Yesterday, I was watching the speech by a young parliamentarian, which was full of rude and insulting expressions. Many people rejoice and are delighted with such expressions, make citations and exclaim, “ooh, how this one spoiled the other one.” While I feel only pain no matter who is right and who is wrong, who started the first start and so on. I feel sorry first of all for the user of such vocabulary and then for all of us for having to listen to all this and, sometimes, discussing. It hurts me when people are so focused on their person, on their “ego” that cannot enjoy the life in all its diversity. They are thinking, Look, now I will tell him or write such an embarrassing and hurtful thing that will destroy my “foe”, and everyone will understand how good I am and how insidious the “enemy” is. “I will win, destroy and take him down so that he will not be able to utter a word,” – such is the “logic” of these misguided. This actually does not happen, as a rule, the opposite side also wants to destroy “the one who insults him”, take a revenge and so on, and this struggle ends not in a victory of someone but by a “combat draw”.
Believe me, any work that is done for the emphases of its own importance is doomed to failure. Not only a work but also any written or spoken word. When a famous writer and publicist says, “I was saying back in 19 …”, I do not care anymore what he was saying because “I” is the most important in this sentence, the rest does not matter. When an MP is saying, “I am the politician who …”, it is no longer relevant what he had done because if he had done it and is talking about it in this kind of tone, then he has done it not for the benefit of people but just to talk about it. When a politician says, “I’m so important that the entire attention and thought of the opponent’s camp is to do me harm,” this means that he is not so important, otherwise, he would not have talked about it. But if I am attaching so much importance to me, then I take up the duty to protect myself from the “foes” attacking from the right and left by giving them precise attacks and counterattacks. Only a question arises whether it is worth spending life on it.
…There is a semi-mythical story about Mahatma Gandhi. He gives money to a man to buy something for Gandhi. The man spends the money and returns empty-handed. Gandhi gives money for the second time and the man again spends the money saying that he had lost the wallet. Gandhi gives money for 21 times, the man spends the money “not for the purpose” for 21 times. But, eventually, on the 22nd time, the man buys the item, which Gandhi wanted. It is worth spending life on seeking a man in the man.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
