Welcome to my blog, Satyagraha. I hope you find the material here of interest. For more about me and the blog, click here.
Oxbridge University Press is pleased to announce our new Shakespeare Today® series. Our aim is to eliminate all the awkward and pretentious Elizabethan English that makes the bard virtually impossible for modern college students, especially those who’ve been educated in American secondary schools, to read. After all, did Shakespeare’s original groundling Globe Theater hoi polloi audience — London’s fishmongers, shop-keepers, and chimney-sweeps — need dictionaries to look up all those weird words? Did they have to ponder over the complicated sentence constructions? No, it was ordinary language to them. We think it’s in the true spirit of Shakespeare to translate his works into a modern vernacular that today’s semi-literate readers can relate to.
Please enjoy the following sample from our edition of Hamlet, which shows Shakespeare’s original wording followed by our clear, modernized version:
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Should I just stick my head in an oven?
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind
I mean, is it better, brainwise,
to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
to put up with the bullets and missiles of a hypothetical personified power that unpredictably determines events,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?
Or instead to get a bunch of weapons and fight back like Rambo?
To die: to sleep; no more;
Death is sleep.
And, by a sleep to say we end the heart-ache
A sleep where we end acute symptoms of coronary artery disease,
and the thousand natural shocks
and the large number — probably not less than 800 (or else we’d say ‘hundreds’), or more than 1999 (i.e., ‘thousands’), and not astronomical (e.g., ‘millions)’ — of annoyances
that flesh is heir to,
that our bodies are genetically programmed for.
’tis a consummation devoutly to be wish’d.
To die, to sleep;
Recap: death is sleep.
To sleep: perchance to dream:
Wait a second — when you sleep, you dream.
Ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
Who knows what lousy dreams there are
when we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
once we’ve wriggled out of our skin like a snake or frog?
Must give us pause.
Better slow down, dude.
There’s the respect that makes calamity of so long life;
That’s why we take all this bullsh*t.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
For who’d put up with letting time first spank and then look down its nose at us,
the oppressor’s wrong,
the proud man’s contumely.
being harangued by a**holes,
the pangs of dispriz’d love,
feeling crappy because your girlfriend or boyfriend dumps you,
the insolence of office,
diplomats who double-park but don’t get tickets,
the law’s delay,
cops never being there when you need them,
and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes,
and bad people pushing you around, no matter how many patience points you’ve earned,
When he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?
when he could make it all go away with an awl, or a stiletto-shaped steel hairpin, or, by extension, any dagger or dagger-like object?
Who would fardels bear,
Who’d carry piles of sticks around on their backs,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
To perspire and make pig-like noises when really tired?
But that the dread of something after death,
If we didn’t get nauseous thinking how it could actually be worse
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn no traveler returns,
beyond the boundaries of that place for which Travelocity only sells one-way tickets?
puzzles the will,
It makes us give up and look for the answers at the bottom of the page,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?
And ask like “Why fly to Rio, only to get kidnapped there or worse?”
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
Thus, either (1) a socially-conditioned mental function that inhibits expression of natural instincts, or (2) an innate moral faculty which some associate with the ‘image and likeness’ of God, makes us all chicken.
And thus the native hue of resolution
And the red face we get, like an indigenous person, when we’re fired up and rarin’ to go
is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
is plastered over the sick look of someone who thinks too much.
The fascist, Wall Street duopoly that controls Washington would be broken were even one local Democrat action group to issue a statement saying, “This election we will vote en masse for the Green Party candidate in protest, even if that means a Republican will win.” Or were a Republican group to break ranks and vote Libertarian.
Until that happens, until someone, somewhere calls the bluff of the two parties, as long as the status quo parties can rely on people voting against the other party, no matter how rotten the candidate of ones own party is, nothing will change.
If the Democrats or Republicans were to lose even a single seat in the House or Senate because of third-party protest votes, they would immediately begin changing their platforms to win back voters.
Call their bluff. There is no meaningful difference between a Wall Street Republican and a Wall Street Democrat. Stop fooling yourself into thinking that you have to vote for one to prevent the other from winning!
Election time is near upon us, and American politics is worse than ever. But let us at least accomplish this much: to retire once and for all the fallacy that says “I should vote for a useless Republican/Democrat candidate because he/she is a lesser evil than the useless Democrat/Republican candidate.”
This is both faulty and dangerous reasoning, and why is explained below.
At this point we all agree that the available Republican and Democrat candidates are deplorable. All pay allegience to the same aversive status quo, System, Wall Street establishment, power elite, or whatever else you want to call it.
“But,” so voters have mistakenly reasoned for the last several elections, “if the choice is between, say, a Democrat bandit who will support Obamacare and a Republican bandit will wants to take it away, clearly I should vote for the former as the lesser of two evils.” (And vice versa for Republican voters.)
The logical error is twofold: (1) in supposing that there are only two choices; and (2) in failing to take a long-term perspective in the calculation of harms and benefits.
One has the option to vote for neither the Republican nor Democrat bandit. If a third-party candidate is offered, then voting for that candidate will serve to protest against the status quo. Since the third-party candidate will not win, his or her platform is almost irrelevant. What matters is that you didn’t vote for either duopoly (Republican or Democrat) candidate.
Look at it this way. There are three possible scenarios for the future:
- People continue to vote for slavishly for duopoly candidates, and Democrats win overall. Then our country faces 50 years of bad and worsening conditions due to an aversive social, political, and economic system.
- People continue to vote for slavishly for duopoly candidates, and Republicans win overall. Then our country faces 50 years of bad and worsening conditions due to an aversive social, political, and economic system.
- People vote for third-party candidates, or, alternatively, express disapproval by writing in other names on ballots. Then our country faces, say, from 4 to 10 years of bad conditions; BUT, positive change has begun. If 10% or even 5% of voters declined to endorse either two-party candidate, Republican and Democrat strategists would immediately take notice, and there would be pressure for their party platforms to become more realistic.
Therefore, by considering all available options and taking a long-term time perspective, the most ethical choice is to reject both mainstream candidates, and make either a third-party or write-in vote. This applies even if a mainstream candidate pays lip to, say, campaign finance reform. At present, even the most idealistic two-party candidate will vote in lock step with the party establishment, keeping us in scenarios 1 and 2.
Get over the illusion that we’ll see positive change in Washington in the next four or six years. It isn’t going to happen. Use your vote, then, to produce positive change in the longer term.
A secret contact at the US Department of State just emailed me this! For a pdf version of this amazing document click here.
Syrian Rebel Group Application Form for US Arms
As of 17 September 2014, all Syrian insurgents wishing to receive US weapons shipments must complete the following application form.
What kind of rebels are you (circle only one): Good Bad Not sure
Do you promise not to give these arms to Al Qaeda, ISIS, or Hamas? Yes No
And not to sell them to anonymous buyers on the black market, despite the fact that doing so you could make millions, retire, buy a yacht, have a harem, move into a Dubai penthouse, and live in luxury for the rest of your life? Yes No
And ‘promise’ not to use them against the Assad regime, at least for now. But when you do use them against Assad, you’ll tell Russia that we didn’t know anything about it? Yes No
And you’re not pulling our leg? Yes No
You promise to help us, even though everybody in the Middle East hates us? Yes No
And don’t think we’re complete idiots for doing this? Yes No
You’ll give us back the arms when you’re done? Yes No
You’ll be nice to Israel, no matter how fast they gobble up the occupied territories? Yes No
Um, those other arms — you know, the ones we gave you before and that ended up in the hands of ISIS. That was just an accident, right? A little administrative error on your part, and you promise not to let it happen again? Yes No
Are you a CIA plant working for the US? Yes No Rather not say.
Congratulations! Your arms request is approved!
USDS form 2014_0232 (rev. 09/2014
Originally posted on Christian Gnosis:
Question: I have heard that Platonism ought to be approached as a ‘therapy of the soul’, or literally as psychotherapy? Can you explain this?
Answer: Yes. A central premise of Plato’s writings is that human beings customarily operate at a ‘fallen’ level of mental functioning. Platonism aims to correct this problem.
To avoid getting too mired in the modern medical model, we could alternatively think of this fallen state not as a disease, but as immaturity. Seen this way, Platonism’s purpose is to assist human beings in developing their full, natural capacity as intellectual, moral, and spiritual beings.
Q: What are the characteristics of this ‘fallen’ state of mental functioning?
Anxiety and worry, negative thinking, distraction, unhappiness, to name a few. The list is almost endless. A simpler way of looking at things is by analogy to attention deficit disorder (ADD): our habitual condition of mind is, relative to our…
View original 1,396 more words