Stephan Attia's Blog

The symbiosis of Art and Litterature is celestial and divine. I could never imagine the effect of such a symbiosis upon one's confidence. The result of such a symbiosis is the Beauty of Aphorism. At my photos in my profile, i added a painting which i ordered from a great artist. She brought my parable to life and uplifted me from depression. Art is truly a remedy. This Parable is my Legacy.

When I first read 'The Catcher in the Rye' in high-school more than 30 years ago, I couldn't possibly understand Salinger's profound hatred to Hollywood. Growing up in a kibbutz rendered me somewhat naive and euphoric. Only in 2017 I fully understood what Salinger was talking about. His rage became my rage in a twist turn of fate. The film industry is stealing ideas from unknown authors' books and tunes and melodies from unknown musicians. I've heard about it for many years, yet little I knew that I was going to become a victim for such intellectual/artistic theft myself. One lawyer told me that infringement of copyrights is a very common thing in USA, and that many artists and authors are left out without justice. The worst part for me was the realization that there was nothing I could do about it. Even though I have prepared the litigation case with proofs, Lawyers demanded astronomical amounts of money to run the case. I contacted the FBI, and I contacted the press, but for no avail. Now that I realized that I might never get compensation let alone respect for my ideas, the only thing I have left is the truth. Now I just want people to know the truth about the ugly face of the film industry. I thought profoundly about Salinger and 'The Catcher in the Rye' ever since my horrible discovery and the bitter taste that followed. Salinger took a vow of silence against the establishment because of such injustices. It is time for me to join him. One with Salinger I hereby vow in silence as an act of rebellion against Hollywood and against the apathetic establishment. I wish to thank all those who supported my struggle against Hollywood so far. Thank you. My advice to other authors: 'Don't ever send your books to Hollywood without an agent.

John Keats wrote two sonnets on fame

The first sonnet, however, was the only sonnet to catch my attention in regard to poets and fame. It reads as follows:


'Fame, like a wayward Girl, will still be coy
To those who woo her with too slavish knees,
But makes surrender to some thoughtless boy,
And dotes the more upon a heart at ease;
She is a Gipsey,—will not speak to those
Who have not learnt to be content without her;
A Jilt, whose ear was never whisper’d close,
Who thinks they scandal her who talk about her;
A very Gipsey is she, Nilus-born,
Sister-in-law to jealous Potiphar;
Ye love-sick Bards! repay her scorn for scorn;
Ye Artists lovelorn! madmen that ye are!
Make your best bow to her and bid adieu,
Then, if she likes it, she will follow you'

In reality, like myriads of other poets throughout history, even poets such as Jonathan Swift, Edgar Allan Poe and John Keats longed to be recognized as distinguished poets in their societies.

In literature I've come to think about characters such as 'Theodore' from 'The Monk' by Matthew Lewis and about 'David Mignot' from 'Roads of Destiny' by O. Henry.




How they suffered because of their mad desire to be famous. It made me wonder, is there any truth in Keats first sonnet? Is it really impossible for poets to reject fame? What is the source of poets' obsession with being famous? Some may call it a mission, others will describe it as a foolish delusion. Is fame just a vanity, or does she truly serve a purpose? Either way, the law of magnetism does not always play in favor of attraction and repulsion, a fact which renders Keats advice ineffective. I believe poetry is like a melody to sheep. The bard is equated with the shepherd. When the shepherd plays the flute in some cases the sheep follows him, in other cases they don't. The fact that the sheep do not follow the shepherd's melody does not necessarily mean that the sheep are wayward. I am myself a poet and I've been cured from the madness/disease of Fame (Vainglory), and yet I ask myself could it be that Fame for a poet is in fact a need rather than a want? The poet is a supreme individual and his poetry is in total obedience to individualism.

John Stuart Mill wrote in his book 'On Liberty'


'Persons of genius, it is true, are, and are always likely to be, a small minority; but in order to have them, it is necessary to preserve the soil in which they grow. Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom. Persons of genius are, ex vi termini, more individual than any other people--less capable, consequently, of fitting themselves, without hurtful compression, into any of the small number of moulds which society provides in order to save its members the trouble of forming their own character. If from timidity they consent to be forced into one of these moulds, and to let all that part of themselves which cannot expand under the pressure remain unexpanded, society will be little the better for their genius. If they are of a strong character, and break their fetters they become a mark for the society which has not succeeded in reducing them to common-place, to point at with solemn warning as "wild," "erratic," and the like; much as if one should complain of the Niagara river for not flowing smoothly between its banks like a Dutch canal.'

Hans Christian Andersen wrote a great deal of fairy tales critical of Danish society. However, 'The Fir Tree' was a brilliant story which appeals to all of humanity. True, not all of Andersen fairy-tales were brilliant in diction, and not all of Andersen's stories conveyed a great message. Some may describe the 'Fir Tree' as a pessimistic story, but such a description would be only a relevant reference to how the story was told, because when we delve into the depth of the story's message we realize that 'The Fir Tree is in fact a liberating story that can save lives of many people.
The symbolism here is remarkably effective, since the fir tree is equated with the individual in society, whereas the revelers of Christmas are the leaders of society. They dictate what is fun in life and bu thus they mislead the Fir tree to believe that Christmas is the highlight of its life. The birds, on the other, are trying to save the Fir Tree from such a misconception, because they know the ugly truth of his destiny has in store for it. Andersen here is analogous to the birds because he advocates for nature. The birds represent the free spirited the free thinking individuals who know the truth. At the same way the birds are trying to warn the for tree, Andersen attempts to warn the reader against the brainwash of society. As an example one should watch a film called the 4th of July where a young man in college is brainwashed to think that going to war is going to be the highlight of his life. The glorious moment in which he will find true happiness for serving his country. Now, if that soldier read Andersen's Fir Tree, he might have snapped out of the brainwash propaganda of patriotism. There is neither glory nor joy in war for a young man. At the same length there is neither glory nor joy for a yo fir tree in a Christmas party. Both the soldier and the fir tree only find death because they followed society's brainwash. Andersen message here is to remain loyal to nature and not to follow society blindly. Mankind, unlike nature only leads everything and everyone to death and destruction. The Fir tree could live longer if people did not celebrate Christmas. The young man in the film 4th of July (Tom cruise was the actor) could have had a wonderful happy life had he not followed the brainwash propaganda of his society to go to war. Vanity only lead to destruction and death, thus Andersen's call here is to rebel against vanity in general and against vainglory in particular. There is no glory in death for life is the real goal. Andersen's cry is to preserve life and to rebel against death. An additional message is to stop the madness of cutting trees. Thus Andersen also advocated for the environment here. It was sad story, yes, but it was as sad as it was true. Mankind destroys everything, the forests and the lives of many individuals. This story is subversive of death and destruction; subversive of mankind's madness. This story advocates for balance with nature, long life and salvation. No doubt a wake up call to question the norms and customs of society. Individualism is the attribution of equilibrium, particularly when one adheres to nature. The way of nature is pure and just, unlike the way of Man. Andersen in this story is like the birds, a true liberator. But will the Fir Tree ever fathom the message of the birds to enjoy the moment. Life is short and it should be enjoyed to the full. It is a waste of time to speculate over the future. One has to enjoy the moment. No doubt one of the greatest Carpe Diem stories I have ever read.
Must read for all free thinking individuals

It's been roughly one year since I've found out that someone in America has created a TV series based on many ideas, plots, and characters from my books 'The Adventures Catrine and the devil I+II'. This theft and infringement of my copyrights has sickened me and I sunk into a deep depression as result of it. However, I testify to the truth of the dictum 'What doesn't kill you make you stronger' as I now bounced. Even though I have had the litigation file months ago, it was only now that I could assemble the energy to publish it. I wish to thank my publishers and many thanks also to a wonderful author Simi Sunny who showed me kindness and solidarity ever since I've been hurt by this case.

Carpe Diem

I ’Sne’, en lille bog af digt samling af Viggo Stuckenberg fra 1919 fandt jeg ud af at der findes flere ord i det gammeldags danske sprog som man ikke bruges i vores dage. Især ordet Vaar (forår) som var et gentagende motiv i samlingen, fandt jeg fascinerende, fordi Våret var et symbol på digterens håb for et bedre liv på jorden. Samlingens første par digte begynder med beskrivelser af naturen gennem simple strofer pyntet med rim og rigdom i farver, sanser og naturens billeder.
Digteren virker naturalist som værdsætter naturens skønhed og følelsen af frihed. Jeg følte en vist harmoni i naturens små detaljer, ligesom en fugl der synger, regn over mosen, skoven, osv. dog følte jeg at der manglede noget mht. poetens idealer, meninger, og følelser og især personlighed. Men det kom efterhånden i små dråber. I ’Min Barndoms Have’ digteren er en typisk erindrer, der hvor udtrykker han i den sidste strofe en del melankoli:

’…og du tier- tyve Aar er rundet,
som en Fremmed fra din hæk jeg gaar,
hvad du gemte paa af mit er forsvundet,
-ak, og ældet som jeg selv nu staar’

Digteren svingende humør har noget med vejret at gøre; han er meget påvirket af vejret hele tiden som om han er Ens med naturen. Digteren er en følsom og blid person som beundrer naturens små mirakler. I starten forestillede jeg digteren som en slags meteorolog der beskriver vejrudsigten på en poetisk måde, men kun senere gik det op for mig at digteren var ligesom en fugl i naturen og i samfundet. I digtene ’Augustaften’ og ’Septemberaften’ føltes det som om poeten eksperimenterede med rim i midten af hver strofe, i stedet for sin sædvanlige rim stil mellem linjerne. I ’Septemberaften’ tredje strofe afsløres der igen poetens besættelse med foråret sæson (Vaar)

’Du lyse Efteraar,
guldstraalelnde, sølvsmykket
i Perlestrømme dykket,
du Vintrens gyldne Vaar’

I digtet ’Efteraar’, derudover, giver poeten udtryk for livets cirkel og naturens grænser, samt med dødens tungsindighed som en konklusion. Alt forsvinder til sidst, alt slutter sammen til døden hvor igen den følelse af melankoli lammer læseren. Den sidste to linjer i den anden strofe beskriver poetens følesans bedst:

’Der stod for min sjæl den Efteraarsaften
et eneste Billed- Døden’

Digteren dvæler paradoksalt i den metafysiske realisme selvom han er klar over naturens lov og rytme. Han elsker naturen og værdsætter den, men Døden og den tunge emotion af efterlivet, og den fanger hans bevidsthed engang imellem; en mulig minder at livet er faktisk en stor illusion og at vores eksistens er en mild udgave af Døden. Døden dukker op igen 2 gange i digtet ’December’ sammen med stærke ord som ’Mørket’ ’Vinternat’ og Himmel. Poetens stil var almindelig men det som jeg syntes var stærk i sine digte var beskrivelser af følelse gennem to ord som blev lagt sammen, ligesom to sammenlagt substantiver; i ord ligesom ’Vinternat’, og ’Efteraarskov’, men især når et substantiv blev lagt sammen med en adjektiv, ligesom i ordet ’Støvfin (Regn)’ osv. det var en opfriskende opfindelse syntes jeg gennem hele bogen; ren nydelse for mig at han brugte ord på den måde; højtudviklet og berigende intellektuelt. I den sidste strofe i ’December’ afbilder digteren sit forhold til døden hvor han springer over en rim. Det var en fornøjelse med fem linjer strofer som er uafhængig af firkantet rim, fantastisk:

’Jeg sidder hvileløs og stirrer ud
i dette Mulm, som stakket fjæler over
al Livets Kvide, al dets Lykkeøden,-
og mindes en med Tro paa Livets Gud,
Men med en sjæl bedrøvet indtil Døden’

Ordet ’Mulm’ brugte digteren flere gange i sin digtsamling; det fortolker jeg som et symbol på sit sjæls tungsindighed. Jeg synes at han beskriver det bedst i de sidste to linjer af digtet, fordi uanset hvor meget håb Man har, og hvor meget Man tror på ’Livets Gud’ som han kalder det, Man kan ikke undgå døden, og depression derfor er uundgåeligt i hans tilfælde. I ’Ensom Vaar’ begynder poeten at indrømme årsagen til hans tunge depressioner; ensomhed. Selvom ordspillet bliver mere intenst, og rimene har en firkantet struktur i fire linjer strofer, kan læseren bemærke at digteren er glad for livet selvom han lider af depressioner og spekulerer tit over døden. Trods alt er livet smukt, livet er en gave, derfor poeten er en ’Carpe Diem’ poet som tror på at man skal nyde livet selvom livet er tit ’Mulm’. Jeg synes den sidste strofe af digtet siger det bedst:

’ser, hvor livet er stort og rigt
ved, at det halve deraf er Digt
glædes ved Digtet og lytter dertil
og tager den Part, som din Skæbne vil.’

Digteren er begejstr over for sin spirituelle gave; det er jo an ære at være en digter; han beslutter sig derfor at omfavner sit skæbne og at opfylde sin rolle i livet. Jeg lagde mærke til at poeten dog bruger mest se og hørelse sanser. Selvom han beskriver planter og træer og regn osv. der findes næsten ikke noget beskrivelse af duft sans; eller han beskriver nat og mulm og sne og vinter man han fryser ikke og han nævner ikke kulden, det syntes jeg var lidt udsædvenligt i hans digte. Det er som om han er immun over for kulden og mangler duft sansen. Derudover, der er næsten ikke noget kontakt eller håndgribelighed med andre eller med naturen eller med døden. Det er som om digteren er en observatør eller et spøgelse. Jeg spekulerede over det at han holdt en vist afstand til næsten alt. I digtet ’Mismod’ ku’ jeg virkelig godt li’ den femte strofe:

’Jeg gik saa langt og længe
at se, hvor Solens Skin
stod over Sommerenge
som solen i mit Sind.’

Poeten mangler ikke noget glæde, tværtimod, fordi hans glæde er ligesom en kilde for varmen, ligesom solen, og han vandrer i livet i søgen efter lyset; han er faktisk selv lyset i livets nat og i samfundets mørke. Fantastisk. Poeten har en længsel for at vise glæden til andre men han mangler mod til at gøre det. I digtet ’Det Hvide Hus’ dukker ensomheden op igen, årsagen til digterens tungsindige og depression ramt sjæl. Se femte strofe:

’alene med dit Navn i Sjælen gemt,
du tavse Flygtning fra den stor Stimmel,
du ensomhedens skræmte, syge Barn
med Sindet blegt som Vinteraftens Himmel;

Her digteren endelig definerer sig selv som hvad han sandelig er: en kultur og samfund flygtning. Vi ved at han holder meget af livet og at han er evigglad for livet, derfor kan han ikke være et ’liv flygtning’ Personligt synes jeg at det er fremragende at poeten tør at sige det højt og være kritisk over for Denmark, især i digtet ’Skolesange’. Derudover, I digtet ’Angst’ i første strofe skriver poeten:

’Der sidder paa min Læbe, hvor jeg stedes,
et Ord i Stodderdragt, et ord i Pjalter,
et Ord, som hungrer, naar jeg dybest glædes,
en sjælsyg Flygtning fra et mulmskjult Alter’

Her digteren er mere specifik i sin beskrivelse af at være en flygtning. Som læseren spekulerede jeg især om udtrykket ’mulmskjult Alter’. Hvad mente han med det? spurgte jeg mig selv i et styk tid indtil jeg fandt svaret i digtet ’Skolesange’ 58 sider senere, se afsnit III, fjer strofe hvor han skriver:

’Det er nok en Del at sige,
om du kender Kain
og det Strøg af Jorderige,
som faar hyppigst Regn.
Bedre er det, om du nemmer
det, som Kain i Sindet gemmer;
alt det Liv, en Draabe føder,
når en byge bløder’

Kain har myrdet sin bror Abel ud af jalousi og had. Dvs. Kain har ofret sin bror Abel i Satans Alter, ikke i Guds Alter, som matcher perfekt poetens udtryk ’mulmskjult Alter’. Kain har myrdet sin bror i skjult og begravet ham i skjult underjorden, hvor Abels blod skreg højt til Gud i himlen. I digtet regner det med blod til sidst. Men her er spørgsmålet: Hvad er den Jordrige som får hyppigst regn? Det hellige land kan ikke matche beskrivelsen fordi det regner ikke tit i Israel. Digteren insinuerer at han er ligesom Abel, og at han løbe væk fra Denmark (Kains ånd= mord og jalousi) Det danske samfund er den mulmskjult Alter, hvor poeten er ofret som løber væk som en flygtning. Han løber for livet. Han finder glæde (refugium) i naturen og i isolation, væk fra det danske folk. Digteren er en troende man, han tror på Gud, og nævner Gud flere gange i sine digte, men pudsigt og paradoksalt nok, og jeg synes at det er fantastisk at digteren er ikke religiøs. Det viser sig at man kan være en skeptisk troende, eller bare at tro på Gud uden at være religiøs. I digtet ’Retfærdighed’ viser digteren sin skepticisme gennem et fundamentalt spørgsmål ’Hvad er Retfærdighed?’ Digteren kalder på Gud i himlen som en trøst i sin hjælpeløse nød. Men han spøger sig selv indirekte i en anden digt senere ’Mon findes der en Gud?’. Jeg deler den samme holdning med digteren, fordi ingen kan bevise om Gud findes eller ej. Det handler om tro. Digteren skæbne, ensomheden, dukker op igen i digtet ’Ensom’ hvor natten og vejret spiller igen en rolle med gentagende tungt humør i spidsen. I anden strofe skriver han:

’Mit sind er sygt af Leg med Ord og Drømme,
led af at lefle med et Hjærtes Kval,
jeg længes ud, hvor alle Kilder strømme
med Ungdomsmodet, som min Tungsind stjal.’

Sikken en melankolsk strofe. Mht. grammatik var jeg sikkert at digteren har lavet et fejl da han skrev Hjerte med Æ men i andre digte ligesom i ’Skoven’ skrev han Hjerte som Hjærte, dvs. at sådan skrev de dengang mange ord som i dag betragtes som grammatik fejl på Dansk. Mht. digteren vandring i naturen og følelse af at være en flygtning, minder han mig om de gamle hellige mænd fra biblens tid som søgte altid refugium væk fra samfundet. Personligt ved jeg det selv at ensomheden kan føre til vanvid hvis man ikke rigtig passe på (fordi den er en træng), men det virker som om digteren i dette tilfælde blev opslugt ind i et dyb depression man alligevel lykkedes det ham at kommer op igen til overfladen og at overleve vanvittighed. Det er ret imponerende synes jeg. Han erklærer tit at sit sjæl er syg og tung men der er mange tegn på som viser at poeten har en fantastisk stærk vilje og frihed til at flyver væk fra menneskerne når han vil. I virkeligheden sit sjæl er gennemsundt og han er mere fornuftig end han er deprimeret eller vanvittig. I digtet ’Stjerner’ var jeg vild med ordspillet i den første strofe:

’De fine Elmekroner
sig imod Himlen tegner
som sorte silkedoner
hvor fangne Stjerner blegner.

Det rimer og det giver et håb og et billede af liv og udvikling. Håbet er at der kommer frelsen som et sollys gennem mørket eller som en blomstring i et tavs ensom verden. I den sidste strofe af samme digt nævner han ordet ’Jammer’ igen, et ord som gentager sig tit fordi poeten er trods alt en som elsker at jamre ligesom en ulv eller at synge ligesom en fugl. Digteren synger fra afstand eller jamrer fra afstand, som om han lever i en parallel univers uden påvirkning eller fysisk kontakt med menneskernes verden. Status hvor en poet er en slags hellig mand eller profet, en slags guddommelig budskabsbringer som prædikere for et bedre liv og for en bedre verden. De sidste to strofer i digtet ’Frederiksborg’ beviser at poeten er ligesom livet selv, han bryder stilheden og skaber liv eller florerer trods døden omkring sig. Han besøger et slot, men over slottet findes der stjerner. Han skriver:

’Og der var tyst og svalt
i Slottets dybe Sale,
alt, hvad jeg saa, stod malt
som Dug i fjerne Dale,

som naar i gyldent Tog
ved Nat de stjerner spille
og taler livets sprog
trods alt er tavst og stille.’

Jeg synes at digteren valgte rim over et grammatisk fejl; det en ulempe når man skriver i rim; her spille burde stå som spiller fordi stjernerne taler i nuet og ikke ’tale’ generelt. Men undtagen det syntes jeg at budskaber var glimrende og positiv. I digtet ’Ingeborg’, hvor digteren er forelsket i en smuk mø, blev jeg taget af den tredje strofe især (Sektion I) hvor han skriver:

’Underlig er Lykken-
tit en sol, der bygger
Flammerbro fra Himlen
ned blandt Jordens Skygger’

Sandt at når man er forelsket oplever man lykken så stærk som solens flammer og alt glimmer fordi kærlighed er livets kilde og lykkelighedens kilde. Strofen lyder rigtig fantastisk når man udtaler linjerne i en dyb stemme. Der føles tungt og melankolsk i rytmen men i meningen føles det let og opløftende. Beskrivelsen af mennesker som Jordens skygger er simpelthen genial og fuldstændig korrekt. I sektion II af samme digt, tredje strofe skriver poeten:

’og al min Sjæl gaar frem mod din
saa ung og lys som Livets Gud
og spinder om dig solens Lin
og stryger evig Natten ud’

Digteren maler en skøn mø som han er tiltrukket til. Hun varmer hans hjerte og giver ham mod og lykke. Når møen ’stryger evig natten ud’ tænker jeg på kærlighed som sollys igen, men udtrykket ’Solens Lin’ dvs. solens lærd betyder det faktisk at maleren er solens kilde som han spinder omkring møen Ingeborg, fordi hun tænder ham. Dvs. det er faktisk ham som lyser over hende og omfavner hende med lys. Hun er et smukt objekt at male men hun mangler liv, dog når hun tænder ham med sin skønhed (ligesom naturen) så blomstrer digteren/maleren/kunstneren simpelthen. I sektion III anden strofe af samme digt skriver han:

’Hvorfor er vi Mennesker usle,
hvorfor er vi mænd saa smaa,
hvorfor må alle de svigte
som jeg trode saa inderligt paa?’

Her smelter digteren pga. kærlighed til den smuk kvinde han maler og han føler sig svigtet. Han indrømmer Mænds svaghed til kvinder, fordi mænd falder for kvinder gennem lyst og begær. Mænd er smaa i forhold til kvinder fordi det er kvinder der skaber mænd, ligesom Gud (Livets Gud) I fjer og femte strofer af den samme sektion skriver poeten videre:

’Og jeg ser i dine Øjne en Jammer
saa dyb som Livsens Forlis,
og jeg ser i dit Øje en stolthed,
hvid som Snefjældes Is.

Jeg ser i dit Øje dit Hjærte
stirre mod de højeste Bjærge,
og jeg glemmer de hule Dale
og alle de krybende Dværge.’

Dvs. at kvinden måske befinder sig også i den samme mentale tilstand som digteren, hvor hun er deprimeret og har brug for en der kan opløfte hende fra de hule dale. Poeten betragter hendes stolthed som kold is, hvid som sne, men der er håb i den femte strofe hvor hendes fokus er imod de højeste bjærge, imod den spirituelle verden, imod den metafysiske dimension, hvor poeten ofte dvæler, som om livet på jorden er en kilde for en depression, hvor den rigtige glæde kan findes deroppe i den uopnåelige dimension over bjærgerne. Igen tænkte jeg på poeten som en fugl, fordi han lever i fuglenes bevidsthed af guddommelig frihed og pragtfulde højder. Det er trods alt en gensidig gavn, altså kærlighed mellem mand og kvinde hvor begge to opløfter hinanden og helliggøre hinanden og tilfredsgøre hinanden, så længe kærlighedens flamme brænder eller tændt. I den allersidste strofe af digtet skriver han:

’Lykken mellem to Mennesker
er som den dunkle Nat
stille, men med de tusinde,
tavse Stjerner besat’

Det undrer mig lidt at digteren ikke har brugt ordet kærlighed i bogen, det føltes som om det var en tabu eller måske syntes han at det vil være en kliche at brug sådan et stærkt ord. Ingeborg er jo en kvinde så det undrer mig at han siger ’Lykken mellem to menneske’ i stedet for at sige ’kærlighed mellem en Mand og en kvinde’ dvs. han generaliserer i stedet for at være personlig; igen holder han afstand fra sine sande følelser, måske er han stolt som sne eller befinder sig i en benægtelse, det er jo lidt synd for en poet synes jeg. I digtet ’Smaavers’ i Sektion VI eneste strofe skriver han noget som kunne forklare sin holdning til hvad man må eller ikke må giv udtryk for i det danske samfund:

’Om nogen spørger dig:
Er du lykkelig?
- da svar ham ikke.
Svarer du ja, praler du,
svarer du nej, maa du væmmes!
Lykke- Ulykke—
Tag din Skæbne,
den er dig selv,
din velje,
dit Hjærte,
din Sjæl.
Gennem hvad du enved,
alene din Lykke bestemmes.’

Jeg kunne forestille mig at Denmark i poetens tid var ikke særlig anderledes mht. hvad man må sige højt eller ej, men det som jeg synes fantastisk er at uanset hvad andre tænker eller synes, det er poetens valg at acceptere sin skæbne uanset. Han omfavner livet og det er et faktum at han har skrevet digte. Ja, han føler at han er en flygtning i samfundet fordi han er en fri fugl i sjælen, men alligevel, han giver ikke op fordi naturen er hans vejleder, ikke samfundet. Mennesker fejler i balancen, men naturen er perfekt i balancen, ligesom skæbnen. Karmaloven er stærkere end samfundets normer, trods alt. I digtet ’Smaaverse’ sektion I anden strofe bruger digteren endelig duft sansen hvor han sanser bl.a. regn, muld, sol og regn; duft som hjælper ham at finder fred, hvor den sidste linje af strofen er:

’At vinde for din Sjæl lidt Fred’

’Smaaverse’ er et af Stuckenberg stærkeste digte. Den første strofe i sektion IV har fanget straks min opmærksomhed:

Een ting maa man kunne:
løfte sine drømme
højt over Livets
lede Mudderstrømme, ’

Ikke kun rytmen og strukturen var fine men især budskabet og tonen. Derudover de to første linjer i sektion IX beskriver hvad mange digtere oplever når de har en depression:

’Undertiden gaar ens Liv i Staa
intet lykkes.... Natten falder paa’

Den gentagende følelse af hjælpeløshed og fortvivlelse som mange manic depressive poeter oplever, minder læseren at Stuckenberg ikke er en undtagelse til de typiske tungsindige begavede poeter som bliver tit overset fordi samfundet fejler at forstår deres guddommelige budskaber. I sektion VIII bliver læseren mistænksom at digteren måske er ikke kun en meteorolog men også en ornitolog. Her fortæller digteren om Lærken der synger og Gøgen der kukker og om nattergalen og Stæren. Under hele bogen nævner Stuckenberg forskellige arter af fugle, der er også krager og duer og svaler og Fink og drossel, men min yndlings fugl i Denmark nævner han slet ikke. Det undrer mig at han ikke nævner solsort overhoved, fordi de findes over det hele i Denmark og deres sange er mærkværdige. Stuckenberg dog lever i den samme bevidsthed som fugle, han synger og jamrer og bringer budskaber som en frelser især i Vaar hvor alt i naturen begynder at spire. Jeg føler med ham og jeg holder med den samme tankegang både som læser og som en digter. Digterens eskapisme er fuldstændigt forståeligt og som han beskriver i første strofe af sektion II:

’Omkring på alle Veje
gaar Mennesker og skændes;
at Jorden er beboet
paa Kævlets Klapren kendes, ’


Stuckenberg er kritisk over folks vanvittig og voldelig instinkt. Menneskerne er ikke kun usle og stakler ifølge digteren men de er også modbydelige, væmmelige, territorielle, og urationelle. Stuckenberg er kritisk over samfundet generelt. Han er imod krig, vold og skænderier. Han er hverken national eller territoriel, fordi han er ligesom en fri fugl hvis største budskab er at elske livet og at nyde fred og harmoni på jorden. Vi er her på jorden kun som gæster, vi ejer ingen ting og vi kan ikke tage noget med os til døden. I den sidste strofe af sektion XII skriver han derudover:

’Stjerner over Jorden sat,
den, som kan af arme stunder
skabe sig et Blomsterunder,
den, hvis Vaardrøm aldrig svigter
- den, som digter’

En klar besked at poeter har et evigt forår drøm som aldrig svigter. Igen, digterens håb overvinder alt og over de negative. Stuckenbergs positivitet er større end sin negativitet trods alt. At være en digter er en stor ære, det er en guddommeligt kald som kun digtere kan forstå. Det var simpelthen en glimrende og genial en åbenbaring. I digtet ’Bekendelse’ sektion IV var jeg betaget af anden og fjer strofer. I anden strofe skriver digteren:

’Ja- om jeg vidste blot bestemt,
hvad der var svamp og hvad en Rose;
alt, hvad der i min sjæl er gemt,
har lejret sig som Muld i Mose’

Ikke fordi han ikke kan skelne mellem hvad det er god og hvad det er ond, men det han siger, er, at han har lært at acceptere sig selv helt, med både godt og ondt. Ingen er fuldkommen, men det kræver styrke og vilje at acceptere både Yin og Yang ind i ens selv. I den fjer strofe skriver han:

’Og da staar Rose, Svamp i Flor
og jeg kan se det onde, gode,
se Svamp, hvor Roser stod i Fjor,
se Roser der, hvor Svampe grode. ’

Dvs. at naturen skifter hele tiden og den onde og de gode skifter roller tit, ligesom digterens humør, hvor nogle dage har han det skidt hvorimod i andre dage har han det fantastisk. Onde og gode findes og de skifter pladser, og digteren er klar over at de er lige vigtige i deres roller både i naturen og i et menneskes sjæl. I sektion VI fjer strofe betragter digteren livet igen som en gave. Han skriver:

’Og hver en Stjerne er et Smil,
et bittert Smil
et Smil i Fryd
et Suk, en Sejr, en Klagelyd,
en Drøm, en Graad i Nøden.
Hver Haan, hver Spot, hvert lystigt Haab,
hvert sorgfuldt Raab,
mit Liv i evig Gløden’

Igen beviser digteren sit universelle kærlighed for alt. Mennesker er ligesom stjerner, alle arter i naturen er ligesom stjerner, digteren adopterer accept af alle og alt ligesom naturen, ligesom universet. Ligesom i et bryllup hvor skæbnen er hans brud, han siger ja til at tage imod hende både i nød og lykke tider osv. Hans kærlighed for livet er overvældende. I den første strofe af sektion VII insinuerer digteren at Gud findes i os alle sammen. Han skriver:

’Jeg tror paa, at der findes
En Gud etsteds- i dig, i mig,
maaske bag Stjernerne, maaske
i Støvet paa hver Alfarvej, ’

Digteren er både skeptisk og troende, en paradoks som minder læseren at i naturen findes der både god og ond uden konflikter. Skænderier er et valg truffet af fortabte mennesker, men når Man finder sandheden at der findes en balance mellem tro og skepticisme eller en balance mellem gode og onde, så finder Man også fred ind i sig selv. Men Gud er ikke perfekt ifølge digteren. Faktum er at digteren kritiserer Gud, ligesom i den niende strofe af den samme sektion:

’en Gud, som ikke skænker
den mindste Hjælp dig i din Nød,
men vil, at du skal bøde selv,
hvad selv du i din færd forbrød, ’

Det føles som en typisk bitter kritik over en Gud som ikke hjælper en når en har brug for en guddommeligt intervention, men dog digteren forsvarer Gud i de sidste to linjer hvor han holder med det bibelske diktum at Man høster det Man planter osv. Der er en stor forventning af Gud men vi alle har fri vilje til at skabe/forme vores skæbne. Budskabet er at vi skal være taknemlige at vi har et valg mulighed, altså at vælge mellem at være god eller ond. Det sidste digt i bogen ’Sne’ begynder med linjen:

’Hvide Jord, tavse Sne!’

Et stærkt billede af digterens sind tilstand. Der sker meget i digtet, en slags tumult mellem Fryd og Ve; en evige kamp uden en rigtig vinder. Sådan er et menneskets Paradox i livet. Man oplever både glæde og sorg i livet. Intet menneske kan undgå det. Digteren dog giver læseren håb men minder læseren også meget om fortvivlelse hvis symbol er sne. Han slutter digtet og bogen med en fantastisk strofe hvor ensomhed og tidløshed reflekterer liv trods alt:

’Ensomhedens Vinterfred,
hvor paa Nattens høje Himmel
Stunderne, der stille led
funkler frem som Stjernevrimmel’


Det var mig en fornøjelse at læse og analysere bogen ’Sne’. ’Sne’ er varmt anbefalet selvom den har allerede smeltet.

The second part of Rousseau’s discourse was getting more interesting, and more to the point. I tend to agree with Rousseau on the advantage of order through the enforcement of territorial law, as it would be a total chaos if there was no order and no borders. Paradoxically, an utopist society without order would not survive. The establishment of nations was inevitable, yet necessary. However conflicts came out of such order and struggle for water and food supplies implemented the Jungle law rule of natural selection, which is also a part of natural law. But what happened after Man has settled in such an order? Being a top predator with no more prey to feed upon, now Man turned against his own kind! Just like the snakes on Guam Island; after wiping out all the birds’ population. They had no more food so they turned on each other. The same gruesome act of cannibalism now takes place in a modern human society where the upper class feeds on the lower class, metaphorically speaking. The upper class drains the lower class from money and feeds on its misery. The same pattern of predatory opportunism on Guam Island is displayed in modern human society, with no intention to cancel the social class. However, if there was no introduction of snakes on Guam Island by humans in the first place, the population of birds would have survived, thereupon silence would have never usurped birdsongs or destroyed the biodiversity of the island. At the same length, if elitism was not introduced in a human society by its leaders and adherents of vanity, then peace and equality could have survived. We, humans have free will to become the species we wish to be in the spiritual realm. A person who adheres to equality and fairness is equal to a songbird on Guam Island. But any person who chooses to follow Elitism (Vanity and its jungle law) is equal to a snake on Guam Island. Anyone who worships Mammon is a Vanity (inequality) devotee, and by that worship such a person would commit crimes against other people with neither hesitation nor scruples. A man has a choice whether to become a tree snake or a songbird. It is a personal individual choice that has got nothing to do with being civilized or savage. Opting inequality, furthermore, renders one a reptilian in adverse to a mammalian (equality follower). One can be either a wolf or a sheep but not both. The diversity of human nature is subjected to individual faith. The superiority of Man over the animals and nature is insufficient. It is by faith and deeds alone that Man can redeem himself. ‘Acta, non verba’. However, the order of Man, in predominance, is based on power and madness (inequality). The social rank within man is paradoxically an unnatural selection, because it is a decision that sprung out of free will. The animal is subjected to instincts, but Man is ought to be subjected to intellect. The social stratum and the hierarchy which rewards the strong elite with honey, does also in a systemic way, inject the weak underclass with poison. The elite mafia gets the honey whereas the unfortunate lower class gets the stings and venom. But the new society which Rousseau compares to early Man is not a novelty. People depends on each other, will the solution then be to live recluse? Man has the ability to reform society, but what he lacks is the will to do so. Rousseau is right that many slaves have settles with slavery, just as many contemporary ‘survivalists’ settle down with systems that oppress and exploit them. True, conveniences and luxuries corrupt the human heart and degenerate needs into wants. I’d say necessities transmute into wants, Aye, vanity usurps justice. The illustration of a primitive man hunting for survival or hunting for profit is analogous to modern man who kills out of self defense or for his mother land, which are two opposites. True, the vanity with the establishment of nations does have a bigger impact. The social class; where a man loses his true identity, thus becoming something else is due to conformism alone. Man has the free will to maintain his own identity, but the cost will be exile. Non conformism to modern human society means maintenance of one’s humanity. Anyone who adapts to modern human society, who accepts the jungle law, loses his humanity and become a predatory beast. Conformism to inequality comes with the cost of morality and humanism. The love of material comfort turned many people traitors of humanity and traitors of their own identity. All jungle law conformists live in self denial, pretence, jealousy, hatred, terror and rage. The rabbles massive and intensive hatred of the individual who remains loyal to nature is no longer a mystery. The reptiles despise the song of the nightingale. They looked at the nightingale from a different perspective. They wish to devour it alive, and its song means nothing to them. It is the same with any individual nowadays, who submit himself before society with his spiritual talent or art. The blitz of hatred towards a peace loving individual is based on jealousy rooted deep within inequality. Anyone who chose inequality chose also jealousy, rage, and hatred of other individuals, because the jungle law is based on divisionism and competition, alienation and antagonism. The elite society flourishes on the bloody principle of ‘Canis Canem Edit’. Dog eats dog, means also every wolf for itself, and it is the same order of power as of a pack of wolves. Rousseau’s description of the new society where people strive to excel in various fields also means to outsmart others for the sake of self esteem. It is no longer a matter of survival, for now it is mostly a matter of prestige, which is the quintessence of vanity. In the modern elite society, the strongest, the richest, the smartest, the prettiest, all serve Mammon and Vanity. The urge to excel in an elite society has a very base and predatory motive: to be served by others, to rule over others, and to be valued more than others. This is inequality in its prime. A man is no longer trifled by the need to find food, now the need to gain public esteem is far more important. Rousseau calls them first steps into inequality, like demons that hatched after being cocooned within Man since the days of early civilization. People value one another by vanities and hidden social war titles. The elite whom had sprouted out of the manure inequality have adopted the jungle law as the absolute law of man. Folks respect and disrespect one another by the vanities and standards of the jungle law. ‘Canis Canem Edit’ and ‘The survival of the fittest’ justify wars and atrocities within society, and even the judiciary, whose role is to be fair and just, or in the least neutral, is polluted by power and inequality. But vanities are lies; they are merely the illusions of power and order. The adaptation to Vanity (inequality) means the loss of innocence, the loss of happiness, and the loss of life in the spirit. Social rank, money, and material comfort are the goals of the wolf. Settlement in the new system/order of things means forfeiting ones humanity and moral virtue. It means dying while suffocating. But the real value of a Man cannot be determined by society. One’s stigma and reputation in society is null and void. The social class is obsolete. The divergence from the state of nature is within the test of equality. ‘Natural compassion’ as Rousseau calls it, is a divine virtue not a natural virtue. Compassion is a choice not a natural trait. The choice whether to be kind or unkind is subjected to the diversity of Man’s nature. The same it is with the choice between savagery and civilization; equality and inequality, etc. Hence, one chooses his virtues and vices out of faith or despair. Primitivism and its jungle is also a choice. Rousseau is somewhat myopic in his views of Man. Rousseau is an anarchist, an utopist and an escapists, yet not a disillusioned realist. There is no connection between social evolution and the nature of Man, for the only indication of inequality is in the nature of Man, followed by free will. The fruit of knowledge is both good and evil. A man remains what he has always been from the beginning of time: good and evil. Man chooses which absolute law (good or evil) dominates his heart. No one can be absolute good or absolute evil; however, paradoxically there is no equilibrium between good and evil. The scales of justice are bound to fall one way or the other. Either equality usurps inequality or vice versa, but a man cannot remain neutral, for the zero does not really exist. My fundamental dissension from Rousseau’s views in principle has to do with the fact that Rousseau is not even familiar with the rule of law. Rousseau sticks to dogmatic phrases such as ‘Where there is no property, there can be no injury’. It is true that many wars and conflicts rise because of property. However, such a pathetic dictum is untrue and baseless when we observe the world today. Man will fight each other for the pettiest of vanities such as religion, political views, national identity, culture, language, faith, background etc. Man will fight each other even just for the sake of fighting. The injury/mischief in Man because of property is only one of the many pretexts to wage wars and engage in conflicts. ‘Si vis pacem para bellum’ justifies wars even on the grounds of suspicions and mistrust. Hate crimes and racism, which are so rife nowadays, have nothing to do with property. The natural order of things is a relative term, for inequality has always existed within Man. It also dwells within the animals, yet we humans have the faculty and intelligence to break the jungle law, overcome vanity and replace power and inequality with fairness and equality. The massacre of sharks in the oceans these days shows that a primitive man is worse than a civilized man. A fact which contradicts Rousseau’s view of Man in a state of nature; hence a savage man in no better than a civilized man in that respect. Man’s devastation and insatiable appetite for destruction is inevitable, unless Man choose to rebel against the jungle law. Rousseau’s discourse made me ashamed of our species. Man outsmarts himself for the sake of inequality and social rank, yet by thus Man renders himself morally retarded. Just like in nature when the strong devours the weak, so it is in a human society when the rich has no interest to intervene in the sufferings of the poor, but in fact the rich thrives on the calamity and misery of the poor. The loss of the lower class is the gain of the upper class. Rousseau betrays his intellect when he quotes ‘Cui ex honesto nulla est spes’, because by thus he recites the jungle law to make a point that any man who dwells on moral virtues is hopeless and lost. The game of Man is power, and anyone who doesn’t participate in that game forfeits and lose. I totally disagree, for the truth is quite the opposite. In my view, anyone who plays the game of power; hence anyone who abides by the jungle law is a loser pertaining divine law. Moral virtue is above physical survival, not vice versa, for we were born for a reason, not out of random. Rousseau’s adherence to the jungle law and inclination towards pessimism are not serving his argument well. The vices of civilization are neither better nor worse than the vices of a savage society. Any observant of society would agree that the transformation due to socials changes and the invasion of vanities are injurious to mankind. Needs turned into wants, the loss of the true self, one becoming something else than what he naturally is or was, are facts. The pressure of the social class makes no exceptions in society, unless one is lucky to be accepted for what one truly is and without distortion. The elite in power postulates the requirements for success or fiasco, not nature itself. The abuse of power and all the harm involved in the madness of the social stratum are due to the choice of Man in the absolute law of vanity. The jungle law is the negative polarity of natural law. Harm to others became sport, and many crimes are committed in the name of Mammon and for the sake of Vanity (power and inequality). The success in money, or in fortune and glory, is the goal of the alpha predator. Opportunism enables everyone to join the dream of elitism. Rousseau mentions secret jealousy. Thus, he is aware of the monstrosity of Man. Man’s predatory right to harm and injure others in society does not align with natural law. There is a difference between hunting for survival (legitimate subsistence, natural) and hunting for sport (vain pride) or hunting for profit (money). People became enemies of each other because of their dependence of one another. The social class’ power games give birth to endless of conflicts. Who has the right to do what, say what, or think what, in accordance with power and social rank? The elite and the rabbles of inequality dictate the norms, not the individual. The individual is like a man on raft in the great ocean, trying not to drown, dreaming to find an island wherein to settle down. The currents of sea determine his fate, for no matter how hard he struggles to survive and stay afloat; the great sea makes the ultimate call whether he should live or die. I agreed with Rousseau that the secret desire of thriving on the expense of others exist; only that it is not a secret anymore. Nowadays, any jungle law nitwit declares it shamelessly in the open that he wants to be rich, or famous, or powerful, and all kinds of vanities. Tragically it has become the norm to strive towards predatory opportunism. Nowadays any bank manger robbing his own bank is a social hero. Any shrewd businessman who manages to cheat for money and get away with it, is a hero of the masses. The masses dream to be that rich man who cheated and outsmarted everyone and the system, and now he lives idle on a remote exotic island, served like a king. The multitudes dream about elitism. Society demands justice when the police catch a petty bank robber in the act. But the bank manager who robbed society for much more money, got away with it by means of manipulations. The bank manager is above the law, and even though he is a criminal on a larger scale of the same crime he gains the sympathy of society, because Mammon is everything, and the social rank make the distinction whether you are a villain or a hero. Thus, inequality benefits its lawmakers, administrators and executives, but it punishes its rebels. Rousseau’s quote:

Attonitus novitate mali, divesque miserque, Effugere optat opes; et quæ modo voverat odit.

Roughly translated as:

Astounded by this new evil, both the poor and the rich would fly from wealth, hating what they had once prayed to possess.

So, if inequality is a never ending nightmare, why would people pursue and worship inequality? Rousseau means that there is no safety in either riches or poverty, but such a generalization is wrong, because there are in fact rich men, no matter how few, whom do not abide by the jungle law. At the same length there are in fact, more than few poor people who rebel against the jungle law. The dire situation itself is merely an illusion, because a man can find peace within himself no matter what. Man can be either poor or rich and yet find serenity. Subsistence is unfortunate due to existence. But the struggle for survival can be subdued and reformed; it can be even eliminated if Man wishes it to happen, but it requires a moral intervention. The elite order of Man makes people either fortunate or unfortunate by the standards of society (vanity) not by the standards of nature. The creation of the social class is the cause of such madness and the source of many atrocities. Societies are not evil by nature, but they become evil when they establish themselves on the quicksand of Vanity. Societies become evil when they establish a social class based on power and inequality. The homeless’ industry exists in both civilized and savage societies. Civilized societies are dishonest because they hide the homeless’ industry and deny it, whereas savage societies are honest about it. The crowds mock the homeless in a savage society, whereas the homeless is ignored in a civilized society. The elitist in a civilized society tells the homeless in secret ‘You don’t exist, because we are a civilized society’. The elite, furthermore safeguards itself, as it values itself higher and more than all others. The law maker is above the law, and above other people; it is a tragic fact today. When a homeless man is kicked and/or beaten up by the mob, there are no consequences, because his social rank justifies violence against him. According to the jungle law the weak should be crushed systematically and without mercy. But when a politician is verbally attacked, i.e. criticized, the critic risks jail, fines, and surveillance, etc. all in accordance with the politician’s degree of despotism. On a personal level I disagree with Rousseau. Despite all of the unfortunate occasions to which I have been subjected myself, I do, in fact take pleasure in my poverty. I have broken down the pillars of vanities; which are shame and pride, regarding my social class, and I have embraced my poverty. And if I was rich I would have surely embraced my riches, because regardless of Mammon I have pledged my heart to equality. My happiness has got nothing to do with money, power or popularity, because I don’t believe in the social class. I denounce and reject the social class for I believe in fairness and equality. In fact, I have rebelled against vanity, and by thus found happiness. Rousseau is wrong in his statement because it is a matter of faith; aye a matter of principle, not a matter of circumstances. If you believe in power and inequality then Rousseau is right, but if you believe in fairness and equality then Rousseau is wrong. Those who dream the reptilian dreams of the elite are in no safety because anyone who lives by the sword will die by the sword. It is the Alfa law. Thus, either one is with equality or not. Frankly I was growing weary of Rousseau’s negativity and pessimism in this discourse. Man can find tranquility and peace of mind even in the worst of all circumstances. At the same length, those who choose to follow the jungle law often find worries and inner wars and conflicts even in the best of all circumstances. Why would a poor man rejoice? Because despite his poverty he found elation in the love of life itself. Why would a rich man hang himself? Because he lost money and money means to him more than life itself. Equilibrium is a matter of choice not a matter of circumstances. Rousseau quotes:

‘Miserrimam servitutem pacem appellant’

Which means roughly: The most miserable (the oppressed) calls slavery peace

What a tyrant thing to say. When a man is under duress, or under social pressure, or under the threats of death, has no free will and no freedom of expression. For such a man is bound by the ultimatum of either ‘Gadium’ or ‘Gladium’, i.e.: either by joy or the sword. When a man is divested of human rights and natural freedoms, such as freedom of consciousness and freedom of speech, surely anything he says is untrue. Only a really tyrant will assume that people are happy in slavery. Yes, maybe they are not aware of their slavery because they have never tasted freedom, but it doesn’t mean that they are happy in a state of slavery. Nevertheless, I agree with Rousseau that the sovereign should not be above the law. And I agree that the sovereign should be toppled down when he betrays justice. Rousseau does not mention the rule of law, but we share the same view here that the lawgiver should not be allowed to break the law or safeguard himself from the law in any improper/indecent way. Rousseau’s criticism of corruption within the sovereign is pretty much relevant to contemporary politicians since they promote their own private interests and selfish ambitions above the good of the public. Politicians break the balance of nature because they follow their animal instincts. The betrayal begins with the love of power and inequality. Selfishness as a predatory opportunist takes over the heart and mind of the sovereign. Many politicians sell the earth for money and by thus betray the constitution which they have solemnly vowed to protect. The first traitor is the legislator (legislative). The second traitor is the arbitrator (judiciary) and the third traitor is the executor (Police) thus the citizen, just like the earth, has been betrayed, by the elected persons who advocate (by deeds) for the system of inequality. The corruptions in all bodies of society are not a secret to the public, but the public is often met with denial by the elected. The struggle for justice and equality renders Rousseau’s quote ‘Cui ex honesto nulla est spes’ (There is no hope for a moral man) a fact rather than prejudice. Surely, the collective corruption in society is far more devastating, and it has a greater impact than that of the individual’s corruption. The corruption of a savage man is no match for the decay of a ‘civilized society’. I could see where Rousseau was going in his argument. I agree that mankind is better off; hell, the earth is better off, in Man’s early stages of evolution. In a state of nature, a savage man has not evolved enough to cause so much damage to the earth and to his brethren. Rousseau implies that the elected were elected with the assumption of fidelity. People trust the people whom they vote for, but such trust has been broken and the elected betray their voters on the very first day they take office. Before the election the politician vowed with ‘Semper Fidelis’ but such a vow, since the politician’s very first day in office, has turned into ‘Semper infidelis’ or ‘Semper Billinguis’. The multitudes allow politicians to betray them because it became the norm to serve selfish ambitions first, and above all. There is an acceptance by societies to betray nature and mankind for the sake of power and inequality. Rousseau is unduly optimistic in regard to the faculties of man. The glory of Man, and what Man can achieve are pompously praised, yet paradoxically, Rousseau is unduly pessimistic about Man’s desire to uphold his own liberty. Is it true that Man loves power more than freedom? I wondered. Either Rousseau is delusional or himself a supporter of the jungle law. Despite all hopes for Man’s ingenuity Man fails in love and compassion. Not all people are infatuated with the social class. Compassion and love are divine virtues. Inequality and power are beastly vices. Rousseau implies that inequality is natural and that karma law determines whether one is either a success or fiasco in life. But isn’t it society who vote for one person to be successful and rich and for the other person to be miserable and poor? Isn’t it society who dictates who is to be fortunate and who is to be unfortunate? The burden is on society, not on nature. The apathy of nature is incompatible with the true essence of Man. Like many other outcast on the verge of homelessness I have been wondering about such apathy and cruelty within Man. Elitism took over the world it seems in all fields, from politics to literature and art. The jungle law is everywhere, worshipped and recited by its inhuman rabble. Thus, when a man stands alone against a corrupt system he stands powerless, hopeless, and marginalized. Yet, such a man can still win over the jungle law, owing to his free will. All he has to do is to rebel, for the victory is in the act of rebellion itself, not in the outcomes of the rebellion. Milton’s political essay ‘Paradise lost’ is justified, because the monarch has betrayed his office. The rebellion of the individual against the legislator was justified in principle but not in the illusion of a political system. There is no guarantee for equality in any political system. Democracy does not guarantee equality just as anarchy does not guarantee freedom. Tyranny is an attribute of power, hence the result of following inequality and power. Inequality is a personal choice, thus the burden is on the elected. Regardless of man’s level of evolution, everyone stands in judgment when it comes to fairness and equality, thus no legislator is immune, and no legislator is above the conspicuous inspection of the voters. When people come to love authority more than they love their independence, they enslave themselves to the jungle law. Rousseau’s statement is partly true, because some people abide by the jungle law in blind obedience. It is truly disturbing how many people worship inequality without even being aware of it. The love of the system by power hungry psychopaths is also associated with social ranks and money, as Mammon makes it clear that the poor should be treated as enemies of society. It is the social class in the system of Cain’s spirit that sends millions of people to the streets. The system separates those who do not have money from those who have money and those who do not have sufficient money from those who have money in abundance. It is by one’s abundance of possessions that one is judged, thereupon treated in accordance with that abundance. Rousseau suggests that the happiness of the rich might somewhat lose its essence the moment the poor will cease to suffer. There is a grain of truth in Rousseau’s assumption. The rich is feasting on the sufferings and the misery of the underclass. The moans of the oppressed underclass are like music to the ears of the oppressor higher class. The groans of the oppressed are cathartic to the oppressors’ ears. Thus, the happiness of the rich is based on sadism which derives from the love of inequality and power. A peaceful rich man, if such exists, would try to change the system of inequality, not enforce it. Any man, regardless whether one is rich or poor, who stands against inequality is divested of such sadism and inequality. To take pleasure in the sufferings of the poor is attributed to predators in the Savannah feasting on a young gazelle. Once more it is a personal choice. Therefore Rousseau’s statement is refutable, because there might be exceptions to the general law. Rousseau’s myopic statements undermine the rule of law because they lack exceptions to the general law. A savage man is not moral, (as Rousseau depicts him) but simply less immoral than a civilized man is. I doubt it is a fact, because it is personal choice, not a matter of social evolution. I am, furthermore skeptic as for Rousseau’s mention of blind obedience. It is not true that Man desire to hold the sword and lay down the plough rather than vice versa. Coming from a land, grieving and morning the deaths of many such men whom were forced to lay down the plough, and go to war; men who died out of self defense. Rousseau seem to support the phrase ‘Si vis pacem fac bellum’ (If you want peace then wage war) whereas in reality, empirically speaking, most peace loving people adopt the phrase ’Si vis pacem para bellum’ since they are forced to worry about their safety. Dying for peace because war is imposed on you, is not the same as ‘Living by the sword’ jungle law principle. It was the circumstances that had sent my poor countrymen to wars, and against their own free will. I sincerely want to believe that most people wish to live in peace rather than to go the war, but I know that there is a grain of truth in what Rousseau suggests. I’d rather be naïve to think otherwise, well, at least that is what I wish to think. Rousseau suggests that people in general prefer to live by the sword. People find gadium in gladium (joy in swords/wars). But are people really that mad? Love of slavery and wars over freedom and peace? Taking pleasure in slavery and wars? it just doesn’t make sense at all. Such statements, as a matter of fact, do not represent all of mankind. The tendency to seek conflicts, wars, violence and destruction, particularly in savage societies, is well known; notoriously. But I wouldn’t call it Man’s nature. Where hate crime assaults are acceptable and criminal abuse is rife, and where no human rights exist or established, there is a dire need for a revolution. Any society, whence protection of the individual and natural rights are nonexistent, there is a call for rebellion. The Alfa law society with its notorious social class is a violation of the principle of equality. However, elitism is a personal choice. Rousseau may advocate for a savage society and claim rightfully that it is more honest, or less corrupt, than a civilized society, but no society is not without injuries and detriments. Savage societies are more brutal and more ignorant. Thus, there is no compensation for individuals who had been subjected to hate crimes, abuse, exploitation, rape, etc. The demolition of the individual’s life is a norm in a savage society because there is no denial of the jungle law rules of power and inequality. Civilized societies, on the other hand, secure and safeguard the individual with many human rights and laws of restitution. Rousseau’s advocacy is without empirical research, and therefore null and void. The sport of the savage mob is to trample down on people who are different from the homogenous strong tribe. Weaklings are freaks, foreigners are enemies, and the needy are the slaves and entertainers. Savage society adheres to the jungle law in far more brutal way than the shrewd sophistication of a corrupt civilized society. The violence of the savage man is worse than the discriminatory power of the bureaucrat. A civil servant can doom someone to poverty, and render a person homeless. But it is the savage who rapes the homeless, kicks it when he is down, robs him from his bread and money, and sentences him to die in a street corner in his wounds, alone and helpless. Both the bureaucrat and the savage killed the homeless; and both continue their lives with apathy and without scruples, because the homeless man who died on the street because of the cruelty of the bureaucrat and the violence of the savage, was a man who defied the jungle law’s cardinal principle of ‘Inequality’. Rousseau is wrong, because both civilized societies and savage societies are crippled by inequality. A man has not yet transformed to what is assumed to be ‘Civilized’ because he did not choose equality. Any man who chooses power and injustice is an exponent of inequality. Justice and the rule of law are the indicators. When equality and compassion are gone there is no rule of law, hence justice cannot prevail. A man is equally vulnerable to death in a savage society because of the pleasure of the savage mobs in crushing the weak. As soon as a man is classified as a lower class in the social class stratum, he loses his value and equal rights. Where there is social class there is no equality. A savage society is more brutal and without law and order but it shares the same spirit of ‘Cor unum’ in the elimination of the weak by the strong. Inequality is a malignant disease that devours society and the individual from the inside out. Despotism is the illusion of order and peace, anarchy is the illusion of freedom. Both anarchy and tyranny are false remedies. The same goes to political systems; monarchy and democracy are also false remedies, because they are ineffective and they are not immune to inequality. Any society with social class stratum is an elite society based on inequality and power. There is only one cure to inequality: ‘Equality’. But equality is as illusive as the rule of law and only few can grasp it. A man would rather have a cure to inequality than false remedies (illusions) such as savage and civil societies. The cure is love for the earth and respect for other people. The cure is equality which is the cardinal principle of divine law. Such society can be a reality and not just a utopia. Equality is not a utopia, unless one reclines on inequality as Rousseau does due to his praise of the jungle law. One can make numberless of analogies, compares and contrasts between civilized and savage societies. Civilized society is vainer, where false happiness is expressed through simulations. It is furthermore indecent and corrupt, but Rousseau’s argument is a vague argument, for it is a man who has to change. There is good and evil in all of us. Rousseau's discourse is simply beating about the bush. Inequality needs to be confronted directly and subsequently usurped, toppled down, thereupon replaced by equality. Milton and Rousseau had both attempted to overcome inequality, each in his own way. They both failed for how can a disease be cured with the usurpation of another disease? Evil cannot be overcome with another evil. A disease can only be combated and subsequently vanquished with a proper cure. Evil’s only cure is goodness. The cure for madness and inequality is fairness and equality. Milton would have been abhorred by the corruptions of contemporary politicians had he lived today. Thus, he would have surely realized that it is neither democracy nor monarchy at fault here. The fault is inequality itself within Man. Rousseau’s utopia, or rather anarchistic escapism, and/or reliance on primitivism, does not solve the problem of inequality either, for whether a man is in a state of nature or in a state of civilization, it does not change the fact that Man chooses to live by the sword of inequality rather than by the flowers of equality. The only way to combat and subsequently defeat inequality is by the restoration of divine law. Man is cursed with the vices of power and inequality, but Man is also blessed with the virtues of fairness and equality. The revolution is an individual one, by essence: neither religious nor collective, neither political nor social. It is fairness and equality within Man that can spread like a cure in government and in society. Neither Rousseau nor Milton advocate for equality in their solutions. Their call is for a change that is as futile as beating about the bush. The solution; the cure is in deeds based on the virtues of fairness and equality, decency and universal love ‘Acta, non verba’. Sadly these days there are no political leaders who would care for the people and for the environment more than they would care for their own selfish ambitions. American senators sold their tongues and souls to oil companies; receiving each great amounts of money in return for denial that Man destroys the earth by the overuse of fossil oil. ‘Pollution is merely an illusion’ they claim. Honest politicians these days are as rare as extinct species, or in the better case, as rare as species whom are on the endangered list; hence on the brink of extinction. The decadence of the human spirit is the issue, not a political system and not a level of social evolution.

The following quote in Latin by Cicero could have strengthened Rousseau’s argument:

‘Omnia autem quae secundum naturam fiunt sunt habenda in bonis’

‘Whatever befalls in accordance with Nature should be accounted good’

Only that Man is the exception of it. Man, whether in a savage state or in a civilized stage is the ailment of the earth, unless by a divine individual intervention to live in accordance with the balance of nature. As it is now, Man is in defiance of nature, because of Man’s adherence to inequality. Rousseau is a great thinker but not much of a feeler; A philosopher no doubt, yet paradoxically he is an exponent of Vanity whom adheres to the jungle law subconsciously. Rousseau points out the disease of inequality, but he offers no cure for it. ‘There is no hope for a moral man’ is the best he can do, or ‘Returning to the wild’. All in all it was quite a philosophical challenge to read Rousseau despite all of the conjectures and speculations. Rousseau is a true philosopher in a sense of what Cicero once said:

‘Nihil tam absurde dici potest, quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum’

‘There is nothing so absurd that it has not been said by some philosopher’

After reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ‘Discourse on the origin of inequality’ I could only conclude that philosophy is truly an art of speculation. I’ve been looking forward to reading this book, since I have been intrigued by the subject of inequality for the last two decades due to unfortunate circumstances. Undoubtedly, had I read this book in my youth, I would have been in awe of it. But as it is today I find it more in dissension due to my empirical knowledge, and personal encounters with the world outside the realm of equality. Rousseau’s unsubstantial statements can be quite distasteful for someone who has been hurt by the practices and customs of the exponents of inequality. The first part of the discourse was somewhat euphoric; Rousseau was unduly ecstatic. However, it is hard for a reader to find logic without substantial evidence to support Rousseau’s statements. I admit that I have had pleasure in agreeing and disagreeing with Rousseau, as he truly possess the talent to provoke the mind and stimulate the reader intellectually. If you are more into science than into philosophy, however, you might this book quite nonsocial. Rousseau’s writing, particularly in the first few pages was quite digressive and illusive. I struggled to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and was just about to give up the book. Rousseau’s residues of narcissism can either amuse or vex the reader. I must admit here that I was both amused at parts and vexed at parts, thus I had to let the book rest for a while and read it in small portions. Relating to Rousseau’s background, he gained my sympathy, thus after overcoming the first hurdles and obstacles of the book, I began to slowly speculate over what he was really trying to say. Throughout the entire book Rousseau’s writing was condensed and repetitive, and yet inquisitive. Particularly in the first part I had to bear with him out of curiosity. Rousseau’s longing for equality is relevant to love and compassion as natural needs. Not to be harsh on Rousseau but I could see why some readers might find him delusional and pompous. Most of his arguments were presumptuous, premature pompous, euphoric, and refutable. Nevertheless Rousseau’s greatness is in making his arguments interesting to debate. The themes in this book were very intriguing. The question which led to this book by the academy of Dijon was somewhat rhetoric:

‘What is the origin of inequality among mankind?
And whether such inequality is authorized by the law of nature?’

Rousseau chose to write a discourse on an answer that deserves only one word. The answer is Vanity. However the second part of the question is quite tricky, because there is no clear definition of what ‘The law of nature’ constitutes. I found it a flaw where Rousseau and the academy of Dijon implied that the law of nature is an absolute law. The law of nature, just like the law of man is not an absolute law, therefore the second part of the question is immaterial. There are only two absolute laws that surround both man and beast in their bindings. The law of nature and the law of man are splitting between these two absolute laws, upon which I have elaborated in some of my own literature

Absolute law 1: Perfect evil; Manifestation: Vanity, which is the mother of madness and inequality. The absolute law of perfect evil is also known as, ‘The jungle law’. Its goals are war, imbalance, chaos, destruction, power, dissolution, etc. Vanity is associated with the ‘Random theory’ as it serves meaninglessness and illusions

Absolute law 2: Perfect good; Manifestation: Salvation, which is the mother of fairness (reason) and equality. The absolute law of perfect good is also known as ‘Divine law’. Its goals are peace, equilibrium, order, creativity, justice, amendment etc. Salvation is associated with Karma law as it serves meaning in life, progress, reason and spiritual evolution

The two above absolute laws are not physical law, they are spiritual laws and metaphysical laws which paradoxically both counteract each other and interact with one another never-endingly. The above two absolute laws are also known as Yin and Yang energies with the Sha as a motionless zero point between them. Moreover, the absolute laws are real, whereas the laws of man and nature are illusions. (See Naïve realism: Russell: ‘An Inquiry into meaning and truth’)

A common mistake, which I believe occurred in the above book, is that the law of nature has been mistaken for being the same law known as the Jungle law.

But the Dijon’s academy question is not entirely irrelevant just because of a definition issue. The test of equality here is in fact a key factor in the determination of whether one pledges one’s heart to either of the two absolute laws of good and evil. Regardless of social class every human being stands naked in the light of that test. It is a matter of faith, not a matter of social rank. Either one is with equality or with inequality. No man can remain neutral regarding the test of equality! And that what makes Rousseau’s discourse very relevant. The reader is compelled to choose between the two absolute laws through either distension or agreement with Rousseau’s postulations. In conclusion of such a test anyone who dreams the dream of the elite is a jungle law devotee and a follower of vanity. Rousseau is right in his general statement that many people choose to worship inequality over equality, but he never mentions the reason of it. I do not believe that people are evil by nature, but I believe that people become evil by the choice to follow vanity. No man is born evil. There is good and evil in all living creatures. Man fails to resist elitism because of vanities such as greed, selfishness, fortune and glory, popularity etc. Rousseau, however, degrades himself when he is in total praise of Man’s superiority over the animal. The paradox of Man is that despite all of his intelligence and advantages in ingenuity Man fails the most destroys the most and harm the most. Man has the choice to rebel against inequality and yet Man cultivates it instead. When Man chooses to follow inequality he paradoxically renders the animal superior because the animal has no free will so it seems. If the animal is truly too dumb comparing to Man and it has no free will, then how come it lives in perfect balance with nature, whereas Man fails? It is by the gift of free will that Man fails himself and falls short in front of nature. In the simple test of choosing between reason (fairness and equality) and madness (power and inequality) Man fails in its vast majority. The animal, so it seem, enjoys the benefit of being immune to such a test, as it is assumed that the animal is inferior; hence mad by nature. Man, whether primitive or civilized did not invent the social class. The animals have their own social class, different systems following with different species. The ants and the wolves have en Alpha leader whom to worship, but Man has a choice to live in equality, like many species of birds. Yet, Man, with all of his advantages and glory, choose elitism (power and inequality) because of worship of Mammon and because of vainglorious pride. The choice of Man is between vanity and salvation, yet very few choose Salvation; a fact which makes Rousseau right in some of his arguments. I cannot help thinking about Salinger here, the author of ‘The catcher in the rye’ who chose ascetic and recluse life over vain popularity. Many contemporary authors harvest on the fruits and crops of vanity, dreaming the Alfa dream which is the dream of the predator. But the same is the choice between love and hate, respect and disrespect, equality and inequality, etc. Hence it is an individual choice whether to fail or succeed in life. All the rest is vanity. It is true that there is no limit to the extent of Man’s wickedness and madness, but every single human being, like any other creature on earth, has the option to choose between the two absolute laws of good and evil. Back to Rousseau’s discourse, I have found it strange that Rousseau didn’t even mention it once that Man has a free will to choose between these two absolute laws. The animals, it is assumed, are divested from free will. But such an assumption is false, because it is only justified in comparison with the evolution of Man. The elephants apply compassion when they adopt an elephant calf when it becomes an orphan. The Alfa lion on the other hand choose to murder lion cubs that belong to another male lion. In both cases the two contrasting absolute laws that bind every living creature were applied. Hence the Law of nature constitutes both good and evil: hence both cruelty and compassion. Rousseau however, just like the academy of Dijon implies here that the law of nature is solely associated with inequality. The law of nature, just like the law of man is influenced and bound by the two absolute laws. Nature itself, unlike mankind, is at equilibrium. Thus, the earth has a superior faculty to balance itself and heal itself, whereas Man seemed to be often without balance and without remedy. Nature has made its choice to balance itself, but not Man. Man is nature’s perverse instantiation. Rousseau’s advocacy for the superiority of man over nature is preposterous. Rousseau establishes his advocacy for Man’s supremacy over the animal due to Man’s great potential to invent things and create things which no other species can fathom or master. Rousseau praises Man’s faculties and ingenuity and emphasizes Man’s ability to discover things and Man’s capability to implement his inventions. But what is the worth of Man when Man evolves in technology and adapts to life on earth while Man lacks the heart for nature? What is the worth of life without love? Love, as universal love and love for the planet, love for humanity, and love for life itself. Vanity within Man kills love. The balance with nature is constantly broken by Man’s insatiable appetite for destruction. The order of Man is the doom of Earth. The vices of Man outweigh Man’s virtues. Man loses all of his advantages because of lack of love. Rousseau suggests that Man is a genius whereas the animal and nature, like a savage man, are dumb and inferior. Owing to civilized Man’s creativity and sophistication, order, and manipulation of everything natural, that a civilized man becomes a burden upon the earth. Civilized Man fails where nature triumphs in its balance of peace and love. Subsistence is not a cult, but rather a simple mean of survival. Civilized man has destroyed it. Therefore I agree with Rousseau in his general statement that everyone would be better off if Man was to remain is a state of a savage. However, my agreement on the above statement is not without exceptions. The first part of the discourse was too profuse in the elaboration upon the superiority of Man over all other species on earth. Preponderating and genius, with faculties that could reach the sky and travel the great expanse of space, yet the glory of man is hampered by Man’s zealous adherence to the Jungle law. Rousseau mentions Sparta several times in order to illustrate that choice. Why would Man choose to follow his animal instincts and selfish ambitions while he is so gifted? Why would Man dig up his own grave? I wondered. ‘Only the strong survives’ which manifested Sparta and Rome is very much applied in most contemporary societies. We have the ability to become civilized and yet we choose to become beasts, wherefore? I wonder. When a Man cannot constrain his own nature he is no better than the animal. Egoism (selfishness) is the enemy of Man, not his ally. Will a man rebel against his own selfishness? Rousseau claims that a man will not do it even though he can, because Man’s infatuation with power is stronger than Man’s desire to live in peace. I believe there are two kinds of selfishness: Natural selfishness and selfishness which is born out of a choice. A man is born selfish because of his physical needs but he becomes selfish because of his vain wants. Selfishness, like inequality, is a matter of personal choice. Whether a man is more or less lethal in a primitive state of mind than a civilized man, it is hard to tell. Well, if it comes down to the gravity of the destruction then I concur with Rousseau, that a primitive Man is the better man between the two. However, it doesn’t change the cardinal principle that wickedness, just as goodness, is inherited in all creatures, and that we all have to opt between the two laws on many occasions throughout our lifetime. Well if man is evil by nature, a man is equally good by nature. The inevitable struggle between the two polarities of Yin and Yang renders the discussion immaterial whether a man is in state of nature, hence a savage, or in a state of progress, hence civilized. Degrees of evolutions do not erase the spiritual struggle, as everyone is bound to choose between good and evil all the time. Rousseau compares commiseration to cruelty; virtues and vices that are within all living creatures and as I illustrated above with the elephants and the lions the animals are not without compassion and/or cruelty. Rousseau is terribly prejudiced of the animal and very unrealistic when it comes to Man. Rules of survivals justify the animals’ principle of ‘Live only to survive’ but a man has a choice to live by the benevolent divine guidance of to live ‘Not only by the bread alone’ But why would Man waver his own spiritual evolution and join the animal in the myopic ruthlessness of the jungle law? ‘The survival of the fittest’ is not imposed on Man. On the contrary, for as Rousseau stated many times, Man is a genius, Man is ‘sui generis’; a class of his own. Man can break the jungle law. Man can defeat inequality; all it requires is the will to do so. Mankind has the power to save the earth and restore fairness and equality. Mankind has the faculty to usurp vanity and replace it with Divine law (salvation). I agree with Rousseau that Man has a great potential. But what I do not understand is why Man would choose retardation over evolution! Rousseau attempts to answer the questions which he raises, but unlike Darwin, Rousseau is not a scientist. Darwin based his theories on facts and on empirical studies, whereas Rousseau bases his theories on assumptions, speculations and conjectures. Man in a state of nature versus a man in state of society, compare and contrast, I would say Rousseau’s arguments for the savage and against the civilized were not accurate. Civil societies’ source of illness can in fact be traced back to early Man. Savagery does not guarantee any balance in accordance with nature. Natural law is diverse. But the remedy, just like the malady, can also be found in Man, whether early or contemporary. True, a Man in a state of nature is less evolved, hence less destructive: I agree with that simple logic. But a Man has always been a hunter. There is no way of telling whether an Early Man did not hunt for sports or profit. We can assume that he was honest and that he only hunted for subsistence, whereas it is clear that modern Man going hunting in a civilized society is hunting for sport or for profit because we assume that he is well settled. Both assumptions are refutable, otherwise why would a starving African man poach elephants if not for survival? My point is that we haven’t changed as species, as the struggle of survival is still a reality in many places on earth. The settings may have changed, but Man has not changed, and it could be just as well as that a savage Man hunted animals for vainglory as a modern African man today hunt for survival. Rousseau’s comments on domestic animals vs. wild animals were interesting and relevant concerning the oppression of the multitudes in a human society. The domestication of Man to an elite society is a different matter. However, because Man is not easily subdued, hence the call for revolutions is justified. I believe Rousseau’s argument for this book is associated with decadence of the human spirit, as paradoxically the civilized is in fact the savage and vice versa. The illustration of such a paradox is evident and can be traced in the clashes of between civilized and savage societies, such as were the cases in the Americas and Australia, where indigenous were the victims of a wicked and brutal oppressors from Europe who deemed themselves ‘Civilized’. Therefore I feel that Rousseau’s argument is contradictory. But Rousseau went on praising Man as if Man was the perfect being. The more he praised the ingenuity of man the more I was about to vomit. Sufficient is the gross reminder of what Man has done to our planet. It is by that ingenuity of war that Man wages within itself and against the environment and wildlife. Man is the polluter and the destroyer of the earth, as a matter of fact, not as a matter of opinion. Rousseau’s bias pertaining the success of Man is an absurd. Unfortunately the discovery that atoms can split brought our species one step closer to the abyss. Nuclear energy could have been used for a better purpose than wars, intimidations, and self destruction, but Man has never evolved in morals. Man is more primitive than the animal because Man betrayed the sacred and delicate balance of the earth. Man betrayed peace, equilibrium and harmony. Yes, Man is a genius scientist, according to Rousseau, but Rousseau only sees one side of the coin. Well, at least in the first part of the book. Man, no matter how civilized deemed in his own eyes, is a primitive ape and a savage that is unworthy of all the gifts which he had received, because of the abuse and destruction that stems from these gifts. Man’s gifts gave birth to vices and virtues, but man acts on vices as a matter of social order. Rousseau’s criticism of the system reminded me of John Milton’s classic mistake, which many people fall victim to due to the lack of insight. It is not the system of monarchy which is at fault, but rather the function of the king. It is the corruption of the king which disgraces the system of monarchy, not vice versa. Thus, Rousseau’s criticism of a system is vague. The same can be illustrated with the police. There is a deep hatred towards the police in many contemporary societies. But is such hatred justified? Is it the police uniforms who disgraces the police, or is it the policeman, wearing the police uniforms who disgraces the police? Milton’s and Rousseau’s myopic criticism of the system is equal to the claim of the anarchists that the police deserve to be hated because it is the police, hence because it is as an executive body of authority. But the truth is that it is the policeman who disgraces the uniforms and the police when he betrays his authority and abuse a citizen, not the police itself. As an advocate for individualism and human rights I understand Rousseau’s argument, but I disagree with him on the principle that there shouldn’t be a social system. In my view, there should be a legislator, a judiciary, and an executive in order for society to function in order peace. However, I agree with both Milton and Rousseau that when a monarch or a legislator betrays society, they should be toppled down, usurped and replaced: I am too against despotism, just like any other sensible citizen, but the burden is not on the structure itself; the burden is on the living breathing servant in that structure of society. In this early Darwinism account, Rousseau calls for the restoration of natural rights, for it is true that the system of society is the murderer of such rights due to corruption. I am not sure whether a man is a tyrant or anarchist by nature, because people have a choice not to be tyrants or anarchists. We can rebel against our own ego, and become fair and just, but it demands a spiritual revolution. Personality, like many free souls, I am weary of the system of Man, because of its endless corruptions and abuse, and I do, too desire, just as Rousseau, to return to nature, to that old primitive state of mind, like the Eloi in Wells Time Machine’. I also long to find refuge from the madness of society, erase all worries and be One with nature. But who can guarantee that some day people who call themselves civilized will not intrude that space of nature where I have found refuge, capture me and sell me as a slave to a ‘Civilized’ master in the same society whence I fled more two and a half decades earlier? There are two options for freedom in the face of despotism: escapism or rebellion. Rousseau advocates for escapism; for finding refuge in nature, in an old state mind. Milton advocates for a revolution: to topple down God, the supreme tyrant and replace the English monarch with a new system based on equality, where all have an equal say through an elected government. The third side of the coin, however, is not a liberating option: hence, to remain in a state of slavery. I agree with both Milton and Rousseau that man should regain his independence and find freedom. Both of them advocate for equality and so have I for the last twenty years, however, Rousseau and Milton both undermine their call for the restoration of equality. Milton adheres to a new political system, a fact which does not guarantee a government without corruption or inequality. Rousseau undermines his own desire for equality by reciting the jungle law as if all is without hope. Rousseau’s pessimism is an insinuation that the jungle law is invincible and that vanity is stronger than salvation. I decline and deplore such an insinuation. I also dismiss Milton’s argument by mentioning King Solomon as a fact that Monarchy can be a success. I dismiss Rousseau’s adherence to the jungle law by the fact that there is a hope for mankind. True, vanity multiplies exponentially with the needless and unnecessary things which Man so much desire, as Rousseau claims. Rousseau is right about stating the facts, and he is not blind to the destruction of man in his discourse.
The social class, however, is not something which the modern world has invented. It has existed in ancient times, only now that it has truly expended and became more corrupt and more destructive, just as it happens with technology. Power, social class, social hierarchy, popularity and image are all vanities. Vainglory over vainglory, where wants usurp needs. Even the struggle for survival has changed. It became more unjustified and corrupt, more ugly and gruesome. Once people murdered one another for a well of water in the desert, or for food supply in dire situations; Aye, for subsistence. But today people murder each other for the pettiest of things, for traffic disputes, for social class, for money, for power, for image, for religion, for politics, etc, i.e.: For vanity. Yes, Rousseau is right that is it better off for a man to remain in a primitive state where subsistence justifies Man’s deeds and misdeeds. It is more obvious, that in a modern society, image is everything. But what about the biblical story of Cain and Abel? Did Cain not murder his own brother for image? Did Cain not seek a better social class? Once more Rousseau’s argument is refutable. Today people commit crimes for the sake of material comfort and vainglorious pride, because it became trendier perhaps, but nothing really changed since the days of Cain. Sodom and Gomorrah has always been out there, even after the destruction of these cities. The corruption is within Man, not within the expansion of society.
Today it is accepted to run after commodities and luxuries. Material comfort is a collective goal. Survival became irrelevant because Man has mastered the earth and its resources. It is life itself that has lost its essence. People would settle for less, just to indulge in material wealth. I agree that the less a man remains himself, the more that he is prone to unfortunate future. Technology in its advancement, robots in particular, is an eerie future prospect. The more sophisticated that an artificial intelligence becomes, the more unnecessary that Man becomes; hence it is only a matter of time when a Man is disposed by the superior artificial intelligent. Perverse instantiation is inevitable, not because of the invention of the machine, but because of the creation of Man. Perverse instantiation has already begun since the discovery of fire by the Homo erectus. The jungle law can be easily replicated; it is a reality, not science fiction. Rousseau’s criticism of the animals slow evolution is faint, because the evolution of Man was also very slow before the discovery of fire. It took early humans, Homo erectus about a million years to evolve, subsequently to become Homo sapiens. The Homo erectus, owing to the discovery of fire survived whereas other human species vanished. Can one call it natural selection by ingenuity? A million years at a standstill reached a turning point that led to a dramatic evolution. Animals evolve too, but in a different pace. It seemed to me that Rousseau’s criticism of the animals and savage Man was somewhat arrogant. Rousseau contradicts himself because he supposedly advocate for nature and for a man is a state of nature. To criticize someone for being inferior does not make you righteous, on the contrary, because it is a divine trait to elevate the inferior whereas it is a vice to crush the helpless. Rousseau has many assumptions about a savage Man. But I doubt whether a savage man lives longer or enjoys a better quality of life. Rousseau’s assumptions are not empirical unless he is a time traveler. There is no way for us to know whether beasts have fear of death or not. Rousseau’s statement that animals do not have fear of death is purely speculative. Rousseau’s is critical yet naïve pertaining the evolution of our species. He does the compare and contrast without any shred of evidence. Yet he claims that he proves his theories by such speculations. I find it utterly absurd each time he says ‘as I have proved’. Rousseau’s criticism of a savage Man for lacking foresight is quite grotesque. It was only an order of business based on man outsmarting another man where the oppressed failed to play the game of his oppressor. A savage man is not a manipulator like a civilized man; does it mean he is dumb? The oppressed is naïve, but his oppressor is evil. Rousseau is supposed to advocate for the indigenous man, yet he criticizes him for being tricked by the white European ‘civilized’ man. I’d say to Rousseau that it is the civilized man that lacks foresight, because of the destruction of the rain-forests, the extinction of wildlife, the pollution of the earth, the expansions of human habitat, the exploding human population, the contamination of the oceans and rivers, the exhaustion of the earth’s resources and all the wars and bloodshed. Aye all that ‘Civilized’ man has caused renders civilized man wicked and destructive. Such a man lacks both the foresight and the insight, for such a man has all the tools and means to save the earth and mankind, but instead such a man rapes the earth and murders his own kind. Rousseau is proud when he ought to be ashamed. An indigenous man lives in balance with nature, whereas a civilized man is the destroyer of our planet and the murderer of all that is in it. I’d rather be honest and dumb than shrewd and evil. Ironically, Rousseau plays both sides, but it is transparent that he is in fact in favor of the jungle law and civilization. In the second part of the discourse, once more, Rousseau contradicts his argument that a savage man is the better deal. Mankind is aware of the dangers and yet it chooses to violate the earth, and let it die slowly on the brink of destruction. The point of ‘no return’ regarding our great forests is close, yet ignored. Man proceeds without curb or bridle to fell down the trees that keep the balance of our ecosystem. The lack of insight is a result of the lack of a beating heart within Man. Man has lost its honesty long ago. Man is corrupt and bent on mischief. Deadly in his existence he lives without compassion, like Cain after he murdered his own brother. I will advocate for the savage man but Rousseau does the opposite with his criticism of the less evolved. One cannot be swinging between the two states of mind. It is more likely that a civilized Man went back in evolution than that a savage has not evolved. There is a moral evolution, thus modern man went backwards in that respect. Rousseau’s mention of the evolution of language makes you wonder and speculate. Rousseau possesses undoubtedly the talent to provoke the mind of the reader. He urges you to debate and take a side. I enjoyed reading the book because of that talent. I do have respect for philosophers, but we have no way of knowing whether animals can think in abstraction or not. We can assume that we are superior in thought, but claiming that animals cannot think in abstraction is pure speculation. Killer whales speak in different dialects; scientists have studied their language and concluded that it is profound and vivid; other species, speak in poetry, like birds. Biblical prophets communicated in a primitive language imbued with a divine spark. It seems to me that Rousseau forget to mention the positive things in his illustrations of others than modern ‘Civilized’ Man. Claiming that ‘Civilized’ means corrupt, whereas savage means honest, would be an easy general distinction, however not without exceptions. Rousseau is too assertive and confident in his statements and distinctions. His assertions are too conclusive, and what I have found as his greatest flaw was that he had shown not even one speck of skepticism in his discourse. He professed to be all-knowing, and by thus ridiculed himself to be knowing nothing at all. Rousseau was guessing, assuming, and speculating. Rousseau’s narcissism was running wild together with his imagination, thus the reader is yearning for facts and empirical researches rendered by scientists. The jungle law is based on madness and on chaos; not on reason or order; however, it is not the law of nature in its entirety. The jungle law is only one half of natural law, the other half is divine law. Not all animals live by the jungle law rule, ‘kill or be killed’. Not all animals are predators or prey. Some are plant eaters and many species do not take part in the killing spree. Commiseration can be found also within the animals. Not all of natural law is about ‘The survival of the fittest’ There is harmony in groups of elephants and flocks of birds. An elephant might kill a lion that stands on its way in a struggle for access to water, because the elephant’s life depends on water, but it is out of dire circumstances that such a killing might occur. Whereas Man kills for petty reasons that have nothing to do with survival. Man kills for vanity. And that what makes Man inferior to the animal. Man chooses wars on the pettiest of reasons such as religion, culture, territorialism, political ideologies etc. Man is breaking the balance of nature systematically. Rousseau is proud where he ought to be ashamed, for Man with all of his fine constitutions and faculties fails to obtain equilibrium with Nature. Man upsets the balance of the food chain between the species; Man wipes out biodiversity and utilizes natural resources to a point of no remedy. Man pollutes the air and the oceans. Man depletes flora and fauna and hunts down sharks for their fins out of greed and bigotry. Man might stipulate good laws based on reasons that safeguard the elite from the lower class, and by thus adheres to the jungle law. It is the reason of Man that gives birth to madness and chaos which destroy our world. The destruction of the earth, the manipulation of nature and everything natural and beautiful renders Man an evil beast of the worst the kind. Man is the genetic error of the earth. Man is the mutation of the devil itself, due to Man’s deeds. The law of nature hence is superior to the law of Man, because nature preserves itself in a perfect balance whereas Man upsets all balances. Man is the unfortunate injurious anomaly of nature: A Perverse instantiation! The law of nature is healthy and reasonable whereas Man in practice is a criminal; an offender of the law of nature and an offender of divine law. Rousseau ought to be ashamed where he is proud because Man is inferior by deeds (misdeeds). The crimes of Man against nature stem from Man’s greed and love of the material world; hence from Man’s adherence to Vanity and its notorious law of power: The Jungle Law’. The disease of Man is materialism and it has no cure when it breaks out, for materialism is equal to rabies. It can only be prevented; hence cured before it breaks out. Man’s love of himself is contemptible, but the love of the material world is what makes Man infected with rabies. Rousseau’s pride in a creature whose selfish ambitions are based on animal instincts is sickening. It is a lethal combination to allow the worst of all creatures to be blessed with the best of all gifts: intelligence. Giving the sophistication of Man, Man should have known better, yet Man falters where the animal succeeds. A man is a beast of the worst kind. The use of an atomic bomb is the proof of it. Oh but Rousseau is a big fan of Man. Rousseau is intoxicated with Man’s superiority over the animals and with Man’s ingenuity and devious evolution. But what is a Man if not a mistake? What is a Man if not a destructive violent ape? Oh but Rousseau made me shamed of my species when he praised Man. The magnificence of man is a farce based on vainglory. Rousseau mentions the role of compassion vs. apathy and sentiments vs. cruelty. He knows that Man has turned also against his own species, aggregating the misery of others and wishes them ill and injury. Man wishes his own kind not to be happy in life because Man’s loves to hate his own kind. Man is ill wishing others to fail due to extreme jealousy. I asked myself, why in the hell would Rousseau praise Man when he knows that Man is jealous by nature? But is Man’s jealousy inherited? Eve’s jealousy at Adam and Cain’s jealousy at Abel etc. only undermine future Darwinism. But there is also jealousy among the animals. Yet Man is a master in everything, obviously also a master in jealousy. Every trait that can be observed within the animals can be found within Man and vice versa; yet Man’s preponderating role makes him the first to be accounted for the destruction of nature. Rousseau calls pity a natural sentiment, but it is once more a matter of individual choice. Pity cannot be taught in schools or be inherited. Commiseration is a seed which one chooses whether to nourish or let perish. ‘Another person in distress’ invokes different reactions. Wicked people take pleasure at the fall of a Man whereas others take pity on him. The homeless gets both money and spits, both food and kicks, it depends on the passing citizen’s nature. Rousseau is delusional in his advocacy for Savage Man. It is almost as he renders him holly with virtues of compassion and care. Once more: an absurd statement! Rousseau defends the ignorance and innocence of a savage man on one hand, but on the other hand he mocks such a man. Rousseau view is pretty much myopic and without any colors other than black and white. He exhibits a savage Man as not wicked; Yet, a savage man is not divested of wickedness just because he is less evolved than a civilized man is. Less evolved does not mean incorrupt, perhaps less evolved means less corrupt, but it doesn’t change the fact that a savage man is not immune to inequality. Yes, a savage man may be less corrupt, I agree, but not less violent, and not less of a murderer. Throughout human history cruelty walked as a parallel line alongside commiseration. It has always been like this since the dawn of Man that Man had both good and evil within him. Subsistence, nevertheless, is not an excuse for savagery. There has always been a moral order just as there was chaos and disorder. But, Man, unlike some animal species, cannot be domesticated. There are just as many revolutions and cries for independence and freedom as there are acceptances of slavery and conformities. The restraint of savage Man was never an absolute success, for Man still dwells in the consciousness of the savage, only the attire has changed and now Man calls himself civilized because of some illusions of an evolutionary progress. The state of mind of Man is still primitive; otherwise there would be peace on earth and harmony with nature. Both early humans and modern humans indulged upon art and wars. The Homo erectus humans made jewelry, whereas modern humans engage in futile wars; does this make a case for Rousseau? The answer is no. There were just as well wars in early human societies as there are today, and just as well jewelry makers then as there are today. Nothing really changed apart from Rousseau’s futile attempt to shake off inequality in an absurd theory to return to the wild. Are primitive men/societies less oppressive than nowadays men/societies? No one can really tell. But I totally disagree with Rousseau’s claim that primitive men are more lenient towards children and the weak in society. I am very skeptic about that.