Sociology And Psychology Quotes

Introverts, in contrast, may have strong social skills and enjoy parties and business meetings, but after a while wish they were home in their pajamas. They prefer to devote their social energies to close friends, colleagues, and family. They listen more than they talk, think before they speak, and often feel as if they express themselves better in writing than in conversation. They tend to dislike conflict. Many have a horror of small talk, but enjoy deep discussions.

فشعر عندها فجأة برغبة غامضة لا تقاوم في سماع موسيقى هائلة، في سماع ضجيج مطلق وصخب جميل وفرح يكتنف كل شيء ويُغرق ويخنق كل شيء، فيختفي إلى الأبد الألم والغرور وتفاهة الكلمات.

Gross well says that children are young because they play, and not vice versa; and he might have added, men grow old because they stop playing, and not conversely, for play is, at bottom, growth, and at the top of the intellectual scale it is the eternal type of research from sheer love of truth.

الوقت الإنساني لا يسير في شكل دائري بل يتقدم في خط مستقيم. من هنا، لا يمكن للإنسان أن يكون سعيداً لأن السعادة رغبة في التكرار.

كانت تشعر برغبة جامحة لأن تقول له كما تقول أتفه النساء: «لا تتركني، احتفظ بي إلى جوارك، استعبدني، كن قوياً». ولكنها لا تستطيع ولا تعرف أن تتلفظ بمثل هذه الكلمات.

Miss Leefolt sigh, hang up the phone like she just don't know how her brain gone operate without Miss Hilly coming over to push the Think buttons.

We are poor indeed if we are only sane.

لا يمكن للإنسان أبداً أن يدرك ماذا عليه أن يفعل، لأنه لا يملك إلا حياة واحدة، لا يسعه مقارنتها بِحَيوات سابقة ولا إصلاحها في حيوات لاحقة.

As a professor in two fields, neurology and psychiatry, I am fully aware of the extent to which man is subject to biological, psychological and sociological conditions. But in addition to being a professor in two fields I am a survivor of four camps - concentration camps, that is - and as such I also bear witness to the unexpected extent to which man is capable of defying and braving even the worst conditions conceivable.

Having solved all the major mathematical, physical, chemical, biological, sociological, philosophical, etymological, meteorological and psychological problems of the Universe except for his own, three times over, [Marvin] was severely stuck for something to do, and had taken up composing short dolorous ditties of no tone, or indeed tune. The latest one was a lullaby. Marvin droned, Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see in infrared, How I hate the night. He paused to gather the artistic and emotional strength to tackle the next verse. Now I lay me down to sleep, Try to count electric sheep, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night.

سبق لي أن قُلْتُ آنفاً إن الاستعارات خطيرة وإن الحب يبدأ من استعارة. وبكلمة أُخرى: الحب يبدأ في اللحظة التي تسجَّل فيها امرأة دخولها في ذاكرتنا الشعرية من خلال عبارة.

Maniacal suicide. —This is due to hallucinations or delirious conceptions. The patient kills himself to escape from an imaginary danger or disgrace, or to obey a mysterious order from on high, etc.

We must beware the revenge of the starved senses, the embittered animal in its prison.

يمكن اختصار مأساة حياة «باستعارة» الثقل. نقول مثلاً إن حملاً قد سقط فوق أكتافنا. فنحمل هذا الحمل. نتحمله أو لا نتحمله ونتصارع معه، وفي النهاية إما أن نخسر وإما أن نربح. ولكن ما الذي حدث مع سابينا بالضبط؟ لا شيء. افترقت عن رجل لأنها كانت راغبة في الافتراق عنه. هل لاحقها بعد ذلك؟ هل حاول الانتقام؟ لا. فمأساتها ليست مأساة الثقل إنما مأساة الخفة والحمل الذي سقط فوقها لم يكن حملاً بل كان خفة الكائن التي لا تُطاق.

كان الحب بينه وبين تيريزا جميلاً، بكل تأكيد، ولكنه كان متعباً: وجب عليه دائماً أن يخفي أمراً ما، وأن يتكتم، وأن يستدرك، وأن يرفع من معنوياتها، وأن يؤاسيها، وأن يثبت باستمرار حبه لها وأن يتلقى ملامات غيرتها وألمها وأحلامها، وأن يشعر بالذنب، وأن يبرر نفسه وأن يعتذر . . الآن كل التعب تلاشى ولم تبقَ إلا الحلاوة.

تذكر عندها أسطورة أفلاطون الشهيرة «المأدبة»: ففي السابق كان البشر مزدوجي الجنس فقسّمهم الله إلى أنصاف تهيم عبر العالم مفتشة بعضها عن بعض. الحب هو تلك الرغبة في إيجاد النصف الآخر المفقود من أنفسنا.

Science fiction is held in low regard as a branch of literature, and perhaps it deserves this critical contempt. But if we view it as a kind of sociology of the future, rather than as literature, science fiction has immense value as a mind-stretching force for the creation of the habit of anticipation. Our children should be studying Arthur C. Clarke, William Tenn, Robert Heinlein, Ray Bradbury and Robert Sheckley, not because these writers can tell them about rocket ships and time machines but, more important, because they can lead young minds through an imaginative exploration of the jungle of political, social, psychological, and ethical issues that will confront these children as adults.

كانت التعبير عن القرف الذي تملّكها فجأة من الجنس البشري. فتذكر أنها قالت له مؤخراً: «صرت أشعر بالامتنان لك لأنك لم ترغب قط في إنجاب الأطفال».

الموسيقى بالنسبة لفرانز هي الفن الأكثر قرباً من الجمال الديونيسي الذي يقدّس النشوة. يمكن لرواية أو للوحة أن تدوّخنا ولكن بصعوبة. أما مع السمفونية التاسعة لبيتهوڤن، أو مع السوناتة المؤلفة من آلتيْ بيانو وآلات النقر لبارتوك، أو مع أغنية للبيتلز، فإن النشوة تعترينا. من جهة أخرى فإن فرانز لا يفرّق بين الموسيقى العظيمة والموسيقى الخفيفة. فهذا التفريق يبدو له خبيثاً وبالياً، فهو يحب موسيقى الروك وموزار على حد سواء. الموسيقى بالنسبة له محرّرة: إذ تحرره من الوحدة والانعزال ومن غبار المكتبات. وتفتح في داخل جسده أبواباً لتخرج النفس وتتآخى مع الآخرين. كما أنه يحب الرقص إلى جانب ذلك ويشعر بالأسى لأن سابينا لا تشاركه هذا الولع.

ثم أردفت: «هناك في المستشفى بدأت أصنّف الكتب إلى فئتين: الكتب النهارية والكتب الليلية. وهذا صحيح، هناك كتب للنهار وكتب أُخرى لا يمكن قراءتها إلا في الليل».

فكّر توماس: إن مضاجعة امرأة والنوم معها رغبتان ليستا مختلفتين فحسب بل متناقضتان أيضاً. فالحب لا يتجلى بالرغبة في ممارسة الجنس (وهذه الرغبة تنطبق على جملة لا تحصى من النساء) ولكن بالرغبة في النوم المشترك (وهذه الرغبة لا تخصّ إلا امرأة واحدة).

It's the intellectual who transforms the concept of the world into the problem of meaning.

إذا كان الهياج الجنسي آلية يتسلى بها الخالق، فإن الحب، خلافاً لذلك لا ينتمي إلا إلينا ويمكننا من خلاله الإفلات من قبضة الخالق. فالحب هو حريتنا. الحب هو ما وراء كل «ما ليس منه بد».

لم يكونا متحدين بحنان إلَّا في الليل أثناء النوم. كانا يمسكان دائماً بأيديهما فتُنسى عندئذ الهاوية (هاوية ضوء النهار) التي كانت تفصل بينهما. ولكن هذه الليالي لم تكن تعطي توماس لا الوقت ولا الوسيلة لحمايتها والاعتناء بها. لذلك فهو عندما كان يراها في الصباح ينقبض قلبه ويرتجف خوفاً من أجلها: كانت تبدو حزينة ومتوعكة.

The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors--psychology, sociology, women's studies--to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.

Love without humility results in the inclination to act as everyone's parent, humility without love results in the need to be everyone's child, and love with humility results in the desire to be a friend.

وسعادتهما لم تكن على الرغم من الحزن بل بفضله.

الحنين إلى الجنة إذاً هو رغبة الإنسان في ألًا يكون إنساناً.

There can be no spirituality, according to the Sufi masters, without psychology, psychological insight and sociological balance.

كان ذلك تلميحاً إلى العبارة الموسيقية الأخيرة من رباعية بيتهوڤن الأخيرة التي تتألف من هاتين الفكرتين: أليس من ذلك بدُّ؟ ليس من ذلك بدّ. ولكي يكون معنى هذه الكلمات واضحاً جلياً، دوّن بيتهوڤن في مطلع العبارة الموسيقية الأخيرة الكلمات التالية: «القرار الموزون بخطورة».

هل صحيح أنه يجب علينا أن نرفع صوتنا حين يُسكت أحدهم رجلاً؟ نعم.

سألها ماذا بإمكانه أن يقدم لها: خمر؟ لا، لا، لم تكن راغبة في الخمر. إذا كان هناك شيء ترغب في شربه، فسيكون القهوة.

There's no reason to assume that all men are bad. Not even all the soldiers are monsters.

Global betterment is a mental process, not one that requires huge sums of money or a high level of authority. Change has to be psychological.

Argumentation is a human enterprise that is embedded in a larger social and psychological context. This context includes (1) the total psyches of the two persons engaged in dialogue, (2) the relationship between the two persons, (3) the immediate situation in which they find themselves and (4) the larger social, cultural and historical situation surrounding them.

يبدو أن في الدماغ منطقة خاصة تماماً ويمكن تسميتها بـ«الذاكرة الشعرية»، وهي التي تسجّل كل الأشياء التي سحرتنا أو التي جعلتنا ننفعل أمامها، وكل ما يعطي لحياتنا جمالها. مذ تعرّف توماس إلى تيريزا، لم يعد لأي امرأة الحق في أن تترك أثراً ولو عابراً في هذه المنطقة من دماغه.

من يبغي «الارتقاء» باستمرار، عليه أن يستعد يوماً للإصابة بالدوار. لكن ما هو الدوار؟ أهو الخوف من السقوط؟ ولكن لماذا نصاب بالدوار على شرفة السطح حتى ولو كانت مزودة بدرابزين متين؟ ذلك أن الدوار شيء مختلف عن الخوف من السقوط. إنه صوت الفراغ ينادينا من الأسفل فيجذبنا ويفتننا. إنه الرغبة في السقوط التي نقاومها فيما بعد وقت أصابتنا الذعر.

Only when we learn to value the differences among us can we achieve the true spirit of humanity.

The wind considers how trauma is - in essence - just a memory that violates previous memories too barbarically, an event that devastatingly conflicts against everything else one knows.

Children have no use for psychology. They detest sociology. They still believe in God, the family, angels, devils, witches, goblins, logic, clarity, punctuation, and other such obsolete stuff. When a book is boring, they yawn openly. They don't expect their writer to redeem humanity, but leave to adults such childish allusions.

قالت: «توماس، لم أعد أقدر. أعرف أن لا حقّ لي في التشكي. مذ رجعت إلى براغ وأنا أحظّر على نفسي الغيرة. لا أريد أن أكون غيورة. ولكني لا أستطيع أن أمنع نفسي عن ذلك. لا قدرة لي. ساعدني، أرجوك».

But the thing about Literature is, well, basically it encapsulates all the disciplines - it's history, philosophy, politics, sexual politics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, science. Literature is mankind's organised response to the world around him, or her.

If we look more closely, we see that any violent display of power, whether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind; indeed, this seems actually to be a psychological and sociological law: the power of some needs the folly of others. It is not that certain human capacities, intellectual capacities for instance, become stunted of destroyed, but rather that the upsurge of power makes such an overwhelming impression that men are deprived of their independent judgment, and...give up trying to assess the new state of affairs for themselves.

Show me a culture where honesty is considered ridiculous, where nobody's ever accountable for anything, where anger gets admired as a sign of strength, and I'll show you a place where misery is permanent

Being a person's true friend means endorsing the untruths he holds dearest.

إنه لمن المضحك-المبكي أن تصير أخلاقنا الحسنة بالتحديد في صالح الشرطة، والسبب أننا لم نتعلم الكذب. فصيغة الأمر: «قل الحقيقة!» التي رسّخها آباؤها وأمهاتنا في أذهاننا، تجعلنا نشعر بطريقةٍ آلية بالعار حين نكذب حتى ولو كنا أمام الشرطي الذي يستجوبنا. وإنه لأسهلَ علينا أن نتخاصم معه وأن نشتمه (وهذا لا معنى له) من أن نكذب عليه صراحة (فيما هذا هو الأمر الوحيد الذي يجدر القيام به).

لم يكن صراخها لهاثاً ولم يكن تأوّهاً، بل صراخ حقيقي. كانت تصرخ بصوت عالٍ إلى درجة أن توماس أبعد رأسه عن وجهها وكأن صوتها الزاعق سيثقب طبلة أذنه. لم يكن هذا الصراخ تعبيراً عن الشبق فالشبق هو التعبئة القصوى للحواس: نراقب الآخر بانتباه بالغ ونسمع أدنى أصواته. لكن صراخ تيريزا كان بخلاف ذلك، يريد أن يُرهق الحواس ويمنعها من الرؤية والسمع. كانت المثالية الساذجة لحبّها هي التي تزعق في داخلها راغبة في إلغاء كل التناقضات، وفي إلغاء ثنائية الروح والجسد، وحتّى في إلغاء الزمن.

كان يخشى في أغلب الأحيان أن يجدها جالسة على أرض الدكان الذي تشتري منه السجائر.

Every psychological explanation comes sooner or later to lean either on biology or on logic (or on sociology, but this in turn leads to the same alternatives).

But who knows why we really do anything? Who knows why we do what we do when we do it? Why your local barista greeted you with a curt 'hi' instead of her usual, mellifluous-sounding 'hello' has a trillion justifications. So, why someone decides to commit suicide might take a while to explain, and a lifetime to begin comprehending...

لا أحد يعرف ذلك بصورة أفضل مما يعرف السياسيون. فما أن يروا آلة تصوير على مقربة منهم حتى يهبُّوا راكضين إثر أول طفل يصادفونه فيحملونه في أذرعتهم ويقبلونه في خده. «الكيتش» هو المثال الأعلى لكل السياسيين ولكل الحركات السياسية.

Dehumanization isn’t a way of talking. It’s a way of thinking—a way of thinking that, sadly, comes all too easily to us. Dehumanization is a scourge, and has been so for millennia. It acts as a psychological lubricant, dissolving our inhibitions and inflaming our destructive passions. As such, it empowers us to perform acts that would, under other circumstances, be unthinkable.

To begin an ethnographic project with a goal, with an object of research and a set of presumptions, is already to stymie the process of discovery; it blocks one's ability to learn something new that exceed the frameworks with which one enters.

It is only when you meet someone of a different culture from yourself that you begin to realize what your own beliefs really are.

لم تكن الروح قادرة على إشاحة بصرها عن شائبة الولادة المستديرة السمراء فوق العانة تماماً؛ كانت الروح ترى في هذه الشائبة ختماً وسمت به الجسد، وكانت تجد أن تحرك عضو غريب على مقربة جداً من هذا الختم المقدس، أمر فيه تجديف.

فهي لم تكن تملك , في مقابلة عالم التفاهة الذي يحيط بها، إلا سلاحاً واحداً: الكتب التي تستعيرها من مكتبة البلدية وخصوصاً الروايات. كانت تقرأ أكداساً منها، ابتداءً بفيلدنغ وانتهاءً بتوماس مان. كانت هذه الروايات تمنحها فرصة للهروب الخيالي، وتقتلعها من حياة لم تكن تعطيها أي شعور بالاكتفاء. لكنها كانت أيضاً تعني لها بصفتها أدوات: كانت تحب أن تتنزه وهي تتأبط كتباً. كانت تميّزها عن الآخرين مثلما كانت العصا تميز المتأنق في القرن الفائت. (المقارنة بين الكتاب وعصا المتأنق ليست صحيحة تماماً. فالعصا التي تميّر المتأنق كانت تجعل منه شخصاً عصرياً و «على الموضة». أمّا الكتاب الذي يميّز تيريزا عن النساء الأخريات فيجعلها خارج زمانها. كانت طبعاً أكثر شباباً من أن تفهم ما هو «قديم الزي» في شخصيتها. كانت تجد المراهقين الذين يتنزهون حولها حاملين ترانزستوارت زاعقة، بُلهاء، ولم يكن يخطر في بالها أنهم عصريون.)

منذ ذلك الحين وكلاهما يغتبط مسبقاً بالنوم سوية. وأميل تقريباً للقول بأن الهدف من الجماع بالنسبة لهما لم يكن النشوة بل النعاس الذي يعقبها. وهي، خاصة، لم تكن تستطيع أن تنام من دونه. لو صدف وبقيت وحيدة في شقتها الصغيرة (التي لم تعد إلا مجرد خدعة) كانت غير قادرة على إغماض جفن طيلة الليل. أما بين ذراعيه فكانت تغفو دائماً مهما تكن درجة اضطرابها. كان يروي من أجلها بصوت خافت قصصاً يبتدعها أو ترّهاتٍ وكلمات مضحكة يعيدها بلهجة رتيبة. كانت هذه الكلمات تتحول في مخيّلتها إلى رؤى مشوّشة تأخذ بيدها إلى الحلم الأول. كان يملك تأثيراً خارقاً على إغفائها وكانت تغفو في الدقيقة التي يقرر هو أن ينتقيها.

عندما هدأ صراخها، نامت قرب توماس وأمسكت بيده طوال الليل. منذ كانت في الثامنة وهي تغفو جامعة يديها ومتخيلة أنها تمسك الرجل الذي تحبه، رجل حياتها. كان مفهوماً إذاً أن تشد بهذا العزم على يد توماس.

Those in authority within institutions and social structures attempt to justify their rule by linking it, as if it were a necessary consequence, with moral symbols, sacred emblems, or legal formulae which are widely believed and deeply internalized. These central conceptions may refer to a god or gods, the 'votes of the majority,' the 'will of the people,' the 'aristocracy of talents or wealth,' to the 'divine right of kings' or to the alleged extraordinary endowment of the person of the ruler himself.

عندها تذكر توماس حكاية أُوديب. أُوديب أيضاً لم يكن عارفاً بأنه يضاجع أمه، ومع ذلك فإنه عندما عرف بالأمر لم يجد نفسه بريئاً. ولم يستطع تحمل مشهد الشقاء الذي سببه جهله ففقأ عينيه وغادر «ثيب» وهو أعمى. كان توماس يسمع زعيق الشيوعيين وهم يدافعون عن براءة ذمتهم، ويفكر: بسبب جهلكم فقد هذا البلد حريته لقرون عديدة مقبلة وتزعقون قائلين بأنكم أبرياء؟ كيف تجرؤون بعد على النظر حواليكم؟ كيف، ألم تصابوا بالهلع؟ أو لا عيون لديكم لتبصروا! لو كانت عندكم عيون حقاً لكنتم فقأتموها وغادرتم «ثيب»! كانت هذه المقارنة تروق له إلى حد أنه كان يستعملها مراراً في أحاديثه مع أصدقائه، وكان يعبّر عنها بعبارات أكثر لذعاً وأكثر فصاحة.

من البديهي أنها لا تعي هذه الحقيقة، وهذا شيء مفهوم: فالهدف الذي نلاحقه محجوب عنا دائماً . . حين ترغب فتاة شابة في الزواج فهي ترغب في شيء تجهله تماماً. والشاب الذي يركض وراء المجد لا يملك أدنى فكرة عن المجد. لذلك، فإن الشيء الذي يعطي معنى لتصرفاتنا شيء نجهله تماماً. سابينا أيضاً تجهل ما هو الهدف من رغبتها في الخيانة. أيكون الهدف منها الوصول إلى الخفة غير المحتملة للكائن؟ منذ رحيلها عن جنيف وهي تقترب أكثر فأكثر من هذا الهدف.

Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.

أضافت المصوّر بتحبّب أمومي : «أجساد عارية. ولكن هذا أمر طبيعي جداً! وكل ما هو طبيعي جميل!».

الخيانة. منذ طفولتنا والوالد ومعلم المدرسة يكرران على مسامعنا بأنها أفظع شيء في الوجود.

Ο άνθρωπος βλέπει, ακούει, μιλάει σωστά μόνο όταν ενδιαφέρεται για τη σύνδεση με το περιβάλλον, με τους άλλους ανθρώπους.

Psychology either tends to glorify human beings or trivialize them, leaving out the complexity of the human soul and the demands of God.

Definitions from Mulla Do-Piaza Wisdom: Something you can learn without knowing it.

The intolerance of uncertainty and ignorance flows not only from pridefulness, but from a universal human desire to find meanings and patterns everywhere. The mind abhors a vacuum.

Conspiracy thinking inflates the sizableness of the perceived enemy into infinity so that in the end one can only feel powerless compared to such a giant. In this way, conspiracy thinking also embodies an aspect of self destruction.

I refer to what is called mysterium iniquitatis, meaning, as I see it, that a crime in the final analysis remains inexplicable inasmuch as it cannot be fully traced back to biological, psychological and/or sociological factors. Totally explaining one’s crime would be tantamount to explaining away his or her guilt and to seeing in him or her not a free and responsible human being but a machine to be repaired. Even criminals themselves abhor this treatment and prefer to be held responsible for their deeds. From a convict serving his sentence in an Illinois penitentiary I received a letter in which he deplored that 'the criminal never has a chance to explain himself. He is offered a variety of excuses to choose from. Society is blamed and in many instances the blame is put on the victim.

Sociologically, politically, psychologically, spiritually, it was never enough for James Baldwin to categorize himself as one thing or the other: not just black, not just sexual, not just American, nor even just as a world-class literary artist. He embraced the whole of life the way the sun’s gravitational passion embraces everything from the smallest wandering comet to the largest looming planet.

كان بإمكان آنّا أن تنهي حياتها بطريقة أخرى مختلفة تماماً. ولكن حافز المحطة والموت، هذا الحافز الذي لا يُنسى لاقترانه ببداية الحب، كان يجذبها في لحظات اليأس، بجماله القائم. فالإنسان ينسج حياته على غير علم منه وفقاً لقوانين الجمال حتى في لحظات اليأس الأكثر قتامة. لا يمكن إذاً أن يأخذ أحد على رواية افتتانها بالاتفاق الغامض للصدف. (مثلاً، تلاقي فرونسكي وآنّـا والرصيف والموت أو تلاقي بيتهوڤن وتوماس وتيريزا وكأس الكونياك). لكن يمكن أن يؤخذ بِحقٍّ على الإنسان حين يُعمي عينيه عن هذه الصدفْ فيحرم بالتالي حياته من بُعد الجمال.

I spent the beginning of my focus on activism by doing what most everyone else was doing; blaming other people and institutions. Don’t like the war? Let’s blame the president, congress, or lobbyists. Don’t like ecological disregard? Let’s blame this or that corrupt corporation or some regulatory body for poor performance. Don’t like being poor and socially immobile? Let’s blame government coercion and interference in this free market utopia everyone keeps talking about. The sobering truth of the matter is that the only thing to blame is the dynamic, causal unfolding of system expression itself on the cultural level. In other words, none of us create or do anything in isolation – it’s impossible. We are system-bound both physically and psychologically; a continuum. Therefore our view of causality with respect to societal change can only be truly productive if we seek and source the most relevant sociological influences we can and begin to alter those effects from the root causes.

عادت تيريزا إلى النوم من جديد. ولكنه هو لم يستطع النوم. كان يتخيلها ميتة وترى أحلاماً رهيبة. ولم يكن في استطاعته إيقاظها لأنها ميتة. نعم، هذا هو الموت: أن تنام تيريزا وترى أحلاماً فظيعة دون أن يتمكن من إيقاظها.

But does the danger really lie in the lack of universality? Doesn't it rather lurk in the pretense of totality? What is dangerous is the attempt of a man who is an expert, say, in the field of biology, to understand and explain human beings exclusively in terms of biology. The same is true of psychology and sociology as well. At the moment at which totality is claimed, biology becomes biologism, psychology becomes psychologism, and sociology becomes sociologism. In other words, at that moment science is turned into ideology. What we have to deplore, I would say, is not that scientists are specializing, but that the specialists are generalizing. We are familiar with that type called terrible simplificateurs. Now we become acquainted with a type I would like to call terrible generalisateurs. I mean those who cannot resist the temptation to make overgeneralized statements on the grounds of limited findings.

زد على ذلك أن هذه الأحلام، إلى فصاحتها، كانت جميلة. لقد أغفل فرويد هذا الجانب في نظريته عن الأحلام. فالحلم ليس فقط بلاغاً (بلاغاً مرموزاً عند الاقتضاء) بل هو أيضاً نشاط جمالي ولعبة للخيال. وهذه اللعبة هي بحد ذاتها قيمة. فالحلم هو البرهان على أن التخيل وتصوّر ما ليس له وجود، هو إحدى الحاجات الأساسية للإنسان، وهنا يكمن أصل الخطر الخادع الكامن في الحلم. فلو أن الحلم ليس جميلاً، لأمكننا نسيانه بسهولة. لذلك، كانت تيريزا ترجع باستمرار إلى أحلامها وتعيدها في مخيلتها وتختلق منها أساطير. أمّا توماس فكان يعيش في كنف السحر المنوّم، سحر الجمال الأليم لأحلام تيريزا.

في سفر التكوين، عهد الله إلى الإنسان بالسيادة على الحيوانات. وبإمكاننا أن نفسر ذلك قائلين إن الله قد أعار هذه السلطة له. الإنسان ليس مالك الكوكب بل وكيله وعليه ذات يوم أن يقدم كشفاً لحسابه. ديكارت ذهب أبعد من ذلك في هذا المنحى: جعل الإنسان «سيد الطبيعة ومالكها». وهو منطقي جداً بالتأكيد فيما يتعلق بنفيه لوجود الروح عند الحيوانات. فحسب ما يقول ديكارت، الإنسان هو المالك والسيد فيما الحيوان ليس إلا مسيّراً وآلة حية، أو ما يمسيه بال «ماشينا-أنيماتا». عندما يئن الحيوان فالأمر لا يتعلق بشكوى بل بصرير تطلقه آلة تسير بشكل سيئ. فحين تئز عجلة عربة فهذا لا يعني أن العربة تتألم بل لأنها تحتاج إلى تشحيم. وبالطريقة ذاتها يجب أن يُفسّر نحيب الحيوان. ويجب ألا نشفق على كلب يُشرَّح وهو حيّ في مختبر.

Only a person who is motivated in the inner depths of his being will help without hesitation and with no obligation for the one helped.

ثم قال «لا أعرف حقاً ما إذا كان هذا المقال قد ساعد أحداً ما. ولكني خلال عملي كجرّاح أنقذت حياة أناس كثيرين». ساد صمت جديد ثم قطعه قائلاً: «الأفكار أيضاً يمكنها أن تنقذ الحياة».

البراز إذاً هو مسألة لاهوتية أكثر صعوبة من مسألة الشر. فالله قد أعطى الحرية للإنسان وبذلك يمكننا أن نسلّم بأن الله ليس مسؤولاً عن جرائم البشر.

The Google self and the Facebook self, in other words, are pretty different people. There's a big difference between "you are what you click" and "you are what you share.

The days of my youth can be described as my innocence hitting every obstacle along the way while plummeting into the abyss.

Marriage is for the mature, not the infantile. The fusion of two different personalities requires emotional balance and control on the part of each person.

Be generous, kind and compassionate. These are true characteristics of successful people.

Human beings are, necessarily, actors who cannot become something before they have first pretended to be it; and they can be divided, not into the hypocritical and the sincere, but into the sane who know they are acting and the mad who do not.

The stubborn inequalities in the Unites States are not the result of some people living in a physical environment. Their environment is built by social forces, and those forces last for centuries because they are regenerated across the generations.

What I had done was nothing so extraordinary. I had simply taken [the prisoners] as human beings and not mistaken them for mechanisms to repair. I had interpreted them in the same way they had interpreted themselves all along, that is to say, as free and responsible. I had not offered them a cheap escape from guilt feelings by conceiving of them as victims of biological, psychological, or sociological conditioning processes. Nor had I taken them as helpless pawns on the battleground of id, ego, and superego.

بإمكان الكوكب أن يتهاوى على أثر تفجير القنابل. ويمكن للوطن أن ينهبه كل يوم مختلس جديد، ويمكن لسكان الحي جميعهم أن يُساقوا إلى كتيبة الإعدام. يمكنه أن يتحمل كل هذا بسهولة أكبر مما يجرؤ على القول، ولكنه غير قادر على تحمل الحزن الذي يسببه حلم واحد من أحلام تيريزا.

It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative programme, on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off, than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and the "they", the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive programme.

لقاءه بتيريزا كان حصيلة صدف ست بعيدة الاحتمال. لكن، خلافاً لذلك أفلا تقاس أهمية حدث، وكثرة معانيه بارتباطه بأكبر عدد ممكن من الصدف؟ وحدها الصدفة يمكن أن تكون ذات مغزى. فما يحدث بالضرورة، ما هو متوقع ويتكرر يومياً يبقى شيئاً أبكم. وحدها الصدفة ناطقة. نسعى لأن نقرأ فيها كما يقرأ الغجريون في الرسوم التي يخطها ثفل القهوة في مقر الفنجان.

They all know the truth, that there are only three subjects worth talking about. At least here in these parts," he says, "The weather, which, as they're farmers, affects everything else. Dying and birthing, of both people and animals. And what we eat - this last item comprising what we ate the day before and what we're planning to eat tomorrow. And all three of these major subjects encompass, in one way or another, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, the physical sciences, history, art, literature, and religion. We get around to sparring about all that counts in life but we usually do it while we're talking about food, it being a subject inseparable from every other subject. It's the table and the bed that count in life. And everything else we do, we do so we can get back to the table, back to the bed.

أثناء النهار، كانت تيريزا تحاول جاهدة (لكن دون أن تتمكن فعلاً) لأن تصدق ما يقوله توماس وأن تكون سعيدة كما فعلت حتى الآن. غير أن الغيرة المكبوتة في النهار كانت تظهر بشكل أكثر عنفاً في أحلامها التي تنتهي دائماً بنحيب لا ينقطع إلا حين يوقظها توماس. كانت أحلامها تتكرر على شكل حلقات متنوعة أو مسلسلٍ تلفزيوني. ثمة حلو كان يتكرر باستمرار على سبيل المثال، وهو حلم الهررة التي تقفز إلى وجهها مُنشبة مخالبها في جلدها. في الحقيقة يمكن تفسير هذا الحلم بسهولة: الهرة في اللغة التشيكية كلمة عامية تعني فتاة جميلة. كانت تيريزا إذاً تشعر أنها مهددة من النساء، كل النساء. فالنساء كلُّهن عشيقات محتملات لتوماس ولهذا فهي تخاف منهن.

ماذا بقي من محتضري كمبوديا؟ صورة كبيرة للنجمة الأميركية تحمل بين ذراعيها طفلاً أصفر. ماذا بقي من توماس؟ كتابةُ: أراد مملكة الله على الأرض. ماذا بقي من بيتهوڤن؟ رجل مقطب الوجه، مشعث الشعر كمجنون وينطق بصوت مكتئب «Esmuss Sein» «ليس من ذلك بدّ». ماذا بقي من فرانز؟ كتابةُ: بعد طول ضلال، العودة. وهكذا دواليك، وهكذا دواليك. قبل أن نُنسَى نتحول إلى «كيتش». «الكيتش» هو محطة اتصال بين الكائن والنسيان.

Every time a social phenomenon is directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, we may rest assured that the explanation is false".

Is this World a reality or just a Human perceptions?

Any society which enjoins its members to adhere to both of these (politeness and truth) is a fraud.

I can see patterns. I see the gestalt, the melody within the notes, in everything: mathematics and science, art and music, psychology and sociology.

تُرى كيف كان هذا ممكناً؟ قبل ذلك بقليل كانت القبعة التي تضعها على رأسها تهمُّ بأن تكون مجرد مزحة. ماذا! ألا تفصل المضحك عن المثير غير خطوة واحدة؟

A society whose members are helpless need idols.

Similar probabilistic models have become central to economics, sociology, psychology, political science and the other social and natural sciences.

The intolerance of uncertainty and ignorance flows not only from pridefulness, but from a universal human desire to find meanings and patterns everywhere. The mind abhors a vacuum.

Guilt is an acknowledgment of debt for unbalanced transactions.

I had heard for years of Muslim hospitality, but one couldn't quite imagine such warmth.

Learn your own pain. embrace it. make it your obsession and understand that pain is life, and life is blood, and blood leads to sales.

جاء في بداية سفر التكوين أن الله خلق الإنسان وجعله يتسلط على الطيور والأسماك والماشية. بطبيعة الحال، الحق في سفك دم أيّلٍ أو بقرة هو الشيء الوحيد الذي اتفقت عليه الإنسانية جمعاء بتآخٍ حتى خلال الحروب الأكثر دموية. قد يبدو لنا هذا الحق بديهياً لأننا نعتبر أنفسنا في قمة السلم. ولكن يكفي أن يتدخل شخص شخص ثالث في اللعبة، زائر آتٍ مثلاً من كوكب آخر وقد أمره الله: «سوف تكون لك سلطة على كائنات الكواكب الأخرى كافة»، فتصبح عندئذ بداهة التكوين موضع شك في الحال

there is a danger inherent in the teaching...that man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment. This neurotic fatalism is fostered and strengthened by a psychotherapy which denies that man is free. It is not freedom from conditions, but it is freedom to take a stand toward the conditions.

تجاوزت مدة التمثيلية المرتجلة الحدود. كان فرانز يجد أن هذه الملهاة (التي كان يقرّ بأنها ساحرة على كل حال) قد طالت أكثر من اللازم. فأمسك القبعة الرجالية بين أصبعيه وانتزعها عن رأس سابينا وهو يبتسم، ثم علقها فوق القاعدة. . كان الأمر كمن يمحو شاربين رسمهما ولد عفريت على صورة مريم العذراء.

كانت تخاف من أن يُغلق عليها داخل نعش وأن تُدلَّى في أرض أميركا. لذلك كتبت وصية اشترطت فيها أن تُحرق جثتها بعد موتها، وأن يُنثر رمادها في الهواء. تيريزا وتوماس ماتا تحت شعار الثقل. أما هي فأرادت أن تموت تحت شعار الخفة. سوف تصير أخف من الهواء. وحسب رأي بارمينيد، فإن موتها تحوّل من السلبي إلى الإيجابي.

And then again, in a society given over, as that of the First Empire was, to the physical sciences and inanimate technology, there was a vague but mighty sociological push away from the study of the mind. It was less respectable because less immediately useful; and it was poorly financed since it was less profitable.

This is how all social, ideological, or religious movements police their members-by making clear that agreement will be rewarded with greater social standing and support, and dis-agreement punished with ostracism.

we live now in circumstances that encourage rather than discourage lying; evidence and activity are more easily concealed, and the need to rely on demeanor as an indicator of a person’s truthfulness is greater. And our evolutionary history has not prepared us to be very sensitive to the behavioral clues relevant to lying.

Every age has its own collective neurosis, and every age needs its own psychotherapy to cope with it. The existential vacuum which is the mass neurosis of the present time can be described as a private and personal form of nihilism; for nihilism can be defined as the contention that being has no meaning. As for psychotherapy, however, it will never be able to cope with this state of affairs on a mass scale if it does not keep itself free from the impact and influence of the contemporary trends of a nihilistic philosophy; otherwise it represents a symptom of the mass neurosis rather than its possible cure. Psychotherapy would not only reflect a nihilistic philosophy but also, even though unwillingly and unwittingly, transmit to the patient what is actually a caricature rather than a true picture of man. First of all, there is a danger inherent in the teaching of man's "nothingbutness," the theory that man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment. such a view of man makes a neurotic believe what he is prone to believe anyway, namely, that he is the pawn and victim of outer influences or inner circumstances. This neurotic fatalism is fostered and strengthened by a psychotherapy which denies that man is free. To be sure, a human being is a finite thing and his freedom is restricted. It is not freedom from conditions, but it is freedom to take a stand toward the conditions. As I once put it: "As a professor in two fields, neurology and psychiatry, I am fully aware of the extent to which man is subject to biological, psychological and sociological conditions. But in addition to being a professor in two fields I am a survivor of four camps-concentration camps, that is-and as such I also bear witness to the unexpected extent to which man is capable of defying and braving even the worst conditions conceivable.

Nothing is done. Everything in the world remains to be done or done over. The greatest picture is not yet painted, the greatest play isn’t written, the greatest poem is unsung. There isn’t in all the world a perfect railroad, nor a good government, nor a sound law. Physics, mathematics, and especially the most advanced and exact of the sciences are being fundamentally revised. . . Psychology, economics, and sociology are awaiting a Darwin, whose work in turn is awaiting an Einstein.

By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at any instant. Therefore, we can predict his future only within the large framework of a statistical survey referring to a whole group; the individual personality, however, remains essentially unpredictable. The basis for any predictions would be represented by biological, psychological or sociological conditions. Yet one of the main features of human existence is the capacity to rise above such conditions, to grow beyond them. Man is capable of changing the world for the better if possible, and of changing himself for the better if necessary.

History, Geology, Psychology, Philosophy, Chemistry, Physics, Theology, Mathematics, Technology, Sociology, Biology, and the list goes on and on. If all this body of knowledge exist for human consumption, why would I specialize in only one field?

وأن هناك أيضاً وأيضاً كواكب أخرى حيث يمكن للجنس البشري أن يلد من جديد مرتقياً في كل مرة درجةً (أي حياة) على سُلَّم الكمال. تلك هي الفكرة التي يكوّنها توماس عن العَوْد الأبدي. نحن أيضاً سكان هذه الأرض (أي الكوكب رقم واحد، كوكب انعدام الخبرة)، ليس في إمكاننا طبعاً إلا أن نكوّن فكرة غامضة جدًا عما سيصير بحال الإنسان في الكواكب الأخرى. تُرى هل سيكون أكثر ثقلاً؟ هل سيكون الكمال في متناول يده؟ وهل سيتمكن من الوصول إليه بواسطة التكرار؟ ضمن أفق هذه اليوطوبيا وحده، يمكن لمفهومي التشاؤم والتفاؤل أن يكون لهما معنى: فالمتفائل هو ذلك الذي يتصور أن التاريخ الإنساني سيكون أقل ديمومة على الكوكب رقم ٥. والمتشائم هو ذلك الذي لا يصدّق هذا الأمر.

يعتبر تفتيش المواطنين ومراقبتهم من النشاطات الاجتماعية الأساسية والدائمة في البلدان الشيوعية. فَلِكي ينال رسام حقّه في إقامة معرض أو مواطنٌ على تأشيرة لقضاء عطلته على الشاطئ، أو لكي تتم الموافقة على انضمام لاعب كرة إلى الفريق الوطني، يجب أن تجتمع أصلاً كل أنواع التقارير والشهادات التي تخصهم، (شهادة الناطور وزملاء العمل والشرطة وخلية موظّفون معدّون لهذه المهمة. أما ما يقال في هذه التصاريح فلا علاقة له البتة بموهبة المواطن في الرسم أو في لعب الكرة، ولا علاقة له بما إذا كانت تسمح له حالته الصحية بقضاء عطلة على الشاطئ. هناك أمر واحد يهم وهو ما يسمّى «بالخلفية السياسية للمواطن» (أي ماذا يقول المواطن، بماذا يفكر، كيف يتصرف، هل يشارك في الاجتماعات أو في التظاهرات في الأول من إيار). وبما أن كل شيء (الحياة اليومية والترقية والعطلات) مرتبط بالطريقة التي يقيّمون فيها سلوك المواطن، فإن الجميع مضطرون إذاً، (من أجل اللعب مع الفريق الوطني أو للتمكن من إقامة معرض، أو لقضاء عطلة على شاطئ البحر) للتصرف بطريقة تجعل علاماتهم حسنة.

First of all, there is a danger inherent in the teaching of man’s “nothingbutness,” the theory that man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment. Such a view of man makes a neurotic believe what he is prone to believe anyway, namely, that he is the pawn and victim of outer influences or inner circumstances. This neurotic fatalism is fostered and strengthened by a psychotherapy which denies that man is free. To be sure, a human being is a finite thing, and his freedom is restricted. It is not freedom from conditions, but it is freedom to take a stand toward the conditions.

It is, in fact, a healthy response to atomization to seek to join up with others. As humans we are social animals. We have a fundamental need to join with others to seek solutions to the problems of survival. The danger arises if, in that effort, one encounters a totalist group that seeks to isolate and control its members - then one's own survival, and potentially that of others, is put at the gravest risk.

في مملكة «الكيتش» التوتاليتارية تعطى الإجابات مسبقاً محرِّمة بذلك أي سؤال جديد. ينتج عن ذلك أن الإنسان الذي يتساءل هو العدو الحقيقي لـ «الكيتش». السؤال هو مثل مسكين يمزق القماشة المرسومة للديكور فيصبح في المستطاع رؤية ما يختبئ خلفها. هكذا شرحت سابينا لتيريزا معنى لوحاتها: من الأمام الكذب الصارخ، ومن الخلف الحقيقة التي لا يُدرك كنهها. إلا أن هؤلاء الذين يناضلون ضد الأنظمة المسمّاة توتاليتارية قلَّما يمكنهم النضال من خلال أسئلة وشكوك. فهُم أيضاً بحاجة إلى قناعتهم وإلى حقيقتهم البسيطة التي يفترض أن يفهمها أكبر عدد ممكن من الناس وأن تحدث إفرازاً دمْعياً جماعياً.

The sciences are sometimes likened to different levels of a tall building: logic in the basement, mathematics on the ground floor, then particle physics, then the rest of physics and chemistry, and so forth, all the way up to psychology, sociology – and the economists in the penthouse.

If you turn to a branch of those sciences that try to give a solution to the questions of life--to physiology, psychology, biology, sociology--there you will find an astounding poverty of thought, a very great lack of clarity, completely unjustified claims to answer questions that lie outside their subject and never-ending contradictions between one thinker and others, and even within himself. If you turn to a branch of the sciences that is not concerned with solving the questions of life but answers its own scientific, specialized questions, then you are captivated by the power of human intellect but you know in advance that there are no answers to the questions of life. These sciences directly ignore the questions of life. They say, "We have no answers to 'What are you?' and 'Why do you live?' and are not concerned with this; but if you need to know the laws of light, of chemical compounds, the laws of the development of organisms, if you need to know the laws of bodies and their forms and the relation of numbers and quantities, if you need to know the laws of your own mind, to all that we have clear, precise, and unquestionable answers.

Advertising is profoundly manipulative at its core. Its imagery strives to deprive us of realistic ideas about love, sex, beauty, health, money, work, and life itself, in an attempt to convince us that only products can bring us true joy. Its practitioners are trained in psychology, sociology, argumentation, poetry, and design. These are powerful tools in the art of persuasion, more so when deployed by a multibillion-dollar industry.

ينتج عن ذلك أن الوفاق التام مع الكائن يتخذ مثاله الأعلى عالماً يُنتفى منه البراز، ويتصرف كل واحد فيه وكأن البراز غير موجود. هذا المثال الجمالي يدعى «الكيتش». «كيتش» هي كلمة ألمانية ظهرت في أواسط القرن التاسع عشر العاطفي، ثم انتشرت بعد ذلك في جميع اللغات. ولكن استعمالها بكثرة أزال دلالتها الميتافيزيقية الأصلية وهي: كلمة كيتش في الأساس نفي مطلق للبراز. وبالمعنى الحرفي كما بالمعنى المجازي «الكيتش» تطرح جانباً كل ما هو غير مقبول في الوجود الإنساني.

She spoke to him of her problems, and that made him forget his own. She told him that he was intelligent, thoughtful, becoming, and deeply magnetic - everything he wanted so badly for her to see in him. Attention is the greatest gift when you're too afraid to pay it to yourself, the wind ruminates.

No matter what I study, I can see patterns. I see the gestalt, the melody within the notes, in everything: mathematics and science, art and music, psychology and sociology. As I read the texts, I can think only that the authors are plodding along from one point to the next, groping for connections that they can’t see. They’re like a crowd of people unable to read music, peering at the score for a Bach sonata, trying to explain how one note leads to another. As glorious as these patterns are, they also whet my appetite for more. There are other patterns waiting to be discovered, gestalts of another scale entirely. With respect to those, I’m blind myself; all my sonatas are just isolated data points by comparison. I have no idea what form such gestalts might assume, but that’ll come in time. I want to find them, and comprehend them. I want this more than anything I’ve ever wanted before.

Care of the mouth. — Technique of coughing and of spitting. Here is a personal observation. A little girl did not know how to spit and each of her colds was aggravated as a result. I gathered this information. In her father's village and in his family in particular, au Berry, no one knows how to spit. I taught her how to spit. I gave her four sous per spit. As she wanted to have a bicycle, she learned how to spit. She was the first in the family to know how to spit. (Marcel Mauss, "Les techniques du corps," in Anthropologze et Sociologze. [Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1935, p. 383.)

there is a danger inherent in the teaching of man’s “nothingbutness,” the theory that man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment. Such a view of man makes a neurotic believe what he is prone to believe anyway, namely, that he is the pawn and victim of outer influences or inner circumstances. This neurotic fatalism is fostered and strengthened by a psychotherapy which denies that man is free.

عندما كان سيمون يفكر في ذلك اللقاء كان يشعر بالخجل من وَهَله. من المؤكد أنه لم يُعجب أباه. أما هو فأُعجب بأبيه. كان يتذكر كل كلمة تفوّه بها مستصوباً مواقفه أكثر فأكثر. هناك جملة على الأخص علقت بذاكرته: «إدانة هؤلاء الذين لا يعرفون ماذا يفعلون، عمل بربري». وعندما وضع عمّ صديقته كتاب التوراة بين يديه، تأثر بكلمات يسوع التي تقول: «إغفر لهم لأنهم لا يدرون ماذا يفعلون». كان يعرف أن أباه ملحد ولكن التشابه بين الجملتين كان بالنسبة له وكأنه رمز خفي يعني أن أباه يستحسن الطريق التي اختارها.

Mental islands are very dangerous.

man is no more than a product of many conditional and environmental factors—be they of a biological, psychological or sociological nature?

We are more likely to be swayed by a single person who testifies with passion than by a bar chart containing data compiled from thousands of people.

A fundamentalist to somebody who absolutely knows what’s right because it’s written in a holy book.

Statistics courses are now part of the basic requirements, not just in physics and biology, but also in psychology, sociology, economics and political science

Self-preservation is the perfect Trojan Horse to make people opt-in to Self-destruction

Our elegy is a sociological one, yes, but it is also about psychology and community and culture and faith. During

Amythia,” the pathological lack of myths, has been diagnosed as the root cause of any number of modern sociological and psychological evils.

It is only when you meet someone of a different culture from yourself that you begin to realize what your own beliefs really are.

The entire idea of sin, is based on books of the dead people. It is a sociological invention founded on textual fanaticism.

[A] public realm that works in our fragmented society [is] one that does not yearn for an idealized past and a closed vision of community, but looks forward to an open, welcoming, safe and diverse, pluralist view of community life where children are valued, universal human rights are valued and varied cultural expressions that respect these rights are valued.

It wasn't real conservatism at all, of course, but an unthought longing for the dear old days when one could predict what would be there tomorrow, if not next week. Unable to get the big picture, they welcomed the conveniences, the miniaturization of this and the speed of that, and then they were angrily confused when their support of these things changed their world.

Frankly, the overwhelming majority of academics have ignored the data explosion caused by the digital age. The world’s most famous sex researchers stick with the tried and true. They ask a few hundred subjects about their desires; they don’t ask sites like PornHub for their data. The world’s most famous linguists analyze individual texts; they largely ignore the patterns revealed in billions of books. The methodologies taught to graduate students in psychology, political science, and sociology have been, for the most part, untouched by the digital revolution. The broad, mostly unexplored terrain opened by the data explosion has been left to a small number of forward-thinking professors, rebellious grad students, and hobbyists. That will change.

Never really either private or public, the modern self establishes its value through processes that are at once psychological and sociological, private and public, emotional and ritualistic. Clearly, then, in modern erotic/romantic relationships what is at stake are the self, its emotions, interiority, and, mostly, the way these are recognized (or fail to be recognized) by others.

But what is the point of writing if not to unearth things, or even just one thing that cannot be reduced to any kind of psychological or sociological explanation and is not the result of a preconceived idea or demonstration but a narrative: something that emerges from the creases when a story is unfolded, and can help us understand—endure—events that occur and the things that we do?

But what about human liberty? Is there no spiritual freedom in regard to behavior and reaction to any given surroundings? Is that theory true which would have us believe that man is no more than a product of many conditional and environmental factors—be they of a biological, psychological or sociological nature? Is man but an accidental product of these? Most important, do the prisoners’ reactions to the singular world of the concentration camp prove that man cannot escape the influences of his surroundings? Does man have no choice of action in the face of such circumstances?

Therefore, Orientalism is not a mere political subject matter or field that is reflected passively by culture, scholarship, or institutions; nor is it a large and diffuse collection of texts about the Orient; nor is it representative and expressive of some nefarious “Western” imperialist plot to hold down the “Oriental” world. It is rather a distribution of geopolitical awareness into aesthetic, scholarly, economic, sociological, historical, and philological texts; it is an elaboration not only of a basic geographical distinction (the world is made up of two unequal halves, Orient and Occident) but also of a whole series of “interests” which, by such means as scholarly discovery, philological reconstruction, psychological analysis, landscape and sociological description, it not only creates but also maintains; it is, rather than expresses, a certain will or intention to understand, in some cases to control, manipulate, even to incorporate, what is a manifestly different (or alternative and novel) world; it is, above all, a discourse that is by no means in direct, corresponding relationship with political power in the raw, but rather is produced and exists in an uneven exchange with various kinds of power, shaped to a degree by the exchange with power political (as with a colonial or imperial establishment), power intellectual (as with reigning sciences like comparative linguistics or anatomy, or any of the modern policy sciences), power cultural (as with orthodoxies and canons of taste, texts, values), power moral (as with ideas about what “we” do and what “they” cannot do or understand as “we” do). Indeed, my real argument is that Orientalism is—and does not simply represent—a considerable dimension of modern political-intellectual culture, and as such has less to do with the Orient than it does with “our” world.

It is not very easy to see,” Mircea Eliade writes, “how the discovery that the primal laws of geometry were due to the empirical necessities of the irrigation of the Nile Delta can have any bearing on the validity or otherwise of those laws.” We can argue here in the same way. For it is really no easier to understand how the fact that the first emergence of the idea of God may possibly have been provoked by a particular spectacle, or have been linked to a particular experience of a sensible nature, could affect the validity of the idea itself. In each case the problem of its birth from experience and the problem of its essence or validity are distinct. The problems of surveying no more engendered geometry than the experience of storm and sky engendered the idea of God. He important thing is to consider the idea in itself; not the occasion of its birth, but its inner constitution. If the idea of God in the mind of man is real, then no fact accessible to history or psychology or sociology, or to any other scientific discipline, can really be its generating cause.

هەر تاکێک پاشەکشە دەکاتەوە بۆ هەناوی خۆی، بە شێوازێک هەڵسووکەوت دەکات کە بە چارەنووسی هەمووان بێگانەیە. لای ئەو هەموو مڕۆڤ دەبنە هاوڕێکانی و مناڵەکانی. لە نێوان هاو وڵاتانی بە چەشنێک هات و چوو دەکات ڕەنگە لەگەڵیان تێکەڵ ببێت، بەڵام نایانبینێت، لێیان نزییک دەبێتەوە بەڵام هەست بە بوونیان ناکات. تەنیا لە ناو خۆی و بۆ خۆی بوونی هەیە و ئەگەر لەم دۆخەدا تەنانەت شتێک بە ناوی بنەماڵە لە زەینی‌دا مابێتەوە شتێک بە ناوی کۆمەڵگا قەت نەماوە

no single book, or expert, or field could fully explain the problems of hillbillies in modern America. Our elegy is a sociological one, yes, but it is also about psychology and community and culture and faith. During

في مجتمع تتعايش فيه تيارات شتّى وحيث يمكن لتأثير هذه التيارات أن يُمحى أو يحدّ بشكل متناوب، يبقى في المستطاع الإفلات تقريباً من محاكم «الكيتش». ويمكن للفرد عندئذ أن يحافظ على تميزه، وللفنان أن يخلق أعمالاً فنيّة مدهشة. ولكن في البلدان التي يستأثر فيها حزب سياسي بالسلطة كلها، نجد أنفسنا حالاً في مملكة «الكيتش» الدكتاتورية. إذا كنت أقول ديكتاتورية فإني أقصد بذلك أن كل ما يطعن بـ «الكيتش» ملغىً من الحياة: كل إظهار للفردية، (لأن أي نشاز هو بصفة في وجه الأخوّة الباسمة) وكلّ شك (لأن من يبدأ بالشك في التفاصيل الصغيرة يتوصل في نهاية المطاف لأن يشك في الحياة بحد ذاتها). كذلك السخرية (لأن كل شيء في مملكة «الكيتش» يؤخذ على محمل الجد)، وأيضاً الأم التي هجرت عائلتها، أو الرجل الذي يفضّل الرجال على النساء مهدداً بذلك الشعار المقدس «تناسلو واملاؤا الأرض». انطلاقاً من وجهة النظر هذه، فإن ما يسمى بـ «الغولاغ» يمكن اعتباره ثغرة عفنة يرمي فيها «الكيتش» التوتاليتاري بأوساخه.

Medicine, psychology, criminology, sociology. Which treat bodies as machinery (passim Descartes, the “father” of our Western subject). Developing alongside the dirty sciences. Industrialization, Taylorization, automation.

Life is a delicate dance. We live in a society that governs we all get along. The invisible fine print, the unwritten rules and regulations state that we appease to each other's nature and in doing so, we by nature, seek to please.

The truth is that anxiety is at once a function of biology and philosophy, body and mind, instinct and reason, personality and culture. Even as anxiety is experienced at a spiritual and psychological level, it is scientifically measurable at the molecular level and the physiological level. It is produced by nature and it is produced by nurture. It’s a psychological phenomenon and a sociological phenomenon. In computer terms, it’s both a hardware problem (I’m wired badly) and a software problem (I run faulty logic programs that make me think anxious thoughts). The origins of a temperament are many faceted; emotional dispositions that may seem to have a simple, single source—a bad gene, say, or a childhood trauma—may not.

It would be years before I learned that no single book, or expert, or field could fully explain the problems of hillbillies in modern America. Our elegy is a sociological one, yes, but it is also about psychology and community and culture and faith.

The consciousness of power always produces vanity, an undue belief in personal greatness. The desire to dominate, for good or for evil, is universal. These are elementary psychological facts. In the leader, the consciousness of his personal worth, and of the need which the mass feels for guidance, combine to induce in his mind a recognition of his superiority (real or supposed), and awake, in addition, that spirit of command which exists in the germ of every man and woman. We see from this that every human power seeks to enlarge its preogatives. He who has acquired power will almost alwayss endeavour to consolidate it and to extend it, to multiply the ramparts which defend his position, and to withdraw himself from the control of the masses.

It would be years before I learned that no single book, or expert, or field could fully explain the problems of hillbillies in modern America. Our elegy is a sociological one, yes, but it is also about psychology and community and culture and faith. During

Frosh (2002) has suggested that therapeutic spaces provide children and adults with the rare opportunity to articulate experiences that are otherwise excluded from the dominant symbolic order. However, since the 1990s, post-modern and post-structural theory has often been deployed in ways that attempt to ‘manage’ from; afar the perturbing disclosures of abuse and trauma that arise in therapeutic spaces (Frosh 2002). Nowhere is this clearer than in relation to organised abuse, where the testimony of girls and women has been deconstructed as symptoms of cultural hysteria (Showalter 1997) and the colonisation of women’s minds by therapeutic discourse (Hacking 1995). However, behind words and discourse, ‘a real world and real lives do exist, howsoever we interpret, construct and recycle accounts of these by a variety of symbolic means’ (Stanley 1993: 214). Summit (1994: 5) once described organised abuse as a ‘subject of smoke and mirrors’, observing the ways in which it has persistently defied conceptualisation or explanation. Explanations for serious or sadistic child sex offending have typically rested on psychiatric concepts of ‘paedophilia’ or particular psychological categories that have limited utility for the study of the cultures of sexual abuse that emerge in the families or institutions in which organised abuse takes pace. For those clinicians and researchers who take organised abuse seriously, their reliance upon individualistic rather than sociological explanations for child sexual abuse has left them unable to explain the emergence of coordinated, and often sadistic, multi—perpetrator sexual abuse in a range of contexts around the world.

كانت القبعة تصير إذاً لازمة موسيقية في المقطوعة التي هي حياة سابينا. كانت هذه اللازمة تتكرر دائماً وأبداً آخذة في كل مرة معنى جديداً. وكانت هذه المعاني تمر كلها عبر القبعة الرجالية كما يمر الماء في مجرى النهر. وأستطيع القول إن مجرى النهر هذا مشابه لمجرى نهر هيراقليط: «إننا لا نستحم مرتين في النهر نفسه». كانت سابينا ترى أن القبعة الرجالية مجرى نهر يسيل فيه كل مرة نهر آخر، نهر «لغوي آخر»، حيث يثير الشيئ نفسه كل مرة معنى جديداً، ولكن هذا المعنى الجديد كان يرجّع (مثل صدىً أو موكب أصداء) كل المعاني السابقة . . فتظنُّ حينها كل تجربة جديدة معيوشة بإيقاع أكثر غنى.

Descubrir un sistema para evitar la guerra es una necesidad vital para nuestra civilización, pero ningún sidtema tiene posibilidades de funcionar mientras los hombres sean tan desdichados que el exterminio mutuo les parezca menos terrible que afrontar continuamente la luz del día.

These four questions that never go away are: 1. Why are we here, in service to what, and toward what end? (the cosmological question) 2. How are we as animal forms, empowered with spirit, to live in harmony with our natural environment? (the ecological question) 3. Who are my people, what is my duty to others, and what are rights and duties, privileges, and expectations of my tribe? (the sociological question) 4. Who am I, how am I different from others, what is my life about, and how am I to find my way through the difficulties of live? (the psychological question)

To be sure, a human being is a finite thing, and his freedom is restricted. It is not freedom from conditions, but it is freedom to take a stand toward the conditions. As I once put it: "As a professor in two fields, neurology and psychiatry, I am fully aware of the extent to which man is subject to biological, psychological and sociological conditions. But in addition to being a professor in two fields I am a survivor of four camps - concentration camps, that is - and as such I also bear witness to the unexpected extent to which man is capable of defying and braving even the worst conditions conceivable.

In the nineteenth century, Emile Durkheim, the founder of sociology and an early pioneer of the social sciences, ran a thought experiment in one of his books: What if there were no crime? What if there emerged a society where everyone was perfectly respectful and nonviolent and everyone was equal? What if no one lied or hurt each other? What if corruption did not exist? What would happen? Would conflict cease? Would stress evaporate? Would everyone frolic in fields picking daises and singing the "Hallelujah" chorus from Handel's Messiah? Durkheim said no, that in fact the opposite would happen. He suggested that the more comfortable and ethical a society became, the more that small indiscretions would become magnified in our minds. If everyone stopped killing each other, we wouldn't necessarily feel good about it. We'd just get equally upset about the more minor stuff. Developmental psychology has long argued something similar: that protecting people from problems or adversity doesn't make them happier or more secure; it makes them more easily insecure. A young person who has been sheltered form dealing with any challenges or injustices growing up will come to find the slightest inconveniences of adult life intolerable, and will have the childish public meltdown to prove it.

Pour la majorité des gens, le physique compte en amitié et même pour les relations les plus élémentaires....je parle de cette chose si vague et si importante que l'on nomme physionomie. AU premier coup d'oeil, il y a des êtres qu'on aime et des malheureux qu'on ne peut pas encadrer. Le nier serait une injustice supplémentaire.

The feminine mystique, elevated by Freudian theory into a scientific religion, sounded a single, overprotective, life-restricting, future-denying note for women. Girls who grew up playing baseball, baby-sitting, mastering geometry -- almost independent enough, almost resourceful enough, to meet the problems of the fission-fusion era -- were told by the most advanced thinkers of our time to go back and live their lives as if they were Noras, restricted to the doll's house by Victorian prejudice. And their own respect and awe for the authority of science -- anthropology, sociology, psychology share that authority now -- kept them from questioning the feminine mystique.

Hence, what he wants—and it is openly admitted—is to implement nationalistic imperialism with methods he has borrowed from Marxism, including its technique of mass organization. But the success of this mass organization is to be ascribed to the masses and not to Hitler. It was man's authoritarian freedom-fearing structure that enabled his propaganda to take root. Hence, what is important about Hitler sociologically does not issue from his personality but from the importance attached to him by the masses. And what makes the problem all the more complex is the fact that Hitler held the masses, with whose help he wanted to carry out his imperialism, in complete contempt.

Robbers, thieves, smugglers, and cheats know their own local and personal circumstances and conditions extremely well, and pay the most active attention to their business; but it by no means follows therefrom, that society is in the best condition where such individuals are at least restrained in the exercised of their private industry.

The unstated premise that nature is nice lies behind many of the objections to the Darwinian theory of human sexuality. Carefree sex is natural and good, it is assumed, so if someone claims that men want it more than women do, it would imply that men are mentally healthy and women neurotic and repressed. That conclusion is unacceptable, so the claim that men want carefree sex more than women do cannot be correct. Similarly, sexual desire is good, so if men rape for sex (rather than to express anger towards women), rape would not be as evil. Rape is evil; therefore the claim that men rape for sex cannot be correct. More generally, what people instinctively like is good, so if people like beauty, beauty would be a sign of worth. Beauty is not a sign of worth, so the claim that people like beauty cannot be correct. These kinds of arguments combine bad biology (nature is nice), bad psychology (the mind is created by society), and bad ethics (what people like is good). Feminism would lose nothing by giving them up.

Moreover, even at elite colleges, the personnel attracted to college admissions are seldom themselves part of the intellectual elite. Yet their job is to select students unlike themselves, to be taught by professors unlike themselves, for careers unlike theirs. It can hardly be surprising that admissions personnel are drawn toward non-intellectual criteria and toward ideas not unlike the notion of judging “the whole person,” as found among educators at the pre-college level. Over the years, all sorts of criteria from popular psychology and sociological speculation have assumed increasing weight visa-vis such standard intellectual criteria as academic records and test scores. The

This is a subject I've given a lot of thought to, and I think I have the answer. I've tried to encompass in my theory all the sociological, mythological, religious, philosophical, muscular, economic, cultural, musical, physical, ethical, intellectual, metaphysical, anthropological, gynecological, historical, hormonal, environmental, judicial, legal, moral, ethnic, governmental, linguistic, psychological, schizophrenic, glottal, racial, poetic, dental [this was the logical link] artistic, military, and urinary considerations from prehistoric times to the present.I have been able to synthesize these considerations into one inescapable formulation: men can knock the shit out of women.

When I was admitted to the University of Leiden, I expected to be presented with a single narrative of events and their significance and one explanation for why everything had happened as it did. Instead, the professors began every course with a central question; spent a lot of time on definitions and their importance; then presented key thinkers and their critics over time. My job as a student was to grasp the central question; to learn about the thinkers, their theories of power, political elites, mass psychology and sociology, and public policy; the methods by which they got to their conclusions; their critics and their methods of criticism. The point of all these exercises was to learn to improve on old ways of doing things through critical thinking.

Mysterium iniquitatis, meaning, as I see it, that a crime in the final analysis remains inexplicable inasmuch as it cannot be fully traced back to biological, psychological and/or sociological factors. Totally explaining one's crime would be tantamount to explaining away his or her guilt and to seeing in him or her not a free and responsible human being but a machine to be repaired.

Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment. By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at any instant. Therefore, we can predict his future only within the large framework of a statistical survey referring to a whole group; the individual personality, however, remains essentially unpredictable. The basis for any predictions would be represented by biological, psychological or sociological conditions. Yet one of the main features of human existence is the capacity to rise above such conditions, to grow beyond them.

In preparing litigation on behalf of the children we were representing, it was clear that these shocking and senseless crimes couldn't be evaluated honestly without understanding the lives these children had been forced to endure. And in banning the death penalty for juveniles, the Supreme Court had paid great attention to the emerging body of medical research about adolescent development and brain science and its relevance to juvenile crime and culpability. Contemporary neurological, psychological, and sociological evidence has established that children are impaired by immature judgment, an underdeveloped capacity for self-regulation and responsibility, vulnerability to negative influences and outside pressures, and a lack of control over their own impulses and their environment.

As you try to balance between the socialist and capitalist systems in the world, you will come up against the biggest problem facing humanity today. Jung wrote in 1938 "Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity." Each of these systems promotes itself by pointing out the moral failings of the other, but these moral failings are actually failings brought about by people acting within the context of large organizations. What is truly needed is to learn a structure of organization of human beings that provides for the organized group the same capacity and propensity for moral behavior that is possessed by individuals.

; the individual personality, however, remains essentially unpredictable. The basis for any predictions would be represented by biological, psychological or sociological conditions. Yet one of the main features of human existence is the capacity to rise above such conditions, to grow beyond them. Man is capable of changing the world for the better if possible, and of changing himself for the better if necessary.

I was trained as a philosopher never to put philosophers and their ideas into historical contexts, since historical context has nothing to do with the validity of the philosopher's positions. I agree that assessing validity and contextualizing historically are two entirely distinct matters and not to be confused with one another. And yet that firm distinction doesn't lead me to endorse the usual way in which history of philosophy is presented. ... The philosophers talk across the centuries exclusively to one another, hermetically sealed from any influences derived from non-philosophical discourse. The subject is far more interesting than that. ... When you ask why did some particular question occur to a scientist or philosopher for the first time, or why did this particular approach seem natural, then your questions concern the context of discovery. When you ask whether the argument the philosopher puts forth to answer that question is sound, or whether the evidence justifies the scientific theory proposed, then you've entered the context of justification. Considerations of history, sociology, anthropology, and psychology are relevant to the context of discovery, but not to justification. You have to keep them straight.... ...(T)he assessment of those intuitions in terms of the argument's soundness isn't accomplished by work done in the context of discovery. And conversely, one doesn't diminish a philosopher's achievement, and doesn't undermine its soundness, by showing how the particular set of questions on which he focused, the orientation he brought to bear on his focus, has some causal connection to the circumstances of his life (pp. 160-161).

...the only way out consists of using a social mask. This is why those under depression will smile more as well as make efforts to please and entertain compared to anyone else. ... If they could hide in public, and they do hide in other ways, both psychological and physical. The psychological feeling of being trapped comes afterwards from the need to have social life, and that's when the anti-social personality starts developing furthermore.

But unfortunately you get no further by merely wishing class-distinctions away. More exactly, it is necessary to wish them away, but your wish has no efficacy unless you grasp what it involves. The fact that has got to be faced is that to abolish class-distinctions means abolishing a part of yourself. Here am I, a typical member of the middle class. It is easy for me to say that I want to get rid of class-distinctions, but nearly everything I think and do is a result of class-distinctions. All my notions –notions of good and evil, of pleasant and unpleasant, of funny and serious, of ugly and beautiful–are essentially middle-class notions; my taste in books and food and clothes, my sense of honour, my table manners, my turns of speech, my accent, even the characteristic movements of my body, are the products of a special kind of upbringing and a special niche about half-way up the social hierarchy.

Life is a continuous process of unlearning for minorities and anyone with less power. These groups - women, people of color, and, in the next chapter, disabled people - can find it very difficult to claim asexuality because it looks so much like the product of sexism, racism, ableism, and other forms of violence. The legacy of this violence is that those who belong to a group that has been controlled must do the extra work to figure out the extent to which we are still being controlled.

It is a proud and lonely thing to be a stainless steel rat - and it is the greatest experience in the galaxy if you can get away with it. The sociological experts can't seem to agree why we exist, some even doubt that we do. The most widely accepted theory says that we are victims of delayed psychological disturbance that shows no evidence in childhood when it can be detected and corrected and only appears later in life. I have naturally given a lot of thought to the topic and I don't hold with that idea at all. [...] My theory is that the aberration is a philosophical one, not a psychological one. At a certain stage the realization strikes through that one must either live outside of society's bonds or die of absolute boredom. There is no future or freedom in the circumscribed life and the only other life is complete rejection of the rules. There is no longer room for the soldier of fortune or the gentleman adventurer who can live both within and outside of society. Today it is all or nothing. To save my own sanity I chose the nothing.

Even so, the advance of the far right in Europe and the United States reveals the need to rethink memory work, to adapt it to new generations for whom the Second World War feels like a long-ago crisis. It's important to tell a story people can identify with, a story of ordinary people, the Mitlaufer, and not only of heroes, victims, or monsters. To raise awareness that, if history as such does not repeat itself, sociological and psychological mechanisms do, which push individuals and societies to make irrational choices by supporting regimes and leaders who are opposed to their interests, by becoming complicit in criminal ideas and actions. The most dangerous monster is not a megalomaniacal and violent leader, but us, the people who make him possible, who give him the power to lead. By our opportunism, by our conformity to all-powerful capitalism, which places money and consumption over education, intelligence, and culture, we are in danger of losing the democracy, peace, and freedom that so many of our predecessors have fought to preserve.

The "Society for Humanity" is a Northern organization, primarily, you know, and they make no secret of not wanting the Machines. -- Susan, they are few in numbers, but it is an association of powerful men. Heads of factories; directors of industries and agricultural combines who hate to be what they call "the Machine's office-boy" belong to it. Men with ambition belong to it. Men who feel themselves strong enough to decide for themselves what is best for themselves, and not just to be told what is best for others.["] (from The Evitable Conflict, 1950)

there is something which seems to me to be an...erroneous and dangerous assumption, namely, that which I call "pan-determinism." By that I mean the view of man which disregards his capacity to take a stand toward any conditions whatsoever. Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment. By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at nay instant. Therefore, we can predict his future only within the large framework of a statistical survey referring to a whole group; the individual personality, however, remains essentially unpredictable. The basis for any predictions would be represented by biological, psychological or sociological conditions. Yet one of the main features of human existence is the capacity to rise above such conditions, to grow beyond them. Man is capable of changing the world for the better if possible, and of changing himself for the better if necessary.

Because if one continues teaching young people that man is nothing but the battleground of the clashing claims of personality aspects such as Id, Ego and Superego, or if one continues preaching that man is nothing but the victim of conditions and determinants, be they biological, psychological or sociological in nature and origin, we cannot expect our students to behave like free and responsible beings. They rather become what they are taught to be, i.e., a set of mechanisms. Thus a pandeterministic indoctrination makes young people increasingly susceptible to manipulation.

To be sure, a human being is a finite thing and his freedom is restricted. It is not freedom from conditions, but it is freedom to take a stand toward the conditions... As a professor in two fields, neurology and psychiatry, I am fully aware of the extent to which man is subject to biological, psychological and sociological conditions. But in addition to being a professor in two fields, I am a survivor of four camps – concentration camps, that is – and as such I also bear witness to the unexpected extent to which man is capable of defying and braving even the worst conditions conceivable.

By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at any instant. Therefore, we can predict his future only within the large framework of a statistical survey referring to a whole group; the individual personality, however, remains essentially unpredictable. The basis for any predictions would be represented by biological, psychological or sociological conditions. Yet one of the main features of human existence is the capacity to rise above such conditions, to grow beyond them. Man is capable of changing the world for the better if possible, and of changing himself for the better if necessary.

Jürgen Habermas currently ranks as one of the most influential philosophers in the world. Bridging continental and Anglo-American traditions of thought, he has engaged in debates with thinkers as diverse as Gadamer and Putnam, Foucault and Rawls, Derrida and Brandom. His extensive written work addresses topics stretching from social-political theory to aesthetics, epistemology and language to philosophy of religion, and his ideas have significantly influenced not only philosophy but also political-legal thought, sociology, communication studies, argumentation theory and rhetoric, developmental psychology and theology.

First of all, there is a danger inherent in the teaching of man’s “nothingbutness,” the theory that man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment. Such a view of man makes a neurotic believe what he is prone to believe anyway, namely, that he is the pawn and victim of outer influences or inner circumstances. This neurotic fatalism is fostered and strengthened by a psychotherapy which denies that man is free. To be sure, a human being is a finite thing, and his freedom is restricted. It is not freedom from conditions, but it is freedom to take a stand toward the conditions.

PHYSIOLOGY 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Height and weight 4. Color of hair, eyes, skin 5. Posture 6. Appearance: good-looking, over- or underweight, clean, neat, pleasant, untidy. Shape of head, face, limbs. 7. Defects: deformities, abnormalities, birthmarks. Diseases. 8. Heredity SOCIOLOGY 1. Class: lower, middle, upper. 2. Occupation: type of work, hours of work, income, condition of work, union or nonunion, attitude toward organization, suitability for work. 3. Education: amount, kind of schools, marks, favorite subjects, poorest subjects, aptitudes. 4. Home life: parents living, earning power, orphan, parents separated or divorced, parents’ habits, parents’ mental development, parents’ vices, neglect. Character’s marital status. 5. Religion 6. Race, nationality 7. Place in community: leader among friends, clubs, sports. 8. Political affiliations 9. Amusements, hobbies: books, newspapers, magazines he reads. PSYCHOLOGY 1. Sex life, moral standards 2. Personal premise, ambition 3. Frustrations, chief disappointments 4. Temperament: choleric, easygoing, pessimistic, optimistic. 5. Attitude toward life: resigned, militant, defeatist. 6. Complexes: obsessions, inhibitions, superstitions, phobias. 7. Extrovert, introvert, ambivert 8. Abilities: languages, talents. 9. Qualities: imagination, judgment, taste, poise. 10. I.Q.

In turning to the second aspect of the tragic triad, namely guilt, I would like to depart from a theological concept that has always been fascinating to me. I refer to what is called mysterium iniquitatis, meaning, as I see it, that a crime in the final analysis remains inexplicable inasmuch as it cannot be fully traced back to biological, psychological and/or sociological factors. Totally explaining one’s crime would be tantamount to explaining away his or her guilt and to seeing in him or her not a free and responsible human being but a machine to be repaired. Even criminals themselves abhor this treatment and prefer to be held responsible for their deeds.

The institutionalized practices of excluding women from the ideological work of society are the reason we have a history constructed largely from the perspective of men, and largely about men. This is why we have so few women poets and why the records of those who survived the hazards of attempting poetry are so imperfect.40 This is why we know so little of women visionaries, thinkers, and political organizers.41 This is why we have an anthropology that tells us about other societies from the perspective of men and hence has so distorted the cross-cultural record that it may now be impossible to learn what we might have known about how women lived in other forms of society. This is why we have a sociology that is written from the perspective of positions in a male-dominated ruling class and is set up in terms of the relevances of the institutional power structures that constitute those positions.42 This is why in English literature there is a corner called “women in literature” or “women novelists” and an overall critical approach to literature that assumes it is written by men and perhaps even largely for men. This is why the assumptions of psychological research43 and of educational research and philosophy take for granted male experience, orientation, and concerns and treat as normative masculine modes of being.

It seems to us that there are four great collective sociological assumptions in the modern world. By this we mean not only the Western world, but all the world that shares a modern technology and is structured into nations…. That man’s aim in life is happiness, that man is naturally good, that history develops in endless progress, and that everything is matter. The other great psychological reflection of social reality is the myth. The myth expresses the deep inclinations of a society. Without it, the masses would not cling to a certain civilization, or its process of development and crisis. It is a vigorous impulse, strongly colored, irrational, and charged with all of man’s power to believe… In our society the two great fundamentals myths on which all other myths rest are Science and History. And based on them are the collective myths that are man’s principal orientations: the myth of Work, the myth of Happiness (which is not the same thing as presupposition of happiness), the myth of the Nation, the myth of Youth, the myth of Hero. Propaganda is forced to build on those presuppositions and to express these myths, for without them nobody would listen to it. And in so building it must always go in the same direction as society; it can only reinforce society. A propaganda that stresses virtue over happiness and presents man’s future as one dominated by austerity and contemplation would have no audience at all. A propaganda that questions progress or work would arouse distain and reach nobody; it would immediately be branded as an ideology of the intellectuals, since most people feel that the serious things are material things because they are related to labor, and so on. It is remarkable how the various presuppositions and aspects of myths complement each other, support each other, mutually defend each other: If the propagandist attacks the network at one point, all myths react to the attack. Propaganda must be based on current beliefs and symbols to reach man and win him over.

Members of the second group, who underestimate the prevalence of evil, are those most often targeted by it. They can pretty much be trusted not to do profound evil themselves, but they can’t be counted on to recognize clues that might determine which of their neighbors has ten dismembered bodies buried in his basement. The third type, those who patiently analyze evil from numerous psychological and sociological perspectives until its sharp shiny edges are dull and blurry, are too indecisive to be allies in any fraught encounter with darkness. In fact, they are often likely to have overanalyzed the situation to such an extent that they have talked themselves into an alliance with monsters.

Existentialism and psychoanalysis, without forgetting socialism, are mainly what killed basic intelligence in the West. When someone affirms that two plus two equals four, his pulse is taken, and he is asked what social milieu he comes from. Logic is replaced by relativistic psychology, which is in fact false at its root, and then by a so-called sociology. People claim there is no truth, and they assert this as true; they say that man can know nothing, but this is something they think they know; they claim that “life” takes precedence over thought, and yet this is something they think! People are so stupid they do not notice these contradictions. Extract from a letter from Frithjof Schuon of 13 April 1974.

Preaching that confronts racism: • Speaks up and speaks out. • Sees American racism as an opportunity for Christians honestly to name our sin and to engage in acts of detoxification, renovation, and reparation. • Is convinced that the deepest, most revolutionary response to the evil of racism is Jesus Christ, the one who demonstrates God for us and enables us to be for God. • Reclaims the church as a place of truth-telling, truth-embodiment, and truth enactment. • Allows the preacher to confess personal complicity in and to model continuing repentance for racism. • Brings the good news that Jesus Christ loves sinners, only sinners. • Enjoys the transformative power of God’s grace. • Listens to and learns from the best sociological, psychological, economic, artistic, and political insights on race in America, especially those generated by African Americans. • Celebrates the work in us and in our culture of a relentlessly salvific, redemptive Savior. • Uses the peculiar speech of scripture in judging and defeating the idea of white supremacy. • Is careful in its usage of color-oriented language and metaphors that may disparage blackness (like “washed my sins white as snow,” or “in him there is no darkness at all”). • Narrates contemporary Christians into the drama of salvation in Jesus Christ and thereby rescues them from the sinful narratives of American white supremacy. • Is not silenced because talk about race makes white Christians uncomfortable. • Refuses despair because of an abiding faith that God is able and that God will get the people and the world that God wants.

One of the recurring themes in the history of colonial repression is the way in which the threat of real or imagined violence towards white women became a symbol [of] insubordination and [of a] valuable property that needed to be protected from the ever-encroaching black man at all costs. The question of European women's "sexual fear" appears to arise in special circumstances of unequal power structures at times of particular political pressure − when the dominant power group perceives itself as threatened and vulnerable. Protecting the virtue of white women was the pretext for instituting draconian measures against indigenous populations. Contemporary records reveal that this was happening [during] a period of social and political uncertainty, and that the actual level of rape and sexual assault bore no relation to the hysteria that the subject aroused.

This generation grew up constantly reminded that they lived in the greatest country in the world, the land of the free, with liberty and justice for all its citizens. Yet, as they matured, members of this generation found a disturbing disparity between this popular American self-image and actual reality. They found that many people in this land—women and certain racial minorities—were, by law and custom, definitely not free. By the sixties the new generation was inspecting closely, and many were finding other disturbing aspects of the United States’ self-image—for instance, a blind patriotism that expected young people to go into a foreign land to fight a political war that had no clearly expressed purpose and no prospect of victory. Just as disturbing was the culture’s spiritual practice. The materialism of the previous four hundred years had pushed the mystery of life, and death, far into the background. Many found the churches and synagogues full of pompous and meaningless ritual. Attendance seemed more social than spiritual, and the members too restricted by a sense of how they might be perceived and judged by their onlooking peers. As the vision progressed, I could tell that the new generation’s tendency to analyze and judge arose from a deep-seated intuition that there was more to life than the old material reality took into account. The new generation sensed new spiritual meaning just beyond the horizon, and they began to explore other, lesser known religions and spiritual points of view. For the first time the Eastern religions were understood in great numbers, serving to validate the mass intuition that spiritual perception was an inner experience, a shift in awareness that changed forever one’s sense of identity and purpose. Similarly the Jewish Cabalist writings and the Western Christian mystics, such as Meister Eckehart and Teilhard de Chardin, provided other intriguing descriptions of a deeper spirituality. At the same time, information was surfacing from the human sciences—sociology, psychiatry, psychology, and anthropology—as well as from modern physics, that cast new light on the nature of human consciousness and creativity. This cumulation of thought, together with the perspective provided by the East, gradually began to crystallize into what was later called the Human Potential Movement, the emerging belief that human beings were presently actualizing only a small portion of their vast physical, psychological, and spiritual potential I watched as, over the course of several decades, this information and the spiritual experience it spawned grew into a critical mass of awareness, a leap in consciousness from which we began to formulate a new view of what living a human life was all about,

In Indian social-cultural-political discourse there is a general tendency to ignore deeper, intellectual thought, and the sensationalist mass media has actually contributed to a great dumbing down of even the educated masses. In this climate where any and all intellectuality has been mostly confined to a few ivory towers of academy, it is difficult to get even the educated and socio-economically privileged section of the society interested in the idea of exploring any deeper intellectual thought. It seems as if the trinity of pop-sociology, pop-psychology and pop-culture has taken over the general mentality of the society leaving little room for any serious, intellectually rigorous discourse on social-cultural phenomena. If at all, there is any serious attempt to think through and understand the observed phenomena, it is almost always done using the intellectual theories and frameworks developed in the Western academic circles. But this habit of non-thinking or thinking only in terms of borrowed categories must change if we want India to awaken to her innate intellectual potential.

All addictions — whether to drugs or to nondrug behaviours — share the same brain circuits and brain chemicals. On the biochemical level the purpose of all addictions is to create an altered physiological state in the brain. This can be achieved in many ways, drug taking being the most direct. So an addiction is never purely “psychological” all addictions have a biological dimension. And here a word about dimensions. As we delve into the scientific research, we need to avoid the trap of believing that addiction can be reduced to the actions of brain chemicals or nerve circuits or any other kind of neurobiological, psychological or sociological data. A multilevel exploration is necessary because it’s impossible to understand addiction fully from any one perspective, no matter how accurate. Addiction is a complex condition, a complex interaction between human beings and their environment. We need to view it simultaneously from many different angles — or, at least, while examining it from one angle, we need to keep the others in mind. Addiction has biological, chemical, neurological, psychological, medical, emotional, social, political, economic and spiritual underpinnings — and perhaps others I haven’t thought about. To get anywhere near a complete picture we must keep shaking the kaleidoscope to see what other patterns emerge. Because the addiction process is too multifaceted to be understood within any limited framework, my definition of addiction made no mention of “disease.” Viewing addiction as an illness, either acquired or inherited, narrows it down to a medical issue. It does have some of the features of illness, and these are most pronounced in hardcore drug addicts like the ones I work with in the Downtown Eastside. But not for a moment do I wish to promote the belief that the disease model by itself explains addiction or even that it’s the key to understanding what addiction is all about. Addiction is “all about” many things. Note, too, that neither the textbook definitions of drug addiction nor the broader view we’re taking here includes the concepts of physical dependence or tolerance as criteria for addiction. Tolerance is an instance of “give an inch, take a mile.” That is, the addict needs to use more and more of the same substance or engage in more and more of the same behaviour, to get the same rewarding effects. Although tolerance is a common effect of many addictions, a person does not need to have developed a tolerance to be addicted.

The urban isolated individual An individual can be influenced by forces such as propaganda only when he is cut off from membership in local groups because such groups are organic and have a well-structured material, spirltual and emotional life; they are not easily penetrated by propaganda. For example, it is much more difficult today for outside propaganda to influence a soldier integrated into a military group, or a militant member of a monolithic party, than to influence the same man when he is a mere citizen. Nor is the organic group sensitive to psychological contagion, which is so important to the success of Nazi propaganda. One can say generally, that 19th century individualist society came about through the disintegration of such small groups as the family or the church. Once these groups lost their importance, the individual was substantially isolated. He was plunged into a new environment generally urban and thereby "uprooted." He no longer had a traditional place in which to live. He was no longer geographically attached to a fixed place, or historically to his ancestry. An individual thus uprooted can only be part of a mass- He is on his own, and individualist thinking asks of him something he has never been required to do before: that he, the individual, become the measure of all things. Thus he begins to judge everything for himself. In fact he must make his own judgments. He is thrown entirely on his own resources; he can find criteria only in himself. He is clearly responsible for his own decisions, both personal and social. He becomes the beginning and the end of everything. Before him there was nothing; after him there will be nothing. His own life becomes the only criterion of justice and injustice, of Good and Evil. The individual is placed in a minority position and burdened at the same time with a total crushing responsibility. Such conditions make an individualist society fertile ground for modern propaganda. The permanent uncertainty, the social mobility, the absence of sociological protection and of traditional frames of reference — all these inevitably provide propaganda with a malleable environment that can be fed information from the outside and conditioned at will. The individual left to himself is defenseless the more so because he may be caught up in a social current thus becoming easy prey for propaganda. As a member of a small group he was fairly well protected from collective influences, customs, and suggestions. He was relatively unaffected by changes in the society at large.