distance loving Porcupine will have a peculiar confrontation with the Western much more closer together (but hurtful, piercing) porcupine constellation. On the other hand, Western pop culture is spreading in China like wildfire in this age of social media and decentralization. Here I am an optimist – although I consider this a profoundly realistic position. It is in everyone’s best interest, it is the work of universal force of Love as we elaborated before, and after thesis, antithesis will bring about the synthesis of this two vastly different world experiences and comprehensions.
Repetition is important
Love manifests as a driving force of Universe (which is a never ending, never beginning play between One and Many – God and Creation – Sun and Earth – Body andLanguage – I will stop here, but indeed, there are simply too many examples anyway ) . As we see from this analogies – there are many examples of the same process (don’t let me get into quarks again). Sociology, Ontology, Psychology, Physics, Biology: reproduction on all levels – energy, Astronomy, Mathematics. Even the apparently trivial distinction between discrete and continuum is fundamentally based in this analogy. And aporiaswe stumble upon if we ponder to much, they are precisely the fundamental structure of reality, because this Love is as allusive as God itself (or Laws of Nature modern physics is struggling with, or Language in it’s ambiguity, or Buddhist void in it’s inexplicable, ungraspable and allusive nature (“Turn towards the void and you shall turn It’s back“). It all falls back to one simple principle.
https://youtu.be/0-BnfC0cuvU
Instead of conclusion
Finally, an ethical turn. What are we ought to do? What is Good? So far it seems I have made everything reasonably clear. But as somebody who was always overly concerned about the destiny of Mankind, I still wouldn’t be able to properly answer this question – what we ought to do with us, with Mankind? To not let it die? Why? Because I felt a little piece of me dying at the mere writing of the capitalized question “why’ in the last sentence? Or, in one sentence, because in I personally know that I am, in essence, It manifesting itself, together with itself – and Others? I don’t know, but it sounds like a plausible enough idea for now. I have yet to see a more – for me personally – intuitive ethical idea by which to act in the world.
Everything
I would also like to just mention the Native American (I think Hopi ) myth of primordial Man and Woman creating Universe by the force of Love, via Divine Copulation: but this myth also abounds with references to Chaos and Order: this again fits really well into the gist of this theme, especially because this oral transmitted myth is estimated to be 20-30 thousand years old. And of course, these kinds of myths are ubiquitous throughout human civilization, and prehistory, and are obvious meta-truths in which we are, as beings, immersed. I would like to add more examples here, and I will do so as soon as I get inspiration. I have absolutely forgotten using the Nagarjuna’sdoctrine of two truths (let’s say for simplicity sake – Truth from the perspective of One, and conventional truth of duality) as a sort of “solution” to our ” problem here. But since Nagarjuna also expounds that Nirvana is Samsara, and Samsara is in turn Nirvana, my omission is hardly problematic – since this teaching is, again, as obvious as anything we ever intuitively comprehend.
Explanations come to an end somewhere.
What, you scoundrel, you would speak no nonsense? Go ahead and speak nonsense – it doesn’t matter! (Holy Augustine)
Ovdje ću analizirati jednu sad već malo stariju Kanyeovu pjesmu, ali u duhu trenutačnog globalnog duha vremena te u analogiji sa stavovima Jordana B. Petersona. Pjesma je “New slaves” – a suštinu iste je stvarno teško sažeti, pa ću tu stati sa opisivanjem. Koristiti ću dva Youtube linka, jedan live nastup, drugi studio version. Tekst pjesme je cijeli u ovom postu (seciran, ali vjerujem dovoljno pregledno). Počnimo:
My momma was raised in the era when Clean water was only served to the fairer skin Doing clothes you would have thought I had help But they wasn’t satisfied unless I picked the cotton myself
Referenca na (preminulu) majku, ropstvo, pamuk, boju kože – sve uobičajeno lijevom diskursu. U pozadini live nastupa se vrte reklame, konzumeristički ethos u nekoliko brzih frejmova, uskoro ćemo vidjeti zašto. Ništa novo, idemo dalje:
You see it’s broke nigga racism That’s that “Don’t touch anything in the store” And this rich nigga racism That’s that “Come in, please buy more What you want, a Bentley? Fur coat? A diamond chain? All you blacks want all the same things”
Ok, dakle posotje dvije vrste rasizma. Ovdje već vidimo malo nijansiraniju sliku stvarnosti, onako kako bi iz neke nepristrane perspektive i trebalo biti. Ovdje je Kanye puno sličniji Petersonu nego bilo BLM pokretu, markistima, bilo cijelom desnom dijelu političkog spektra. Naprosto – zbori istinu, govori ono što osjeća da je preslika stvarnosti – Istina. A to je, morati ćemo prihvatiti, najviša vrijednost.
Used to only be niggas now everybody playing Spending everything on Alexander Wang New Slaves
Malo detaljnije:
Broke nigga racism – vjerojatno će ukrasti nešto.
Rich nigga racism – dođi opet, kupi još! Luksuzni auti, bling, $50,000 obleka – ma neka. “All you blacks want all the same things“.
“Use to only be niggers, now everybody playing”
Ovo je isto vrlo slojevit stih. Naime, jako je zanimljivo pratiti kako se jezik i nomenklatura mijenja kroz povijest, te kako istovremeno politička korektnost raste i dobija na značaju. Prije su bili crnčuge, pa su postali obojani, pa je prešlo na “crnac“, a danas je POC (“person of color“) najbolji politički korektni termin, općeprihvaćen od liberalne lijevice, i to za sve afro-amerikance ali i za sve druge manjine. Dakle: now everybody playing. Ne treba puno objašnjavati zašto je društveni fenomen Jordana Petersona (kao zakletog protivnika PC kulture) ovdje u neočekivanoj ali očitoj harmoniji sa Kanyeovim stihovima.
Ono što slijedi je dakle hook pjesme, onaj najbitniji dio koji bi trebao izraziti poantu pjesme, u ovom slučaju suštinu društvene situacije čovječanstva te Kanyeov osjećaj prema istoj:
“You see there’s leaders and there’s followers But I’d rather be a dick than a swallower”
Ne znam što više dodati ovdje – Kanye West ovdje prihvaća društvenu hijerarhiju (naspurot markističkoj ideji “klasnog konflikta” te egalitarizma) – i jasno odabire svoje mjesto u njoj. Kao netko sa net worthom od 150 milijuna USD, donekle je razumljivo. Opet, ako sličnost sa Petersonovom slikom društvene stvarnosti nije očita, onda vam ne mogu više pomoći. Explanations come to an end somewhere (Ludwing Wittgenstein).
I throw these Maybach keys I wear my heart on the sleeve I know that we the new slaves I see the blood on the leaves I see the blood on the leaves I see the blood on the leaves I know that we the new slaves I see the blood on the leaves They throwing hate at me Want me to stay at ease Fuck you and your corporation Y’all niggas can’t control me I know that we the new slaves I know that we the new slaves
Ok, ovdje smo došli do lijepog libertarijanskog i radikalno individualističkog dijela. Koliko god Kanye bio bogat u utjecajan, on je ništa naspram nekog milijardera, a još manje naspram korporacija koje imaju tržišnu kapitalizaciju oko 3000 puta veću od njegovog cijelog bogatstva.
Što to zapravo znači? Koji vrag je moć individue u društvu u kojem jedna koropracija vrijedi više nego pet (5) BDP-a Republike Hrvatske, i što on može pred takvim Golijaotm? Ovo je stara tema, koja je u zadnjih 10 godina opet, i to s pravom, dobila zamaha. Radi se o pro-tržištnom anti-korporatizmu, ili kako je izraženo u ovom izvrsnom članku “free market anticapitalism.” Ovo je zanimljiv twist u pro-kapitalističkom narativu, jer je s jedne strane potpuno u skladu s onim što ljevičari zahtjevaju (i jako ih zbunjuje, vjerujte mi na riječ 😀 ), dok je i dalje individualistički i libertarijanski. No što je to toliko loše sa velikim korporacijama?
“Small businesses are the backboone of the economy”
U ovom dijelu ne namjeravam prepričavati gornji video – ali ga toplo preporučam bilo kojem još-uvijek skeptičnom čitatelju. Poanta je – prostor za djelovanje malim i srednjim poduzećima se s vremenom sve više skraćuje, M&A je u boomu (što se događa i u Kini), posljedično njihova moć lobiranja (ali i karteliziranja, monopoliziranja) raste, dok se u relativnom smislu moć našeg Kanyea i dalje smanjuje, koliko god nam je njegovo bogatstvo teško pojmiti.
U drugom dijelu ćemo vidjeti što je to toliko bitno u malim i srednjim poduzećima, na primjeru Njemačke, te nastaviti analizirati Kanyeove, Petersonove i ine stavove u duhu vremena u kojem nastaju.
Općenito nisam nikakav veliki fan superhero filmova i stripova, ali jednom mi je jedan fan žanra čije misljenje izrazito cijenim rekao – ta osoba je doktor znanosti politologije i generalno vrlo bistra – da se radi o filmovima koji su ideološki par excellence, pritom konkretno referirajuci na Avengers (2012). Tada mi se to nije cinilo osobito bitno, ali u meduvremenu sam naucio da se radi o vrlo bitnom zanru, upravo jer prikazuje svijet crno-bijelo i pojednostavljeno, i daje nekakav destilat trenutacnog stanja globalnog duha vremena. To je naprosto moderni ekvivalent starih politeistickih mitova i arhetipova, koji simbolicki i posredno otkrivaju stanje i raspolozenje kolektivne svijesti jedne kulture. Ono sto me dodatno potaklo na istrazivanje (tj. gledanje filma) jest cinjenica da je ovaj zanr izuzetno popularan u Kini. I to nije bez poslovicnog vraga.
Zasto je sad Kina bitna, i gdje si bio ’91. ?
Jednostavno je. Kina prolazi radikalne, ali spore, drustvene promijene. Vecina ljudi je itekako svijesna svojeg manjka slobode u odnosu na Zapad, trziste ucenja engleskog je u konstantom boomu jos od trzisnih reformi i otvaranja ekonomije sedamdesetih, i nikako ne usporava sada kada su im se realni prihodi gotovo udvostrucili u samo 10 godina, niti bih predvidio usporavanje obzirom da se Kina postupno preobražava iz proizvodne i izvozne ekonomije u usluznu ekonomiju usmjerenu na unutarnju potrošnju. Svatko imalo slobodouman planira barem studirati vani, ali i napustiti Kinu u odredenom trenutku – kod Kineza je ovo ipak jasno definirano: Kinez čak i kad ode u dijasporu nikad ne prestaje biti vezan za svoju domovinu, i vratiti ce se barem u njoj umrijeti, te joj pomoci kako god moze (dobar dio mojeg grada recimo izgraden je i financiran od strane kineske dijaspore, zato stari centar ima prilicno mediteranski stil, kao da je Hainan ikad bio portugalska ili spanjolska kolonija. A nije). Slicno gledam i na odlazak iz RH – svakome preporucam, ali apsolutno apeliram na sve da se u odredenom trenutku vrate i pokusaju promijeniti stvari na bolje, mozda kad se uhlijebi pojedu napokon a HDZ-u ponestane sredstava ili voljnih pobornika za kupovanje socijalnog mira da odrzavaju svoju biracku masineriju. Društveni kapital stečen iz strane zemlje idealan je za biznis u zemlji koja je itekako dobra u izvozu (mnogi misle da nismo!), recimo, a na sto se inace sada poslovno fokusiram (konkretno, etericno ulje smilja).
No dobro, na stranu sada ova domoljubna digresija, kakvo je onda stanje u kineskoj politici, obzirom na postepen porast svijesti o slobodi tj. vlastitoj neslobodi naroda? Ovo je jako zanimljiva tema. Ako je vjerovati onome sto sam saznao iz razgovora sa kineskim poslovnjacima, poduzetnicima, umjetnicima, mahom mladima i drugim slobodnim duhovima, clanstvo u Partiji vise nije ni blizu toliko privlacno koliko je nekad bilo. Radi se uhljebljenju u jednu od najefikasnijih birokracija koje svijet poznaje, koje garantira karijeru i za koje je kao prvo i potreban sjajan CV, ali i vrlo sporom napredovanju, radu gotovo bez praznika, i to dosadnom, kafkijanski-birokratskom radu, bez puno mogucnosti za neki self-expression i samoinicijativu. Ovo samoizrazavanje bitan je element zapadne liberalne kulture (i pop kulture) i jedan od najbtinijih obiljezja osobne slobode, ali je takoder kulturni element cesto vrlo destruktivan za vladajuce – jer je kritican, propitkujuc, anti-tradicionalan, revolucionaran (ili barem reformisticki), protiv drzave i protiv regulacije – kinezi bi u konfucijanskom duhu rekli 无法无天 (bez zakona i bez Neba), ukratko, jer je liberalan. Trenutacna kineska ideologija odbija uopce ideju ljudskih prava, civilnog drustva, velike vecine osobnih sloboda (npr. pravo na privatnost), sudstvo je daleko od nezavisnog i svodi se ili na business law ili na kazneni zakon. Ustav je mrtvo slovo na papiru (npr. fun fact: po ustavu je NR Kina zajamcuje slobodu govora) a bilo kakvi zakoni koji bi garantirali pojedincu nekakav leverage u odnosu na drzavu su gotovo nepostojeci. Ovako izgleda sluzbena propaganda koja je istaknuta na gotovo svakom javnom mjestu i koja se svaki dan recitira na radiju, televiziji. Inace jedan od zabavnijih hobija mi je promatranje gdje sve vidim ovu propagandu, sto cudnije mjesto to bolje – npr. straznji prozor busa, taksiji, internet kafici, i slicno:
Zacudo, demokracija, vladavina prava i sloboda su na popisu, ali naravno, tu se misli na kinesku verziju istih. Vec sam pojasnio kinesko pravo – pod demokracija se u stvari ne misli toliko na izbore koliko na ogroman legitimitet koiji Partija ima i uspjesno odrzava, uglavnom na temelju gospodarskog rasta, i sna o revitalizaciji nacije kroz izgradnju vojske, globalnih politickih i ekonomskih utjecaja npr. Novi put svile, i slicno. Takoder valja napomenuti, a ovo je ono sto sam primjetio da razni kolumnisti u RH tragicno promasuju (tnx Jutarnji), kineska vlada itekako mari za ono sto gradane muci. Ogromni novci konstantno se trose na istrazivanje javnog mnijenja i KPK je poznata po tome da aktivno mijenja svoje politike u skladu sa pulsom naroda – npr. nedavno ukidanje zakona o jednom djetetu sto je dugo bio velika prepreka – barem urbanom dijelu populacije gdje se provodio – u ostvarenju necega sto bi mi na Zapadu smatrali temeljnoj i neotudivoj osobnoj slobodi. Pod sloboda se na ovom plakatu valjda primarno misli na ekonomsku, i novac je u kineskoj kulturi usko vezan za slobodu (cak i vise nego kod nas!), ali osobne slobode tu su kazem, iz perspektive sluzbene ideologije, puno manje bitne.
Dobro, kakve veze ima Avengers (2012) sa svime ovim?
Ukratko, vec u prvih 20 minuta filma ideologija je jasno izlozena: Loki, ambivalentni i kaoticni bog kojeg je tesko objasniti ali koji je najvise vezan uz arhetip prevaranta – saljivca (eng. tricksternema dobrog prijevoda u hrvatskom), tako da je analogan recimo Jokeru, dolazi na zemlju i zeli ju “osloboditi”. Osloboditi od cega?
Od slobode. Svida mi se dupla negacija ovdje i orvelovski stih. No sto Loki nudi zauzvrat, ako je sloboda, kako kaze, laz? Loki nudi mir. Ovo je jako zanimljivo – jer u kini je mir vrlo bitna temeljna vrijednost usko povezana sa idejom harmonije (gore na slici), pa tako i drustvenog poretka, tradicionalnih vrijednosti i konformizma. Dakle necega sto je u ocitoj suprotnosti sa osobnim slobodama – i sa glavnom ideloskom idejom ovog filma – slobodom kao takvom. Ovdje mi je super vidjeti kako ce onda kinezi prevesti “mir”. Jer ako ga prevedu kao “heping” (najdoslovniji prijevod) ili “hexie” (spomenuta harmonija) onda ce glavnog antagonista filma staviti u ulogu arhetipa kineske kulture. 😀 Cenzori zaobilaze ovaj problem namjernim netocnim prijevodom. Mir je preveden kao “anning” i, iako je ovo formalno tocno, ocito je iz konteksta da ta upotreba nema smisla. “Anning” nema nikakve ideoloske ili politicke konotacije, nego naprosto oznacava subjektivno iskustvo smirenosti. Kada bi Loki rekao, sto bi bio precizan prijevod – umjesto slobode dati cu vam heping, to bi naprosto bilo skandalozno i film bi bio ono sto kinezi nazivaju: 反社会 – protudrustven.
Morpheus dobro razumije Lokijev double-speak:
Opet, situacija nije toliko crno-bijela – Loki je ipak ovdje puno jasniji arhetip totalitarizma, i to film nimalo ne skriva. U sceni sa pocetka filma, u Njemackoj, Loki koristi svoju moc teleportacije i zastrasivanja, da zapovjedi grupi od stotinjak njemaca – slucajnih prolaznika – da mu se poklone. Na taj prizor jedan naravno ustane i kaze “not to you“. Ali ocita referenca na Hitlera postaje ekspicitna kada, naravno, Captain America dolazi u scenu i kaze svoj line: ”You know, the last time I was in Germany and saw a man standing above everybody else, we ended up disagreeing.“. Loki je tako prije arhetip Führera, Velikog Vodje, militaristicke odanosti cilju, i blizi je japanskom nacionalizmu npr. ideologiji koju je izvrsno ozivotvorio Yukio Mishima svojim zivotom i djelom (i smrcu) – a koji je najdalje i suprotnije od liberalizma koliko je to moguce biti.
Ipak, postoji jako puno toga u filmu sto je u suprotnosti sa kineskim dozivljanjem politike i zajednickog zivota. Primjerice, u ovoj sceni njegov brat Thor pita Lokija, koji je upravo izrazio svoju zelju za apsolutnom globalnom dominacijom – “Zar ti mislis da si iznad njih (ljudske vrste)?”, na sto Loki bez oklijevanja odgovara potvrdno. Thorov ideoloski protunapad?
Ovo je u bitnoj suprotnosti sa kineskim shvacanjem vlasti. Xi Jingping je puno blizi Lokiju, Fuhreru, nego Thoru, po vlastitim rijecima evidentnom liberalu. Kinezi obozavaju Xi Jingpinga, i to sasvim doslovno, jer ga shvacaju na neki nacin bozanskim i iznad njih – to su mi osobno rekli (tj. zena mi je rekla – ali drugi kinezi naprosto show dont tell zive ovu istinu). “On nije i ne moze biti jedan od nas“. On je, gotovo bi se moglo reci, u skladu sa starim konfucijanskim ucenjem, car, onaj kojem je Nebo osobno dalo mandat, dakle Sin Neba. A obzirom na ogromu razinu meritokracije u kineskom sustavu – mogu odgovorno reci da je Xi Jinping s razlogom obozavan – ne mislim da je povijest poznavala puno lukavijih i genijalnijih makijavelstia – a istovremeno umjerenih i snaznih licnosti. Onaj tko je u kineskom meritokratskom sustavu nakon 50 godina borbe uspio izaci na vrhu, ocito je above naroda kojim vlada, i po kinezima, sa dobrim pravom.
U Kini je hijerarhija shvacena uvijek pozitivno, a autoritet ima sasvim drugacije konotacije (na Zapadu je gotovo nuzno los). Anegdota: jednom sam sa zenom gledao dokumentarac o Meksiku i kartelima – narod naravno ne voli policiju i u jednoj sceni ju otvoreno vrijeda i napada (policija zeli provesti zakon i zaplijeniti oruzja, ali kako ce se onda jadni ljudi braniti od kartela?). Zena sva u cudu: “zasto oni mrze policiju?!“. Ne znam gdje da pocnem s odgovorom, ali ovo dobro ilustrira da kinezi gotovo nikad uz vlastitu policiju ne vezu nekakve negativne pojmove, dok na Zapadu barem 50% populacije cvrsto internalizira ACAB princip, u svom svojem liberalnom buntu.
Sto buducnost nosi?
Ne ocekujem nikakve nagle prevrate, ali svakako postupni hegelijanski rast u svijesti o slobodi. Rast u bogatstvu i svijesti o trenutacnoj neslobodi dovesti ce do sve liberalnijih zakona, ali ce istovremeno poluge vlasti biti cvrsto jednostranacke i tipicno kineske, barem u dogledno vrijeme – KPK pokazala se nevjerojatno sklona velikim reformama. U svakom slucaju, zanimljivo je pratiti situaciju iz prvih sjedala. 🙂
Za početak, to jest za one koji još nisu upoznati s nootropicima tj. pametnim psihofarmaticima – to su supstance ili mješavine supstanci koje utječu na centralni živčani sustav na način da poboljšavaju kognitivne sposobnosti – pamćenje (u pravilu radna memorija ili kratkoročno pamćenje), brzinu reakcije, pozornost, pa sve do poboljšanja verbalnih sposobnosti i jezične fluidnosti, čak i kreativnosti. Vjerojatno nisam nabrojao sve, ali ovo su najznačajniji efekti nootropika za koje morate znati, pa ću tu stati. Najčešće se radi o slabo ili nikako reguliranim supstancama, koje imaju minimalne nuspojave , iako mnogi su otkrili i nootropski učinak mikrodoziranja ilegalnim supstancama (drogama) – ali o tome ću ipak malo kasnije.
Tko uzima nootropike?
Nootropici su postali vrlo popularnih zadnjih godina medu poduzetnicima, svekolikim kreativcima, te ljudima sa zahtjevnim poslovima na izvršnim pozicijama, dakle posvuda u poslovnom svijetu – od wanterpreneura do CEO-ova. Ovo je također povezano sa self-help industrijom, koja se s knjiga i audiobookova nekako premjestila na područje umjetnog self-helpa (kemijskim spojevima). Dakle, nootropike koristi svatko tko na želi dobiti dodatni boost kognitivnih sposobnosti i produktivnosti. A tko to ne želi?
Ovdje ipak moram naglasiti - nisam osobiti stručnjak za nootropike per se, jerbo je to tržište toliko ogromno i već dugo u boomu, stalno se pojavljuju novi proizvodi, temeljeni na različitim mješavinama prirodnih i sintetskih supstanci. To je onda često i vrlo zbunjujuće jer svaki proizvođač brendira svoje mješavine na svoj način. U to ubrojite i činjenicu da je američko tržište dodataka prehrani i nootropika vrlo slabo regulirano, i da često stvarni sadržaj proizvoda nema veze s onim što piše na bočici. I to ima savršenog smisla jer je placebo već ionako 20% efekta uzimanja tablete. Mala ekonomska digresija - samo da pazite od koga i kako kupujete, ako namjeravate.
Moje iskustvo
Što se tiče mog osobnog iskustva, najviše se svodi na nootropike biljnog podrijetla, a od sintetskih na klasu lijekova koji se zovu racetami, od kojih su kao nootropici najpoznatiji aniracetam i nešto stariji, piracetam. O tome konkretnije malo kasnije.
Ovdje bih prvo nabrojao par vrlo korisnih biljnih nootropika, koje je vrlo lako nabaviti u Hrvatskoj (ili čak posaditi, za botaničarske entuzijaste medu vama 🙂 ), a s kojima imam osobnih iskustva. Također ću posebno nabrojati druge biljne nootropike koji su puno rijeđi i koje je nažalost teže nabaviti (čisto jer se radi o manje poznatim biljkama iz dalekih dijelova svijeta, koje još nisu potpuno komercijalizirane iz raznih razloga). S njima imam ograničenog iskustva, ali ću zato baciti i par linkova na opise učinka. Ovdje preferiram englesku Wikipediju, jer je u pravilu prepuna kredibilnih referenci na znanstvena istraživanja, te opisa učinaka, pa tako možete dobiti kvalitetan dojam.
Biljni nootropici:
Kofein – Ovdje smo vec svi strucnjaci, ali valja pojasniti ipak. Necu previse o samoj neurokemiji jer nije osobito bitno vezano uz ostale tipove nootropika, dakle samo link za posebno zainteresirane. Ukratko, potice budnost (smanjuje pospanost) te fizicku izdrzljivost. Takoder pozitivno utjece na vrijeme reakcije, koncentraciju i motornu kordinaciju. Opet, ne preporucam prevelike doze, jer takoder potice tjeskobu, nervozu, nesanicu a nootropski efekti ostaju vise manje bez velike razlike sa povecanjem doze: dakle normalne doze – ne vise od 300mg dnevno – popijete li 6 salica kave u danu vjerojatno necete postati ubermensch nego nervozni idiot koji puno brze radi puno vise gluposti. Po nekim izvorima izaziva blagu euforiju, ali ovdje jos ne postoji konsenzus.
Nikotin – Ovo je vrlo kontroverzno, jer pusenje je izuzetno stetno na mnoge nacine, rak pluca jedan od najgorih rakova koji postoje, i da ne nabrajam dalje. Zato tu preporucam drugaciji nacin konzumacije – osobno preferiram snus ali ni to nije posve sigurno. Postoje posebni proizvodi na noootropskim trzistima koji sadrze umjerene doze nikotina i najcesce se uzimaju oralno. Nikotin primarno djeluje na nikotinske acetilkolinske receptore, sto daje stimulativni ucinak – ali i na plehoru drugih neorutransmitera. Ovo uzrokuje budnost, opustajuci efekt, poboljsava kratkorocno pamcenje i vrijeme reakcije, i izaziva blagu euforiju. Ipak, kod ovisnika nootropski efekti znacajno su smanjeni i u principu pusaci odrzavaju neku normalnu neurokemiju kad puse, dok osjecaju “pad” odnosno ustezanje dok ne puse – sto ce reci – nemaju gotovo nikakve koristi. Dakle, sto rijede to bolje, sto manje doze to bolje. Nikako ne preporucam fizicku ovisnost, jer to je uvijek vise stete nego koristi, a cigarete s pravom gotovo sve zemlje razvijenog Zapada strogo reguliraju. Nikotin i alkohol su jedne od rijetkih legalnih supstanci koje izazivaju fizicku ovisnost i sindrom ustezanja (kofein takoder ali vrlo blago zbog svog brzog metabolizma i slabljeg efekta). Takoder su neurokemijski komplementarni jer alkohol takoder djeluje na acetilkolin.
Alkohol – Ovdje opet preporucam mirkodoziranje, jer se i ne radi o pravom nootropiku. Alkohol je izuzetno neurotoksican i opcenito nepozeljan za produktivnost u vecim kolicinama, ali i izuzetno pozitivan u malim dozama. Djeluje kao GABA agonist – dakle opusta, smanuje inhibicije, ali takoder i na acectilkolin – sto daje stimulatorni efekt. Ubrojite u to i posredne efekte na dopaminske mreze te po novijim istrazivanjima cak endorfine (prirodne opioide – basicaly spojevi slicni morfiju koje organizam priozivodi pri intenviznoj boli, ficikom naporu, orgazmu i jedenju ljute hrane, a izazivaju smanjenje percepcije boli te euforiju i osjecaj ugode). Kao sto sam vec rekao, djelovanje alkohola na acetilkolin vrlo je slicno djelovanju nikotina (koji preko nikotinskih receptora takoder oslobada acetilkolin) – ova je neurokemijska veza uzrok potrebe da zapalimo cigaretu dok pijemo, ili popijemo dok zapalimo cigaretu. Jos jedan razlog zasto nikako ne preporucam vece doze alkohola. Manje doze nemaju izrazene nootropske efekte – osim opustanja i euforije – ali zato imaju vrlo pozitivne efekte na organizam (primarno kardiovaskularni sustav, pa tako i mozak). Dakle, vrlo rijetko i vrlo malo, kao i kod nikotina.
Pasiflora – vrlo blagi inhibitor MAO enzima koji inace razgraduje serotonin, dopamin i norepinefrin (noradernalin). Ono sto inhibira MAO enzim, dakle, povecava koncentraciju monoaminskih neurtransmitera i hormona, sto je uzrok pozitivnih efekata, sto je objasnjeno ovdje na primjeru harmalina koji je samo jedan od spojeva iz pasiflore. Ima antidepresifni efekt, ali takoder i mnoge vec opisane nootropske efekte – jedini je “problem” sto se takoder i blago uspavljuje zbog utjecaja na melatonin. Na linku mozete vidjeti i spominjanje antikancerogenih svojstava kod harmalina, te pojacavanje efekata halucinogenih droga (jer one djeluju uglavnom na odredeni serotoninski receptor). Pasiflora je u stvari cvijet kod nas poznatiji kao “Isusova kruna” (i jos 15 drugih narodnih naziva) i vrlo lako ga mozete posaditi. Takoder je vrlo lako kupiti ekstrakte u ljekarnama, sto toplo preporucam. Ovdje slobodno uzmite vecu dozu jer se radi o vrlo blagom biljnom nootropiku. Imam iskustva sa dosta velikim dozama, sve vrlo pozitivna.
Gospina trava (SSRI – inhibitor ponovne pohrane serotonina) – u principu blagi antidepresiv i anksiolitik, ali ubrojiti cu ga u nootropike jer utjecaj na serotonin ima neke korisne efekte na produktivnost (povecava asertivnost, poboljsava raspolozenje itd.). Istrazivanje na skampovima i drugim srodnim zivotinjama pokazala su da kada se skampu da serotonin, to utjece na njegovo ponasanje(drugi pasus) i konsekvetno na njegov drustveni status. 😀 Klinicki psiholog i drustveni komentator Jordan Peterson ima hipotezu da upravo ovaj utjecaj serotonina objasnjava zasto svi moderni antidepresivi (SSRI) imaju antidepresivne ali i anksiolitske efekte i statisticki znacajno pobosljavaju funkcioniranje individua sa tim problemima. Valja spomenuti i da je kokain takoder inhibitor ponovne pohrane serotonina (ali i dopamina, i noraderenalina), ali puno intenzivniji i posljedicno ekstremno neurotoksican. Raste vise manje psovuda po RH, ali uzmite u obzir da kao kod mnogih drugih SSRI-a, efekti trebaju i par tjedana da se osjete. Ovo je vrlo kompleksna tema i jos nije posve objasnjena znanstveno, pa cu to ostaviti za zainteresirane, u komentarima.
Matičnjak (GABA agonist) – vrlo blago djeluje na GABA, dakle ni slicno alkoholu, iu principu ima samo opustajuci efekt, ali takoder raste posvuda i vrlo cesto se uzgaja. Maticnjak sadrzi i hrpetinu drugih spojeva korisnih za organizam.
L-theanin (spoj iz čaja, uz kofein) – Za ovo vecina ljudi uopce ne zna. L-theanin nije i nema veze sa “teinom”. Tein naime, ne postoji. Tein je ime koje je pocetkom 20.st. dano kofeinu iz caja, dok nije otkriveno da se u stvari kemisjki radi o istoj supstanci – ista stvar sa tobozjim “guaraninom” – ali mediji jos dalje zive pocetkom 20. stoljeca sto se tice znanja o kemiji (a bome i neorokemiji, uhvatim se za pistolj kada god mi netko spomene “hormonime srece” 😀 ). L-theanin ima dosta slozen neurokemijski ucinaki zbog utjecaja na AMPA receptore slican je vec spomenutom aniracetamu i piracetamu, o kojima cu kasnije kada se dotaknem sintetskih nootrpika. Efekti su izuzetno korisni, kao sto vidite odmah u drugom pasusu iz gornjeg linka – smanuje stres, pobosljava kognitivne sposobnosti – i po mnogim istrazivanjima (ovo je vec dugo poznato) djeluje sinergijski sa kofeinom, sto je izvrsna vijest za sve cajoljupce. Opcenito uvijek prije preporucam caj nego kavu, upravo zbog manje doze kofeina, prisustva L-theanina, i vise antioksidansa.
Bacopa Monnieri (akaBrahmi) – ovo nisam probao pa ne mogu previse o tome, ali cini se obecavajuce ako je sudeci po ovim podacima. Nazalost, jos nije dovoljno istrazeno. Poticanje cirkulacije krvi u mozgu u svakom slucaju mnogi korisnici opisiju kao izrazito nootropski, te se ova biljka vec tisucljecima koristi kao lijek.
Ginko – Apsolutno izbjegavati. Ovo je vrlo lako nabaviti, i vjerojatno ste svi vec vise-manje upoznati o cemu se radi. Ja sam u Kini neko vrijeme pio, dok nisam porictao ovo. Dakle, ne samo da ne postoje nikakvi znanstveni dokazi da djeluje, nego cak ima potencijalno vrlo nepozeljne nuspojave. Dakle, klonite se. And spread the word. Kineska medicina ponekad bude u pravu, ali cesto tesko fejla, kao i svaka alternativna medicina. Did you know how they call alternative medicine that works? – Medicine.
Marihuana – potpuno razumijem da je vrlo cudno da je marihuana na popisu. Opcenito halucinogeni utjecaj THC-a ima pozitivne efekte na kreativnost, ali takoder i brojne negativne efekte. Drugi kanabonoidi (postoji ih jako puno – mislim oko 40 u samoj biljci – ali samo nekoliko ih ima znacajne psihoaktivne efekte) su u pravilu sedativi, ali djeluju i na motivaciju, apetiti i raspolozenje. Djelovanje kanabinoida na motivaciju poznato je odavno i upravo to mi je najzanimljivije ovdje. Konzumiranje precesto potpuno unistava motivaciju, ali vrlo rijetko te mikrodozirano konzumiranje kod nekih ljudi izuzetno pomaze u podizanju motivacije, kreativnosti, pa tako i produktivnosti. Naravno, ja nemam pojma o ovome.
Crni papar – Ovo sam tek nedavno procitao na Wikipediji – u vecim dozama utjece na endokrine kanabinoide(da, postoje kanabinoidi koje vas mozak proizvodi sam u kljucni su u regulaciji motivacije!) – konkretno spoj Guineesine. Zgodna cinjenica svakako – sto se tice samog nootropskog efekta – ovdje opet moram skociti sam sebi u usta. Efekt je uglavnom ne bas tipicno nootropski, koliko pozitivno utjece na motivaciju. Da stvar bude bolja, takoder djeluje i kao MAO inhibitor, sto je gore vec pobjasnjeno na primjeru pasiflore, kao potencijalno nootropski.
To je to sto se tice prirodnih nootropika u mojem skromnom znanju. U slijedecem popisu cu biti vrlo kratak jer naprosto nemam toliko iskustva, jer se najcesce radi o reguliranim spojevima. Srecom po mene, u Kini su racetamipoptuno deregulirani, u SAD-u zacudo strogo regulirani (FDA ne dopusta koristi kao lijek, niti kao supiment), dok ste vi u Europi isto u kurcu jer su regulirani na nacin da je potreban recept za lijek. Osim u UK. Jebite mater drzavi na sljedecem fejsbuk statusu molim.
Sinteticki nootropici:
Aniracetam – Pobosljava kratkorocno pamcenje, pozornost, jezicne sposobnosti, kreativnost – po nekima potentniji od piracetama, ali u mojem iskustvu piracetam je bolji. Obicno ionako koristim oba, svakodnevno. Naprosto nezaobilazno. Ovdje vise o samim efektima. Iako se inace koristi za ljecenje neurodegenerativnih bolesti, tek nedavno je pokazan znacajan utjecaj i kod zdravih pojedinaca, pa su tako racetami usli u tu cijelu nootropsku pricu. Dnevne doze od oko 1500mg su sasvim uobicajene i bezpopasne, ali vrlo efektivne.
Piracetam – Gotovo ista stvar kao aniracetam, ali dnevne doze oko 4g su pravilo. Oba spoja preporucam naruciti in bulk preko neta, ali ovo je u stvari nelegalno u RH, tako da ne znam sto da vam kazem. Snadi se druze. Inace je dirt cheap. Takoder valja naglasiti da oba racetama imaju neuroporektivna svojstva.
Velafaxine (SNRI) – O SSRI sam vec dovoljno pricao, s tim da Velafaxin takoder djeluje na norepinefrin pri vecim dozama pa je (SNRI), sto je izuzetno korisno. Ovdje se naravno radi o puno jacim efektima od biljnih SSRI-a (npr. Gospine trave) i meni osobno je izuzetno korisno – ali u pravilu ne preporucam igranje sa sintetickim antidepresivima kod zdravih individua.
To je u principu to – za sada. Sada sam vec umoran, a taman mi je ponestalo kofeina. Ovaj tekst je napisan pomocu 4000mg piracetama, i 10 razlicitih biljnih nootropika.
Ispricavam se na izostanku dijakritika u vecem dijelu teksta, ali nemam puno izbora trenutacno. Uredim naknadno.
Obavezni selfie sa zelenim cajem, ravno iz internet kafica.
Ovaj tekst neprirodan je brak teksta kojeg sam počeo pisati prije nekoliko mjeseci, sa sadašnjim tokom misli, pa će u tom smislu ponekad zvučati anakrono ili zastarjelo, ali i neuredno i nezgrapno. Potruditi ću se prilagoditi ga u tom smislu, dakle u duhu sadašnjih zbivanja, ali ionako nema ničeg novog pod Suncem, rekao je netko mudriji od mene. Volim skakati sam sebi u usta.
Za početak nekoliko buzzwordova i/ili ključnih rijeci da tema bude jasnija: echo-chamber, liberalizam, totalitarizam, ljudska priroda (te evolucijske reperkusije na istu), Platon. Već iz samog ovog kratkog nabrajanja je jasno da je ovo tema psihologije, biologije, sociologije, politike, jednako koliko i filozofije i religije – gotovo da ne postoji područje ljudskog istraživanja i razumijevanja svijeta koje se na ovaj ili onaj način ne bavi ovom temom. Utoliko sam zagrizao puno vise nego sto mogu pojesti (volim kalkove), ali kao opaki filosofski mamojebač neću odustati. Boriti ćemo se s jezikom, i nadam se da ćemo u potencijalnom dijalogu doci do nekakvih zaključaka. To je ujedno i poanta teksta, ali sve u svoje vrijeme.
Cini se uzavrela situacija trenutačno u hrvatskom društvu. Jučer su javno zapalili Novosti. Općenito sam apsolutno protiv Novosti, ali i protiv javnog paljenja fizičke manifestacije ljudske misli i ideja. Nešto je fundamentalno barbarski (ne samo anti-liberalno) u samom činu; i onda opet, Novosti su glasilo srpske manjine koje je oteto od umrežene klike politike i onog najljigavijeg od hrvatskog novinarstva (popularno i opravdano znanog kao dnovinarstvo. Nemojte biti dnovinari, molim Vas. Ubijajte mačiće, tucite beskućnike, samo nemojte biti dnovinari).
Ali ovaj tekst nije o Novostima niti o hrvatskoj dnevnoj politici. Ono sto meni prvo upada u oči, valjda zbog sociološkog obrazovanja (hvala FFZG) i općenito ljubavi prema analogijama, jest nevjerojatna analognost društvenih pojava u RH, s onima u svijetu, globalnom društvu takoreći. Ovdje valjda otkrivam toplu vodu, ali bear with me. Istovremeno dok su nasi dnovinari pisali moralni šrot, a njihovi konzervativni partneri u plesu palili njihov opus, dogodio se i Charlottesville, i netko je nekog ubio jer je eto, to valjda postalo normalno. Autom se on zaletio, kao da ga je ISIS inspirirao, i tu ironiju je jednako lako primijetiti koliko ju je teško ignorirati. Ali ovdje neću previse ni o kripto-fasitima ni o SJW-ovima, koju su upravo jednaki partneri u plesu kao spomenuti tradicionalistički piromani i dnovniari, nego bih vise pozornosti volio posvetiti echo-chamberima i trenutačnoj društvenoj situaciji temeljnog nerazumijevanja tuđeg poimanja svijeta, potpunog izostanka društvenog dijaloga, a ovo potonje je čini mi se ključno. Dijalog je, napisao sam u uvodu u ovu stranicu jučer, primarna i glavna forma filosofije. Zašto sad najednom filozofija? Ovako:
Mala povijesno-filozofska digresija: kada filozofi, suvremeni (Žižek, Despot, Badiou), ali i oni od prije (Heidegger, Hegel, Platon), kažu, da nama (društvu!) treba više filozofije (preferiram “s” ipak), onda, da je ovo jedna od stvari na koju misle, barem meni je, sasvim validna interpretacija. Sokrat je osuđen na kvarenje mladeži. O tome je moj dragi internetski prijatelj Davor Katunarić lijepo objavio blog post kojeg Vam toplo preporučam, evo i mali izvadak, dakle autor je Alain Badiou:
Sokrat, kako ga vidi Platon, eksplicitno osuđuje korumpiranu prirodu moći. Moć je ono što kvari, a ne filosof. U Platonovom djelu nalazimo nemilosrdnu kritiku tiranije, žudnje za moći, koju nije moguće poboljšati i na neki je način konačna riječ o toj temi…. Tema filosofije je pravi život.
Tema filosofije je pravi život. Ovo ćemo analogno primijeniti u ovom tekstu, ali se ovdje ipak neću baviti pravim životom, koliko pravim su-životom (društvom, a ne toliko individuom, te prirodom zla). Ali to dvoje nije odvojivo – samo naglašavam kontrast Badiouovog teksta, s ovim iz mojeg pomalo zbrkanog, pera. (Nadalje, Badiou šalje poruku mladima, dok ja pišem tok misli o društvu i njegovoj bolesti, a poruka je upućena svima, bez iznimke).
Da se vratimo ipak na gornji izvadak: Platon osuđuje korumpiranu prirodu moći. Za nekoga tko je htio da filosofi budu vladari, zanimljiva je ovo situacija. Ali, ovdje bih ipak stavio naglasak na predivno suglasje ovakve interpretacije Platona s klasičnim liberalizmom, odnosno radikalnim centrizmom, kako ga je Davor Huić (kojeg izuzetno cijenim) nedavno prekrstio. Ovdje su Platon, Huić, Katunarić, i Jordan Peterson (moram namedropat, ne mogu si pomoći) na istoj, po meni suštinski mudroj, strani. Ovdje je centrizam, kako ga i Liberal.hr unatoč nazadnosti hrvatskog društva (ili upravo zbog iste) promiče, jedino i istinsko rješenje problema ljudskog suživota. Uistinu, povijest, i ekonomski progres čovječanstva, pa i sam kapitalizam koji ga je direktno i nedvojbeno uzrokovao – svi ti fenomeni jasno pokazuju koja i kakva društva prosperiraju, a koja stagniraju odnosno propadaju (to je istoznačno). Ali ne radi se ovdje samo o pojedinačnim društvima (razvijenom Zapadu, NR Kini i cijeloj sinosferi, Japan, J. Koreja), nego o upravo neprikosnovenom napretku ljudske vrste i civilizacije u cjelini. Hegel, da je živ, bi klicao od sreće. Možda ga je Fukuyama dobro inkarnirao, ali ne bih u te detalje u ovom trenutku. Valja ipak spomenuti kratko, ali lijepo objašnjenje Hegela, citirano sa srpsko-hrvatske Wikipedije, zajedno i s citatom samog Hegela:
U analizi države Hegel je pokazao kako svjetska povijest ostvaruje svoj razvoj u napredovanju u svijesti o slobodi: u istočnjaka samo je jedan slobodan (Car, 天子, Sin Neba op. franjo) ; u Grka slobodni su mnogi, ali još uvijek ne čovjek kao takav (zato imaju robove);
“tek su germanske nacije u kršćanstvu došle do svijesti da je čovjek kao čovjek slobodan.” (G.W.F. Hegel)
Ovdje imamo i meni osobno predivnu analogiju kršćanstva i liberalizma, i to je već moj dragi prijatelj Ivan Čović izvrsno objasnio, citatima iz Novog Zavjeta odnosno evanđelja, u svom prvom članku na Liberal.hr: Isus Krist liberal? Ovi citati iz Biblije to potvrđuju
Nietzsche je također, iako je žestoko kritizirao kršćanstvo, dobro primijetio da je upravo kranski duh introspekcije i skolastike, disciplinirao Europu tj. Zapad, te, ovo je moj dodatak: doprinio razvoju filozofije i ljudskog društva – kapitalizma, moderne znanosti – svega. (Jordan Peterson to objašnjava nekakvom vrstom duhovne samodiscipline – ovdje bi mogli i o Weberu, protestantizmu i kapitalizmu, ali mislim da ovaj tekst ima već sasvim dovoljno digresija za prosječnog čitatelja).
Za kraj bih cijelu ovu priču povezao s drugom ključnom idejom ovog teksta. Prva je, znam da je umoran čitatelj već zaboravio, dijalog. Druga, koje se nisam dotakao osim implicitno filozofirajući o društvu, ljudska priroda. Ovdje ću biti vrlo kratak i eksplicitan. Čovjek je fundamentalno pokvaren. Mogu li reci zao? Možda. Naime, zao u određenim situacijama – u datim okolnostima, svatko je stražar u koncentracijskom logoru (ovo je parafraza Petersona). Ne moram tu ni spominjati Stanford eksperiment. Kloniti ću se i evolucijske psihologije, ali moram naglasiti da je ona bitan dio ove slagalice. Dovoljno je reci da je po nekima sama evolucija jezika (kao sredstva komunikacije, ali i laganja) i viših kognitivnih sposobnosti (apstraktno razmišljanje, samosvijest) uzrokovana potrebom za dominacijom. Na kraju krajeva, čovjek je apex predator, to jest predator koji nema ni jednog drugog predatora – top of the food chain. Jednako kao sto je kršćanstvo, ali i gotovo svaka druga religija, ali nikad s istim naglaskom kao kršćanstvo, prepoznalo ovu veliku istinu, u svojoj ideji istočnog grijeha, te inherentne grešne prirode svakog pojedinca. Samo želim citirati sto je Solzhenitsyn, koji je preživio Gulag i najgoru torturu, napisao:
Da barem postoje zli ljudi, na odredenom mjestu, podmuklo cineci zla djela, pa bi samo bilo potrebno odvojiti ih od nas ostalih, i unistiti ih. Ali linija koja dijeli dobro i zlo reze ravno kroz srce svakog ljudskog bica. A tko je spreman unistiti dio vlastitog srca? (Aleksandar Solženjicin, Arhipelag Gulag)
To je uglavnom to. Problem ideologije, SJW-a, fašista, i komunista, je ta ideja da će zle ljude pronaći, locirati, i neutralizirati na manje ili vise brutalan način. Nije veliki skok od SJW-evskog “punch a Nazi” do sjevernokorejske ideologije po kojoj su 20% (možda vise, zaboravih) vlastite populacije reakcionari koje treba odvojiti (poslati u radne logore jednom za svagda, ili smaknuti, zajedno sa cijelim njihovim obiteljima). Problem ideologije, problem je moralnog apsolutizma te temeljnog nerazumijevanja ljudske prirode. Utoliko bih ovaj članak htio završiti citatom iz pjesme benda System of a down, koji se ponavlja tijekom pjesme prikladno poput mantre:
Don’t you
realize
that evil
lives in the motherfucking skin?
Koji je lijek? Mislim da sam rekao dovoljno puta, ali nekako se volim ponavljati. Centrizam.Klasični liberalizam. Dijalog. Filosofija. U suštini su ista stvar, a drugog lijeka naprosto – nema.
EDIT:
Zaboravih spomenuti kljucnu ideju, u zlu, gdje onaj tko čini zlo prisvaja za sebe ulogu žrtve. Hitler je bio žrtvaŽidova (o njima eksplicitno priča kao virusu ili bakteriji koja izjeda zdravo tijelo njemačke nacije), muslimani su žrtveŽidova, Amerikanaca. General Mladić je navodno bio opsjednut tom psihozom viktimizacije srpskog naroda. Hrvatski nacionalisti i nasi ratni zločini jednako su “opravdani” time sto smo eto – žrtve. Povijest poznaje i nekoliko primjera gdje se ogromni zločini i masakri događaju i bez tog prisvajanja uloge žrtve (pada mi na pamet sino-japanski ratovi i Nanjing masakr), ali to su iznimke koje potvrđuju pravilo. I danas Kinezi, kao istinske žrtve, suštinski mrze Japance – tu još valja vidjeti kako se geopolitička situacija razviti.
Ovoj ideji također treba dodati – to jest dodatno ju pojasniti, sto Jordan Petersončesto radi – da je ovdje protivnik, tj. neprijatelj žrtve, u stvari interpretiran kao predator. Ne samo interpretiran, shvaćen, nego na najdubljoj razini doživljen – kao predator. Nakon stotina milijuna godina evolucije, ovo je naprosto puno bitniji dio ljudske prirode od onog sto bi društveni konstruktivisti htjeli (naime, da je ljudska priroda apsolutno fleksibilna i promjenjiva). Sapienti sat.
(STAVIM JUTUB LINK KASNIJE, TRENUTACNO NEMAM VPN. CHINA LIFE PROBLEMS)
Opaska autora: oduvijek mi se sviđala Wu Zetian. Povijest ne poznaje puno lukavijih, makijavelističkijih, i zanimljivijih ličnosti. Tekst dolje je o njoj, i sluzi kao lorem ipsum, priznajem da sam ga copy-pasteao (kopipejstao?) sa, vjerovali ili ne, dnevno.hr-a. Nije loš, iako vjerujem da bih napisao puno bolji tekst o njoj, cak i sa svojim skromnim znanjem. Serem. Kako god, zanimljiva žena, jednako kao sto je zanimljivo koristiti lorem ipsum koji ima neki smisleni sadržaj.
Dana 17. veljače davne 624. godine rođena je kineska carica Wu Zetian, jedina žena koja je ikad zasjela na kinesko prijestolje. Wu Zetian rođena je u bogatoj plemićkoj obitelji te je kao dijete naučila pisati, čitati i svirati, što je bilo neobično za ženu u to doba. Već s četrnaest godina postala je konkubina cara Taizonga, kojeg je oduševilo njeno znanje o književnosti i povijesti, pa ju je postavio da radi administrativne poslove na carskom dvoru. Nakon što je car umro naslijedio ga je njegov sin Gaozong, a Wu je poslana u budistički samostan, što je bila tradicionalna sudbina carevih udovica. No, Gaozong je bio fasciniran njenim sposobnostima i ljepotom, te ju je za nekoliko godina vratio na dvor i uzeo za svoju konkubinu.
Nakon što je rodila dva sina i zadobila carevo povjerenje, postala je suparnica carice Wang. Wu je ovom prilikom prvi puta pokazala nemilosrdnost po kojoj je kasnije postala notorna – navodno je ubila vlastitu kćer i za to okrivila caricu Wang. Car nije saznao za prijevaru te je 655. godine uzeo Wu za svoju novu caricu umjesto Wang, koja je uskoro nakon toga smaknuta.
Nova carica počela je aktivno sudjelovati u upravljanju državom, predložila mnoge reforme u poljoprivredi, poreznom sustavu, povećanju učinkovitosti rada itd. Već 660. godine car je doživio moždani udar, čime je carica Wu de facto preuzela vlast u svoje ruke. Bila je potpuno nemilosrdna prema bilo kome tko joj se suprotstavio – sve ih je dala zatvoriti ili pogubiti, uključujući i članove vlastite obitelji. Car Gaozong umro je 683. godine, a carica Wu je držala stvarnu vlast tijekom vladavina njegovih dvaju sinova, Zhongzonga i Ruizonga. Godine 690. Wu je uzurpirala prijestolje i osnovala novu dinastiju nazvanu Zhou, sa središtem u gradu Luoyangu.
Vladavina carice Wu bila je zapamćena po nemilosrdnosti i okrutnosti nje i njenih službenika. Ipak, pokazala se uspješnom vladaricom pod čijom je vladavinom unaprijeđeno gospodarstvo (posebno poljoprivreda), poboljšan položaj seljaka, proširene granice carstva, te omogućeno talentiranim ljudima iz nižih društvenih slojeva da postanu članovi državne uprave. Bila je veliki pobornik budizma, te su u njeno vrijeme izgrađeni mnogi budistički hramovi i spomenici. Vladala je do 705. godine, kada je svrgnuta državnim udarom, kojim je ujedno vraćen na vlast njen sin Zhongzong i time dinastija Tang. Umrla je iste godine, te je sahranjena u grobnici blizu današnjeg grada Xi’an. (to je u to vrijeme bio najveći grad na svijetu, također i prvi milijunski grad i prvi grad u kojem je sustavno proveden cenzus stanovništva. Tada se zvao Chang’an, što bi značilo, da koristim engleski ipak, “perpetual peace”. Lijepo ime, i veoma kinesko. op. f. )
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
o kao sto je zanimljivo koristiti lorem ipsum koji ima neki smisleni sadržaj.