Wednesday, March 28, 2007

his Coming

His coming at the time made me life
Nothing to say, it’s only just more than my joy
I’m not conscious what it is made me
Thou, there…have created my smile
Opened my eyes to love my mind

I’ve seen the light in your soul
Greet and try to hug my whole body
I could hear the roaring wind, the rainfall of thy songs
It was like a whiz-sound every time in my soul

His coming was so beautiful that has given me a valuable memory
Bring me to life and know how and who I am
I was aware that You’ve sent his coming
I was aware that his coming too will end with his leaving

I was enough in happiness with his coming for a while
I’ve felt back in the past life as the time as small child
Singing and dancing happily, innocence in life-love
It just only heart that could paint it in a beautiful-painting

I’ve not cried yet for his coming in a while
I’ve found him as a gift as my sincerity
I’ve not regretted with this rendezvous
It’s became a journeying of self-story that’s still be continue

Read more!

The Sweet Heart

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

I’ve found the Heaven

I’ve found the heaven
In my mother soul, at the sole of her foot, that’s flowed by her words, sincerely smiled and my genuine loved

I’ve found the love
In gleaming thy eyes that’s so incisive, pierced my soul, body and my marrow, heart, throat and my fingernail’s tip

When the night was coming, I’ve dreamed and delirioused, we’ve graced its beautiful like flying to the cloud, millions of Angels come to close, millions of wings have growth in our body

When the morning has came, how was sore all the souls, body, marrow, throat and fingernail’s tip
You’ve gone…..
Millions of the lonely-self have broken me
Millions of the sore-self have thrusted me

I heard tears of Angels, He’s so sad with our suffering
While the devils felt envious

I’ve found the Heaven
But, Could I come inside??

Read more!

The Sweet Heart

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Politics and the English Language

By George Orwell’s

Most people who have trouble with the matter that English language is in a bad way, for this concern George Orwell’s in his most famous essays, Politics and the English Language, he examines political writing (and writing in general) in English, diagnoses its serious faults, and suggests remedies.

Our civilization is decadent, and our language, so the argument runs must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is sentimental archaism. But it belief that language is a natural growth and not and instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Then, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have a political and economic causes; it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that it happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.

These below are the examples of the English language as it is now habitually written, these passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad,

1. I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien [sic] to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.

Professor Harold Laski (Essay in Freedom of Expression)

2. Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with for tolerate, or put at a loss for bewilder .

Professor Lancelot Hogben (Interglossa)

3. On the one side we have the free personality: by definition it is not neurotic, for it has neither conflict nor dream. Its desires, such as they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional approval keeps in the forefront of consciousness; another institutional pattern would alter their number and intensity; there is little in them that is natural, irreducible, or culturally dangerous. But on the other side, the social bond itself is nothing but the mutual reflection of these self-secure integrities. Recall the definition of love. Is not this the very picture of a small academic? Where is there a place in this hall of mirrors for either personality or fraternity?

Essay on psychology in Politics (New York)

4. All the "best people" from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.

Communist pamphlet

5. If a new spirit is to be infused into this old country, there is one thorny and contentious reform which must be tackled, and that is the humanization and galvanization of the B.B.C. Timidity here will bespeak canker and atrophy of the soul. The heart of Britain may be sound and of strong beat, for instance, but the British lion's roar at present is like that of Bottom in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream -- as gentle as any sucking dove. A virile new Britain cannot continue indefinitely to be traduced in the eyes or rather ears, of the world by the effete languors of Langham Place, brazenly masquerading as "standard English." When the Voice of Britain is heard at nine o'clock, better far and infinitely less ludicrous to hear aitches honestly dropped than the present priggish, inflated, inhibited, school-ma'amish arch braying of blameless bashful mewing maidens!

Letter in Tribune

Each of these passages has faults of its own, these can be seen as in:

1. uses five negatives in fifty three words. Making nonsense of the whole passage, and in addition there is the slip -- alien for akin --, and several avoidable pieces of clumsiness which increase the general vagueness.

2. plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with, is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means

3. it is simply meaningless

4. the writer knows more or less what he wants to say

5. words and meaning have almost parted company.

These passage also has quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision, it means the writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing.

Another example which has faults of its own, i.e. the verse from Ecclesiastes. It will be translated from the Good English into modern English of the worst sort.

Good English
“I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”

Modern English:

“Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”

The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations -- race, battle, bread -- dissolve into the vague phrases "success or failure in competitive activities. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase ("time and chance") that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase., This kind of writing is not yet universal.

Modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer.A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible, it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line." Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism. The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. Then if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.

Orwell said that the decadence of our language is probably curable. He belief that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of a language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail. It has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a "standard English" which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a "good prose style." In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When yo think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. These are the examples of various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose construction is habitually dodged:

1. Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead". Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning withouth those who use them even being aware of the fact.

2. Operators, or verbal false limbs, it is the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns. Instead of being a single word. The passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds. Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases.

3. Pretentious diction are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Foreign words are used to give an air of culture and elegance. There is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in English. Bad writers, would especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin Greek words are grander than Saxon ones.

4. Meaningless words which are almost completely lacking in meaning. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way.

Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. This is rules, in particular, Orwell states his beliefs of what writers should do:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable.

Finally, Orwell has not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even.

Read more!

The Sweet Heart

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Rights of Man

By Thomas Paine

Rights of Man was written by Thomas Paine in 1791 as a reply to Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke. He is one of the true fathers of the American Revolution declaring. He was the equal of Washington in making American liberty possible. Rights of Man is dedicated to general Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette acknowledging the importance of the American and the French Revolution in formulating the principles of modern democratic governance. It has been interpreted as a work defending the French Revolution, but it is also a seminal work embodying the ideas of liberty and human equality. That Paine was one of the greatest pamphleteers of his age is evident from the vigorous approach to writing, and despite the humour that alleviates his sarcastic tone, The Rights of Man is undoubtedly one of the most serious works influencing generations of liberal believers in democracy.

Many of the ideas in The Rights of Man are derived from the concepts of the Age of Enlightenment. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government particularly influenced Paine who ascribes the origins of rights to nature. Paine emphasises that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges.

Paine writes,

“It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect - that of taking rights away. "Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. ”
“The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”
According to Paine, the sole purpose of the government is to protect the irrefutable rights inherent to every human being. Thus all institutions which do not benefit a nation are illegitimate, including the monarchy (and the nobility) and the military establishment.

Paine also offers the statements in the United States Declaration of Independence, though the words are somewhat different.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

In his Paine's fundamental statements
The Declaration of the Rights of Man can be approached from his most telling points:

1.Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility.

2.The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.

3.The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; neither can any individual, nor any body of men, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it.
These three points are similar to the "self-evident truths" expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence.

The Rights of Man primarily opposes Burke's projected notion of hereditary government. Burke's conservative notion of power centers in the idea that a dictatorial government of the people is necessitated by the corrupt nature of human beings. A staunch supporter of the aristocracy as well as a disbeliever of true democracy, Burke suggests that true social stability would arise if the poverty ridden majority were to be governed by an exclusive minority of wealthy noblemen. According to Burke, the lawful inheritance of wealth or religious power ensured the propriety of power being the exclusive domain of the elite.

Paine, scathingly critical of Burke, uses sarcastic humour to refute his points. Paine's arguments denounce Burke’s assertion of hereditary wisdom and judge his declarations as most offensive.

“Notwithstanding the nonsense, for it deserves no better name, that Mr. Burke has asserted about hereditary rights, and hereditary succession, and that a Nation has not a right to form a Government of itself; it happened to fall in his way to give some account of what Government is. "Government," says he, "is a contrivance of human wisdom. . . Admitting that government is a contrivance of human wisdom, it must necessarily follow, that hereditary succession, and hereditary rights (as they are called), can make no part of it, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary.”

Paine asserts that the institution of Monarchy should not be traced back. He declares Burke’s argument null and void since the appeal to precedent and tradition is merely an appeal to the invading looters who deprived the original Anglo-Saxons of their right to freedom.

Therefore, Paine in the Rights of Man proposes to reform in the English government. He suggests eliminiation of all aristocratic titles, seeking a democracy which would exclude such unfair practises as primogeniture which inevitably leads to what he calls “despotism of the family”. He also suggests economic reforms in the shape of tax-cuts for the poor and subsidies for their education. Finally he proposed a sort of “progressive taxation”, declaring that more wealthy estates should be taxed more heavily to prevent the emergence and to lighten the burden of taxes borne primarily by the working class and the poor.

Read more!

The Sweet Heart

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

On Liberty

By John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill is an English philosopher and political economist, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an advocate of Utilitarianism, it is usually suggested that Mill is an advocate of negative Liberty, However this has been contested by many academics. John Stuart Mill was given extremely rigorous, some would say harsh, ubringing, and was deliberately shielded from association with children his own age other than his siblings.

Mill’s On Liberty is one of the founding texts on Liberalism and one of the most important treatises ever written on the concept of Liberty. He wrote that he believed On Liberty to be about “the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions.” The book also explores the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that Mill develops further than any previous philosopher is the harm of principle. The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then the society has no right intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming itself.

Mill’s argument proceeds in five chapter, in first chapter, he provides a brief overview of the meaning of Liberty. His next two chapters detail why liberty of opinion and Liberty of action are so valuable. His fourth chapter discusses the appropriate level of authority that society should have over the individual. His fifth chapter looks at particular examples and applications of theory, to clarify the meaning of his claims.

In the first chapter Mill starts by limiting the scope of his essay to civil or Social Liberty. He writes that his essay will look at what kind of power society can legitimately exert over the individual. Because he thinks, human beings are living in more civilized stage of development, so that it must be presented in a new conditions of individual Liberty.

The concept of liberty is considered to be develop in ancient Greece, Rome and England, liberty implied “protection against the tyranny of political rulers.”and rulers and subjects were often thought to have a necessarily antagonistic relationship. The leader didn’t govern by the will of his people, and while his power was seen as necessary, it was also considered dangerous. Patriots tried to limit the leader’s power in two ways; (1) they gained immunities called “political liberties or rights.” The leader was thought to have a duty to respect these immunities, and there was a right of rebellion of these rights and liberties were infringed. (2) Constitutional checks developed, under which the community or their representatives gained some power of consent over important acts of governance.

Then Mill describes a civilization as a struggle between society and individual about which should have control over the individual’s actions. He says that society ,through laws and public opinions, has far more power over the actions and thoughts of an individual than an individual has over himself. He rejects and argues that society should have control over only those actions that directly affect it, or those actions that harm some of it members. Because, of (these) the individual harming himself or acting against his own good, it doesn’t mean that other should interfere in his actions. It is important to note that in rejecting social interference with individual or a group can’t rightly punish a person’s behavior by treating him as an enemy, of his actions only affect himself. But, if his actions affect others, other only can punish his behavior. It is fine to argue with a person about his actions, but not to compel him, Mill writes “0ver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” So, Mill divides the appropriate sphere of human liberty into 3 categories, the liberty of individual thought and opinion, the liberty of tastes and pursuits, the liberty to unite with other consenting individuals for any purpose that doesn’t harm others.

Freedom of thought and opinion are the issues which Mill looks exclusively. He says , it is right to limit somebody]
‘s expression of opinions either through their government or by their own. Even if one stated a particular opinion, other shouldn’t have right to silence him. Silencing these opinions is wrong, because it robs,” the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation” says Mill. We can never sure that a silenced opinion contains some element of the truth. He also argues that allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. First individuals are more likely to abandon erronous beliefs if they are engaged in open exchange of ideas. Second by forcing other individuals to re-examine, and re affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere dogma. It is not enough for Mill that one simply has unexamined belief that happens to be true; one must understand why the belief in question is the true one.

Then Mill gives reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions, the first argument is that the opinions which are suppressed maybe true. Since (human) “to err is human feature,” they have no authority to decide on issue for all people and give only their judgements. He asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is often in danger in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, not taking consideration the world of infallibility they live in. So, Mill argues that the suppressed opinion maybe true and will bring up some essential points. First, it highlights that moral truths do exist. He is not saying that all the opinion are true and valid. Rather, he is simply saying that any simple idea might be true, and therefore, no idea can be dismissed, since truth is a boon to progress. Second, the government should have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only, bad men would try to undermine these beliefs. He says that we should debate the opinion even though it is wrong and useless. For instance, in the past people have been persecuted for what is now believed to be true. Mill gives examples about Socrates and Jesus Christ, who were put to death for blasphemy because their beliefs were radical for their times. Thirdly, Mill considers that truth maybe justifiably persecuted, because persecution is something that truth should have to face and it will always survive. He says that it is unfair for those who have true ideas, which could be or are a great service to humanity, those true ideas must be valued and taken into constituate, that it is wrong to assume that the truth always triumph over persecution. It may take centuries for truth to reemerge after it is suppressed. As on example, Mill gives the reformation of the Chatolic Church was put down twenty times before Martin Luther was successful. Finally it is worth thinking about the importance of Mill’s assumption in the existence of truth to his justification for freedom of opinion. If no one could be wrong or right, would this require tolerance and respect of difference, or would the strongest opinion simply try to defeat all others. Mill doesn’t try to answer this question, because the existence of truth is assumed throughout. However, thinking about such issues is important in seeing how persuasive Mill can be to people who do not share all of his assumptions.

Then, Mill takes the issue of liberty of thought and discussion. If people hold a true opinion they will benefit from hearing dissenters argue against that opinion. He thinks that most people only know partial truths and they might benefit from other fragments of truth, this discussion reflects a particular conception of how people learn. People learn through debate and through having their opinions challenged, thus, dissenting opinions are socially useful because they help people to understand the real strenght and limitations of their own. So, if the true opinion is not debated and discussed, the meaning of the opinion itself maybe lost.

Concluding, it is important to pay attention of to opinions of individual who can be right if the issue is discussed and debated. If the opinion and actions are not affecting others. It will be unfair to punish the individual, with whom it would be better to discuss the issue. Finally, Mill in his essay express liberty to the ability to progress and avoid social stagnation through liberty of opinion and liberty of action which is first, it is valuable for two main reasons, one, the unpopular opinion may be right. Two, if the opinion is wrong, refuting it will allow people to better understand their own opinions. Second, it is desirable for parallel reasons. The nonconformist, may be correct, or she may have a way of life that best suits her needs.

Read more!

The Sweet Heart

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Friday, January 19, 2007

Everythin' has gone

In the bright of day……
My mind’s flying to sound the lonely rhyme
Trying to leave heart in loneliness….
With the light, I’m singing a love song for thou….!!!

What has happened there?
I never ever know….
What has happened to me here?
You never ever know…
Have you ever thought to know my suffering
Have you ever tried to know it
While I was here always thinking of you
Always trying to wait for you

Now, I feel be hesitant with my days
Did you still hold my heart closed
As the first time as you said dear “LOVE”
No…no, I was not dreaming…I realized with the reality
But, because of my ability, I could not be living in thy shadows
I realized we have different world
I knew we are difficult to unite
I understood we’re feelin’ be burden for each other
But, why....?! it should be happened so far
If there is a better between us
That is sure, Everythin’ will be finished..!!!
And just until here our Dream

Read more!

The Sweet Heart

↑ Grab this Headline Animator