Road trips

1 A girl, freedom, nature, contemplation...

It was in  Mostar, BIH, near the river, 5 days, first time on the road, all alone.
Time for enjoying the nature, contemplating, feeling the freedom.
Always about the girl, naively hoping that she is THE GIRL.
Nothing happened with her, but at least, there was some passion.
Had a bath in the river (outside was +50, river +8), had a shower on the rain.
Like a bum on the road, like a nomad, refugee, migrant.

2 Sam u slobodi , prirodi, kontemplaciji...

Bilo je to u Neumu, BIH, pored mora jadranskoga, dani i noći provedeni na plaži.
Od svitanja do zalaska sunca, pamtim jedan stariji bračni par kako su uvek pre zalasak sunca išli na molitvu.
Nešto je nedostajalo, ustvari neko je nedostajao.
Čovek je stvoren da deli život s nekim, biti samodovoljan je ne moguće.

3

Methods of communication?

Throughout human history, people were constantly communicating with each others in many different ways. It is very important to communicate because only through dialogue with others we can accomplish something more, the things we are not able to do alone. There are certain ways to communicate with others to come to some conclusion, such as Rhetoric, Debate, Dialectic and dialogue of love.

Current belief is that people who can convince others are successful ones. The historical definition of rhetoric is “the art of using language effectively in order to persuade others.”. Rhetorical speech is very important, especially for a leader, if he wants people to follow him. Question is, where is he leading, for his own egotistical cause or for the collective good? Rhetoric tactics are like verbal or written weapon.

Famous philosopher Aristotle said that there are three main tactics: logos, pathos, and ethos. The fourth one is argumentum ad populi (Latin for “appeal to the people”)

There were many great rhetoric speakers in history, at the same time some of them leaders of great powers such as Hitler, Stalin etc.

Firstly, using ethos means to establish your credibility among people. It is important that people trust you if you want to pursue them in your beliefs.

Secondly, pathos is all about waking strong emotion in crowds. Fear or anger can be used to convince people of your cause.

Thirdly, logos is simply making strong and logical reason, for some specific action and beliefs. For example, one of the greatest rhetoric leaders and dictator in the Soviet Union was Stalin. In his rhetorical speech during WWII, you can see how he uses every single technique.

He begins with, pathos, emphasizing that enemy is at the gate of Moscow, evoking fear amongst people and anger towards the enemy.

Furthermore, using ethos, recalling the year 1918, when with the spirit of Lenin, Red Army was organized and the enemy was defeated.

Lastly, using logos, proving that country is in a better position than 23 years ago, having allies on the front, with strong army and navy, reserves in manpower are inexhaustible, richer in industry, food and raw materials.

In the end using argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"), mentioning Russian heroic images, great ancestors (Alexander Nevsky etc) and ideal such as motherland.

We have two sides here, one side is just listening and another side is just talking. Thing is that one individual is very active, while the huge mass of people is passive, expecting to be persuaded, so individual (rhetoric speaker) is just giving to the masses thing they want. 

This situation can be seen as a chain reaction because there are strong and weak links. Weak links are ignorant people, convincing them in whatever idea, good or bad, is easy and they are the loudest and numerous group. It is easy for them to spread like cancer, making chaos in the social organism. Breaking the strong link is harder because these people actually think rationally. Here we see the breaking point. Under the pressure of group influence, surrounded by many, stronger link conform within the group. To fit in, to be accepted, individuals publicly accept views of the group, although privately they reject them because there is that fear to stand out, to be rejected. It can be very destructive when such a mass of people is released on the streets, with some radical ideas. For example, the same way when a tsunami hit shores, it will destroy everything on it is way. 

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi), and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

Two negative aspects about rhetoric.

First, just because you pursued somebody in something, that does not mean it is right.
Second, there will always be one who persuade and the one who is persuaded of, there will always be winner and loser.
The greatest man who walked on the earth was murdered by mass of people, led by the wisest man of that time. His last words were these: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."

Shortcuts for persuasion

1 Reciprocity (giving because you received - Giving personal and unexpected)
2 Scarcity (people want more of those things there are less of )
3 Authority (Credibility )
4 Consistency (comitment - voluntary, active, public)
5 Liking (similar people, people who gave us compliment, people who cooperate)
6 Consensus (people will look to the actions of others to determine their own)

1 Assertion
2 Repetition
3 Infection

The political world of today has numerous issues and changes to consider. It is important to have debates on different topics if we want to find a good solution. For debate we need 2 sides, one side is a pro and another side is a con. There can be individual or teams on sides. Also, we need a neutral judge, who will make an order in the debate. There are certain rules in the debate.

For instance, each side has a certain time for presenting arguments. One side is beginning; pro side is presenting their argument while Con side is just listening. Next, con side is presenting their argument, while pro group is just listening. Furthermore, we have now the Pro group giving a counter argument, and in the end, con group is giving counter argument also. The debate can take as much turns it takes to conclude, or when the time is up. Both sides are actively speaking and listening during the debate.

Finally, summarizing arguments in the debate, judge or audience is somebody who will decide which group was more convincing.

Meaning there are that winner and loser, “I am right, you are wrong” effect. There is also a possibility for compromise and consensus as an outcome. Compromise provides mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both side, no winner or loser. Consensus involves an attempt to work with another side to find a win-win solution that satisfies both sides. Also, there is a possibility that certain individuals do not even believe in the argument that they are defending or trying to prove.

Therefore, question is, does that mean that the side which was more convincing represented the right choice and what is the right choice, or that side is just simply better in convincing? Our society is expecting from us to persuade others in what we believe. In school they teach us to be competitive, to debate with others. If we are not doing that or we cannot convince others, they will not take us seriously, because if you cannot convince others of something that you believe, then you do not really believe in that. That is the logic of our society that is the sign of weakness for the majority. Defending our points prevent us from listening others. Thing is that some of us simply do not want to convince others, in our beliefs, but rather coming together to truth. It is not about why we communicate but how?

Common knowledge has shown us that people, nations, individuals, are constantly connected, directly or indirectly, like a living organism, constantly in dialogue. Every action that we do to others has a reaction that is affecting us. It is written in the bible: “As you sow so shell you reap”, in Buddhism they say that is your Karma, or in modern world “What goes around comes around”. We have that tendency to cooperate with others and make changes. Individual can do so little, but in a pair or group, we can do amazing things together. We need each other's, so badly, our friends, families, groups, to create new ideas, new life. One thing is to communicate, even orang-utan knows that on some level, but to freely express your thoughts to another person and to receive the same back, during which you make some kind of rational selection and “distillation” that is a pure dialectic method. Dialectic is an art of conversation, exchanging the very best in us, between us, through dialogue. Dialectic is emerging from dialogue as fixation and reflection on the dialogical exchange. There are two ways using the dialectical method: Oral and written. Writing is premeditated, fixed and have only one path. Oral Dialog is flexible, provide an answer and can choose a path. According to Plato, dialectic is necessary to destroy incorrect thesis and attain thinkable being. In today's society there are norms how to communicate, with whom, what to share and what not. So many limitations, we did not have them when we were kids, society imposed that on us, we are not as free as we were sometimes, to simply and openly engage with others in dialogue. Those norms turn us against other, rather turn towards other. Society is in a crisis of dialogue, due to self-isolating, striving for simple dialogue but hardly reaching one. It is all about free flow between two individuals, but nothing good can arise without the ultimate good. For example, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20). You already have it within you, only if you permit to be between you. When we have two independent individuals, that can live separated, but they decided to live together, because of love, great things can happen. Series of right questions and answer can provide us a good and truthful life, that is what will we get through dialectical method.

Courage to think critically?

Dialog of love,

To sum up, rhetoric is to convince, debate is to defend, dialectic is a way towards truth. I really believe that answer for every question; can be found in that art of conversation with others. The answer is in us and between us, but we need others to come to that realization together.

References

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IGbjPqFFvA&list=PLqn4cHrBVY6XMBZu0ZPzpcyuy9Kf5Btpk&index=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA

“The republic” (Plato)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2Nokoq1J4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=18314

Dokaz da kroz Ljubav možeš doći do istine,

Ništa nisam tražio, sve sam dobio,

Ljubav nije samo neka metoda kojim se dobija nešto, ljubav se dogadja.

If you are afraid to loss something, that means you love that thing.

Bridge builder

Tvorac i tvorevina tvorevine.

Ono sto čovek stvori, ne može biti bolje od onog sto Bog stvori. Bog je covekov tvorac, dakle covek je od Boga. Primera radi, čovek je uz pomoć materije iz prirode (stvorenu od Boga) i uz pomoć svoje inteligencije stvorio Vestacku Inteligenciju (masinu). Bog je tvorac a mi smo tvorevina, sto znaci da je masina koja ima vestacku inteligenciju tvorevina tvorevine. Ima vise razloga zašto čovek stvara, jedna od njih je da mu te tvorevine pomazu, dakle tvorevina ima svrhu. Na primer, automobil ima svrhu da preveze čoveka iz tacke A u tacku B, brzo i sigurno. Dakle, covekova tvorevina je tu da pomogne i olaksa da se ide napred a ne da odmogne i da nas nazaduje. Nažalost, tvorevina često postaje objekat obožavanja, veličanje svojih dostignuca, a ne sredstvo koje nam pomaže da se okrenemo napred nego zajedno sa njom okrecemo se ka sebi, sto u ovom slučaju odmaze, jer to nije svrha tvorevine.

Imamo informacije, dezinformacije i informacije

Three Opposing Viewpoints on legacy of Kievan Rus’?

One of the most controversial issues in the Eastern Europe, between Slavic people and countries, is the historical and cultural heritage of the first east Slavic state, Kievan Rus’ (9th to 13th century). This issue is important because new states that evolved after the collapse of Kievan Rus' (1240) and especially after the collapse of Soviet Union (1991), all of them are claiming that they are true descendent of Kievan Rus’. Both countries Russia and Ukraine are considering themselves to have the full right on Kievan Rus’ legacy. In addition to those two groups, there is another one, ancient Rusyn people who do not have a country of their own but consider themselves to be descendent of the Kievan Rus’ people.

The Russian country, mostly Orthodox Christians, 10% of the today's western region was a part of the Kievan Rus’ and two very important figures in Kievan Rus’ left a great influence on today’s Russia.

The city of Novgorod was one of the major cities back then, today one of the most important historical and cultural city in the Russia, also a World Heritage Site. Also, monarchs in Tsardom of Russia were always connected to Novgorod princes, Rurik dynasty. For instance, the Rurik dynasty was a ruling class in Kievan Rus' (after 862), successor principalities of Vladimir-Suzdal, the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the founders of the Tsardom of Russia. 
Furthermore, in Novgorod is a monument "Millennium of Russia", where you can see sixteen important figures that had a great contribution to the Russian history. For example, one of the most important figures in Russian history was Vladimir the Great, prince of Novgorod. For instance, he was Baptiser of Rus', the first ruler that united people under one monotheistic religion –  Christianity.

The second most important figure was his son Yaroslav the Wise (1019–1054), Grand Prince of Novgorod. He wrote "Russkaya Pravda" (Russian truth-law) at that time Christianity was already an official religion. For instance, it is interesting that Kievan Rus’ was the first state in Europe without capital punishment in the code of law. That can mean only one thing, not only that Vladimir the Great received Christianity, but he also lived as a Christian, by Christian laws, and passed on his son Yaroslav the Wise. That fact confirms that Christian Ethics was implemented into country law.  Furthermore, the Great schism of 1054 divided Christians in Europe, on Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox church. Kievan Rus’ came under Eastern Orthodox Church. Today 75% of the population in Russia are Orthodox Christian. It is interesting that, after the fall of Constantinople (1453), there were some ideas that Moscow will  become "Third Rome". The idea of Muscovy as heir to Rome crystallized with a panegyric letter composed by the Russian monk Philotheus (Filofey) of Pskov in 1510 to their Grand Duke Vasili III (his mother was Sophia Palaiologina, Byzantine princes), which proclaimed, "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom!" Contrary to the common misconception, Filofey explicitly identifies Third Rome with Muscovy (the country) rather than with Moscow (the city), although the term "Muscovy" was considered synonymous with the Russian lands at the time. Somewhat notably, Moscow is placed on seven hills, as were Rome and Constantinople.

These arguments such as, geographical, influence by the Rus’ rulers and Russia as the most numerous Orthodox (Byzantine rite) country or "Third Rome", prove that Russian country and people are the rightful descendent of Kievan Rus’ heritage, which is already in its foundation. 

The Ukrainian country, more than 75% of the present territory was a part of Kievan Rus’, official and public baptism of Kievan Rus’ occurred in Kiev, ordered by the Vladimir the Great.

Kiev is one of the oldest cities in Eastern Europe and had a great significance for Eastern Slavic civilization. Between 9th and 13th century, Kievan Rus’ concurred huge regions and it is influence embraced over three-quarters of Ukraine present territory, principalities of Halych, Volhynia, Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl. For instance, Prince Oleg (Rurik dynasty) was the first ruler of Kievan Rus' (882–912), who extended his control from Novgorod south, moved his capital to the Kiev, in doing so, he laid the foundation of the powerful state of Kievan Rus'. Today Kiev is the capital of Ukraine. 
In Kiev, there is a huge statue of St. Vladimir the Great, Grand prince of Kiev, the ruler of Kievan Rus’ (980 – 1015). During Volodymyr's reign the first schools and churches were built, notably the Church of the Tithes in Kiev, where he was buried. Furthermore, the state coat of arms of Ukraine officially referred to as the Sign of Princely State of Vladimir the Great or commonly the Tryzub, is a representation of the seal-trident of Volodymyr the Great. For instance, the design has precedents in seals of the Kievan Rus'. The first known archeological and historical evidence of this symbol can be found on the seals of the Rurik dynasty. It was stamped on the gold and silver coins issued by Prince Vladimir the Great, who might have inherited the symbol from his ancestors (such as Sviatoslav I Igorevich) as a dynastic coat of arms, and he passed it on to his sons, Svyatopolk I (1015–19) and Yaroslav the Wise. The symbol was also found on the bricks of the Church of the Tithes in Kiev, the tiles of the Dormition Cathedral in Volodymyr-Volynskyi, and the stones of other churches, castles, and palaces. There are many examples of it used on ceramics, weapons, rings, medallions, seals, and manuscripts. Originally, Kievan Rus’ was a pagan country, but in the year 988, Vladimir the Great sent his envoys throughout the civilized world to judge the major religions of the time, Islam, Judaism, Roman Catholicism and Byzantine Orthodoxy (in that period still one Christian Church, yet to be divided). They were stunned with their visit to Constantinople (center of Byzantine Christianity), precisely the liturgy in Hagia Sophia (Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία). When envoys returned to Kiev they said: "We knew not whether we were in Heaven or on Earth… We only know that God dwells there among the people, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations." Vladimir was baptized at Chersonesos (Crimea, today's disputed territory between Russia and Ukraine), and proceeded to baptize his family and people in Dnieper river, Kiev. The latter events are traditionally referred to as baptism of Rus'. To commemorate the event, Vladimir set aside a tithe of his income and property to finance the construction of the first stone Church in Kiev, the capital of Kievan Rus’,  called the Church of the Tithes. By Vladimir's order, the remains of his grandmother Princess Olga, the first Christian ruler of Rus', were reburied in this church.Vladimir and his wife, Princess Anna, the sister of Byzantine Emperor Basil II, were also buried in the Church of the Tithes. Today more than 70% of people in Ukraine are Christians. For example, there are many Christian Churches in Ukraine: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), Ukrainian Orthodox Church ( Kyivan Patriarchate), Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greek Catholic church and others. The fact is that when Vladimir accepted and converted people to Christianity, in that period Church was one, not yet divided. Therefore, we have Ukrainian Greek Catholic church in Ukraine today, because people received Christianity and faith through one and undivided Church of Christ, that unity between Eastern and Western Church was reestablished, there were official unions regarding this issues. To conclude, facts from this paragraph object the previous, territories that overlaps, Vladimir's narrow ties with present Ukrainian territory and 70% of people being  Christian majority in Byzantine rite, show that country and people of Ukraine are the rightful descendent of Kievan Rus’.

The Rusyn (Ruthenian) is actually a historical name for Ukrainians, the word Ruthenia originated as a latin rendering of the region and people of Kievan Rus'.
Firstly, in European manuscripts dating from the 13th century, "Ruthenia" was used to describe Rus': the wider area occupied by the Ancient Rus' (commonly referred to as Kievan Rus'). For instance, Kingdom of Halych-Volhynia was one of the several most important powers to emerge from the collapse of Kievan Rus’ in 1240. The Principality of Galicia–Volhynia, or Kingdom of Ruthenia (Old Ruthenian: Галицко-Волинскоє князовство, Королѣвство Русь, Ukrainian: Галицько-Волинське князівство, Королівство Русі, latin: Regnum Galiciae et Lodomeriae, Regnum Russiae). The first ruler of Galicia–Volhynia was Daniel of Galicia crowned by a papal archbishop in Dorohochyn 1253 (today city in western Poland) as the first King of Rus' (1253–1264). 
Furthermore, the older Ukrainian ethnonym Ruthenian (Rus') was preserved by one smaller group of people in the south-west of Ukraine to this day. For instance, around 7 million Ukrainians declared themselves as Rusyns until the 20th century, especially those in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In the 14th century, the name "Ruthenians" was accepted by today's Belarusians, and used it to the 18th century, while the Russians have accepted the title of "Russian" at the end of the 17th century after Pereyaslav agreement that is politically united Russia and Ukraine.
Secondly, as regards religious identity, after the Great schism of 1054, the formal separation of the Church of Rus' into separate Russian (Muscovite) and Ruthenian (Kievan) Metropolitan was in 1453 ( The fall of the Constantinople). There was great nostalgy in Ruthenian (Kievan) Metropolitan Church for unity with the Catholic Church ( latin catholicus, from the greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal") comes from the Greek phraseκαθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole". For example, there were several attempts (Church Unions) to return the Ruthenian (Kievan) Metropolitan Church under the Catholic Church, two of them were successful.    

Such as Union of Brest 1596, when the Ruthenian Church of Rus', the "Metropolia of Kiev-Halych and all Rus'", decided to break relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church and to enter into communion with, and place itself under the authority of, the Pope of Rome. Another one was Uzhorod Union 1646, when 63 Ruthenian Orthodox priests from the south slopes of the Carpathian Mountains, then within the Kingdom of Hungary, decided to join the Catholic Church on terms similar to the Union of Brest from 1596 in the lands of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Thirdly, with an appearance of ethnonym Ukrainians in the 19th century, the use of "Ruthenia" became less common. In addition, Polish until 1939 and residents of a Transcarpathian region until today continue to use the Slavic variation of it as the Subcarpathian Rus and thus regard themselves or their neighbors as Rusyns, (Ruthenians). To be specific, Carpatho-Ruthenians are the last East Slavic people that kept the ancient historic name, because of their geographical territory they are highlanders, living in and around southwest slopes of Carpathian mountains, which was the last frontier of the Kievan Rus’. We can speculate that because it is high mountain terrain, new ideas, and reformation that occurred in Moscow and Kiev didn't reach to the people in that part of the land.Fourthly, we can draw a parallel between Eastern Slavic people and a typical family. In a family, we have parents and children, while children are young they live under one roof and under one surname (family name). It is natural that after certain age children will live their family and form their own new families. In some cases such as when a daughter is entering into marriage, she will take husband surname, this way she is losing her maiden name. Furthermore, in ancient times arranged marriages were normal between prince and princes from different countries for political reasons. For example, Vladimir the Great took a hand of Byzantine Emperor Basil II's sister, Anna. Also, spiritual values are given to the kids and material possessions are divided between them in equal shares, and in many cases that are the reason for a quarrel between them. Unfortunately, the wealth of their parents is being divided, or spend by them. In that way, something that is whole is divided into the pieces, and a piece cannot be a wholeness, yet many will claim that their piece is the one which is the most important, wholeness. Based on this parallel we can see Ruthenians as the oldest brother from a numerous family who didn't change his surname, sticking to its original roots, that didnt went through modern reformation, forming official nation and country. In this world that may be seen as a failure, but from another perspective as a release. For example, many people attach themselves to a nation, country and confine themselves within that specific group, forgeting that everything is temporarily. For instance, great empires have disintegrated, such as Roman empire and Byzantine empire, but Christianity didnt, we should learn something from our history, so that in the end we do not lose the kingdom of heaven because of the earthly kingdom. For instance, Saint Augustine said that there is two cities "City of man" and "City of God".In the end, from a personal experience, in 2014 in Ottawa (Canada) there was a 100 anniversary of the St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Shrine. For instance, on that anniversary while reading a short history of the church, it was sad that when Church was built in 1914, it was actually a St. John the Baptist Ruthenian Catholic Shrine, between the two world wars they rename the church to Ukranian. In the end, we see that new ideas will arise, names can be changed, but the truth cannot be deleted, thus Ruthenians are part of the Kievan Rus’ legacy.

To sum up, I believe that, no one, Russians, Ukrainians or Ruthenians cannot be 100% self-sufficient descendant of the Kievan Rus’, they are merely a part of the whole. We all know that something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, from one wholeness, originally Rus’ (Русь, Rus) referred to the people, regions, and medieval
state of Kievan Rus’, better known as Ruthenia, which by the seventeenth century evolved into the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian people and countries.
The parts of the wholeness that developed throughout history into the huge groups, nations, countries or as people that kept ancient name Ruthenian, that stayed on the borders of Kievan Rus’, till this day. Just as a tree that is growing from one root and expanding with it is branches toward the sun(God), with leafs that are looking the same but are all different, unique. One eastern Slavic family, with the same history and roots, culture that do not have sense one without another, once under one roof (Kievan Rus’) gathered under one father (Jesus Christ) and one mother (Theotokos). Today so distant, divided and in conflict, every child is on its own feet and putting their I (Ego) over WE, wanting to be, bigger and stronger than the other one. Our I is worth only when it is in WE. We should be careful that because of our I, we do not lose our WE. If we are only on a pro-Ukrainian, pro-Russian or pro-Ruthenian side, we will never be able to perceive the whole picture. We just want to see what we want to see, many times, intentionally, consciously and voluntarily we put a blinder, the same one that a man puts on his horse so that he do not see rear or sides. The real legacy of Kievan Rus’ is in the hands of all people that want to see that unity in diversity, people who are prepared for dialogue of love, definitely not in the hands of the people from one or another exclusive group. We all know that we should seek for things that bring as closer and not things that divide us. The things that are connecting us all to be part of that legacy are the name Rus', territory "Land of the Rus" and Christianity. Unity in diversity is one of the riches of Kievan Rus’ and that was given to all of us.

Афоризми Київської Руси

"Якщо будете жити в любові між собою, і Бог буде з вами,

і підгорне від вас ворогів ваших, і будете мирно жити. Та коли в ненависті будете жити, в сварках і міжусобицях, то самі загинете, і землю батьків, і дідів своїх погубите, яку здобули трудом великим"

Bishops of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. St. George's Cathedral, Lviv, Lviv 12.1927. Sitting: bp.Hryhory Khomyshyn, Metropolitan ArchbishopAndrey Sheptytsky, bp. Nykyta Budka, bp. Josaphat Kotsylovsky.

"Happiness" in Cathedral of consumption

Values change over time and they have changed greatly in the last century. This topic is important because we all aspire and have that tendency towards happiness in our life. In the 21st century if you enter a bookstore, you will find numerous books about happiness and self-helping books. I think that we can learn a lot more from reading philosophical books that were written in ancient times.  According to one philosopher, named Epicurus, you need three things for happiness. To be happy you need friends, freedom and time to contemplate on your life.

To begin with, friends and family are important for one’s happiness. No one should be alone in this world. What will you choose? To eat the best food and the best drinks that you can imagined but alone, or to have a decent meal with your friends? It is not just about having friends; it is about being and sharing with those that you really love. Values changed and we also changed. Mentality of consumption emerged in our society, “Earn more, to spend more”. Our main focus becomes material thing. Huge corporation knows what are the true values in this world, what we really crave for. To sell a product such as mobile phone, corporation will feed us with commercials where you can see that if you buy that specific phone you can reach your friends any time. Making that connection between friends and product, saying something such as “Nokia connecting people” is a key element to sell that product. Customer is, subconsciously, actually buying that idea about friends being close through mobile phone. What a perfect mental hook, isn’t it? To buy more things that you essentially do not need.

To continue with, freedom is crucial for happiness. Being free and independent is something that we all strive for, it begins in our childhood. Once we get out from that comfort zone, in which we are dependent on our parents. We enter challenge zone, growth zone. The change is needed in our life, for us to evolve. To free ourselves means to take full responsibility for our choices and our action. To be free means to be yourself the way you are. Living on your own and not being dependent on parents is a first step. That does not mean that we should discard our family towards our freedom, on the contrary ,we should keep them close to us. Never forget who gave you support in your first steep on this road to happiness. The wheel of life is spinning, from being dependent on them, through independency, towards their dependency on you. Again ,we have great example how to insert real values in something materialistic. For instance, buying expensive army boots with inscription “Discover your strength, explore your freedom” is almost as they cover product with some sort of thin layer, artificial mask with flavor of true values. It feels like you seized that freedom, but it is actually degrading true values, putting price on them, as if they can be bought with money. Take everything from a human being and you will have a slave, give everything to a human being you will have a slave also. 

FREE WILL

The last idea for being happy is all about living in the present moment, contemplate on your life. It was written even in ancient times on Temple of Delphi: “Know thyself”, one of the wisest men in history Socrates said: “The unexamined life is not worth living”. Time, it is all about good, quality time. In today’s society pace of life has become extremely fast. We are constantly in some rush and there is never enough time. Do we really enjoy that meal or we already think what will we do next? Many of our moves throughout the day become automatic, we stop thinking about things we do. Why do we do things we do? Our addiction to consumed things brought us here, in front of the cathedral. Are we here because we need something or we just want something, anything? Finally, a watch store. Huge commercial: “Precious watch for your precious time”. Once again we are tricked to watch our time slipping away from us. 

In the end, throughout history, there were many people that tried to find the best way towards happiness. Ask yourself why do you need a medium between you and your friends, freedom and contemplative life? I think that path to happiness is a different for different people. I believe that each person has that desire for happiness in life, but how far will you go to reach it, it is utterly upon you
.

Trpljenje kao greh

Ako trpimo nečije nemoralno ponašanje, greh, iako znamo da možemo se suprostaviti problemu i rešiti na ovaj ili onaj način, ili se bojimo suprostavljanju, naše trpljenje je pasivno tj odobravanje ponašanja našeg bližnjeg. I samim tim je pogrešno, grešno.

Hristijanski zakoni, zapovidi

Jaka vrednosc šljepo veric i počitovac zakoni, zapovidi? 

Či možebuc perše sami šljebodno nje rozdumac, racionalno še nje zapitac?

Či to ja naisce scem robic ljebo nje? 

Či ljem sluham co druhi hutorja i povinujem še? 

Kotra vekša vrednosc pitam še? 

1. Ked zname 5. zapovid Božu, i nje kradnjeme ljem preto že to Boža zapovid, ljebo nje kradnje preto že nje robi druhomu toto co von nje sce da jomu robja, a ked zabudzeme na zapovid vec kradnjeme svesno ljebo njesvesno. 

2 Či ked človek kotri njigda nje upoznal Hristijanstvo nje kradnje preto že rozdumuje i čustvuje (počim u šickih znas prebuva Boh i data nam mudrosc da rozlučujeme dobre od zloho)

   Ked bi dahto premenjel zakoni, zapovidi Hristijanski či še vec