I've heard today that John Hennessy, President of Stanford's University, has a clear vision for any and all of the students of his institution: to get rich through creativity. Rooted in the image is the idea of avoiding established modes, trodden paths and major streams. There is no written course for the human mind and resilience. The belief in excellence and independence of the mind opens the door to countless ways of arranging one's life and intellectual production. But, the whole enterprise would be ill-founded if no satisfactory reward were to come out of the sacrifice. Being creative and useful to others mean to make money -with permission of the interventionist Government-, and that is a tremendous accomplishment for the individual. Happiness awaits round the corner. You see? A well-found passion turned into reality with no other judges than free individuals. The iron of one's ideas and work is tested in the forgery of the market. In a country like a Spain -generally opposed to this angle of view-, such test of fire is called "poner en valor". A beautiful as much as rusty expression.
***
These days more than ever it is in fashion to be told what is good and what is not. The beauty of a miss, the dancing of a teenager group of the singing of a young girl is decided in panels, and the verdict of the committee is heard like the utterances of the Oracle. Most surprising, people seek such consultation and believe it, whether it is a former football-player judging a contest of jumps from a springboard, or a group of Academics marking a PhD thesis they ignore all about. It is not only that the so-called experts often fail (Seix Barral turned down Cien Anios de Soledad, as he considered it non-commercial), but that the philosophy is barren. The activity of the human is restricted significantly and framed within the well-known limits. It is the dictatorship of the consensus. Progress and change are admitted as developments of a social network in given directions. Of course, such network or collectivism is blind and lack any individual responsibility.
The personal sky of possible satisfaction, usefulness and happiness fells down to a couple of feet above ground. It chokes.
(PLEASE, LEAVE YOUR COMMENT).
***
These days more than ever it is in fashion to be told what is good and what is not. The beauty of a miss, the dancing of a teenager group of the singing of a young girl is decided in panels, and the verdict of the committee is heard like the utterances of the Oracle. Most surprising, people seek such consultation and believe it, whether it is a former football-player judging a contest of jumps from a springboard, or a group of Academics marking a PhD thesis they ignore all about. It is not only that the so-called experts often fail (Seix Barral turned down Cien Anios de Soledad, as he considered it non-commercial), but that the philosophy is barren. The activity of the human is restricted significantly and framed within the well-known limits. It is the dictatorship of the consensus. Progress and change are admitted as developments of a social network in given directions. Of course, such network or collectivism is blind and lack any individual responsibility.
The personal sky of possible satisfaction, usefulness and happiness fells down to a couple of feet above ground. It chokes.
(PLEASE, LEAVE YOUR COMMENT).
No comments:
Post a Comment