मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि च दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."

".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."

Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"

विलास सारंग: "… इ. स. 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Thursday, March 26, 2026

करिअरिस्टांची अखेर आणखी कशी असते?..J. Robert Oppenheimer and Many of Us


 लेखक: दत्तो वामन पोतदार (१८९०-१९७९) , ऑगस्ट १९४५, वाङ्मय शोभा 

Isaiah Berlin:

 "The German poet Heine, in one of his famous writings, told us not to underestimate the quiet philosopher sitting in his study; if Kant had not undone theology, he declared, Robespierre might not have cut off the head of the King of France.",

दुर्गा भागवत, 'इरावती कर्वे', "आठवले तसे", १९९१-२०१४:

"... पुणे विद्यापीठाचे कुलगुरूपदही त्यांना मिळाले नाही. अखेर त्यांची परिपूर्ती त्यांच्या लेखात त्यांनी म्हटल्याप्रमाणे आनंदची 'आई' होण्यात नव्हती, तर मातृत्वाचा डौलही ठिसूळच होता का? अखेर परिपूर्ती होती ती मोठ्या नोकरीतच ना? खोट्या प्रतिष्ठेतच ना? ही परिस्थिती त्यांच्या वाट्याला आली. आयुष्यच सरले त्याला काय करणार? नाहीतर त्यांची इच्छापूर्ती हीच परिपूर्ती ठरली असती. करिअरिस्टांची  अखेर आणखी कशी असते?"

Ray Monk , ‘Inside the Centre: The Life of J. Robert Oppenheimer ‘, 2012:

“…There was no group to whom he could point and say, ‘These are my people’, and not just because of his ambivalence about his Jewish background. It was also because that background itself, regardless of Oppenheimer’s feelings about it, could not have provided him with the sense of belonging and, therefore, the sense of identity that Rabi thought was missing in him. Rabi, despite his lack of religious beliefs, was Jewish in a fairly straightforward and unambiguous way; the Jews simply were ‘his people’. Theirs was the community to which he belonged. One cannot say the same about Oppenheimer. The sense in which he was Jewish, the sense in which he did – and did not – come from, and belong to, a Jewish community, is far more complicated and, as Rabi has perceptively noted, crucial in understanding the fragility of his sense of identity….”

हे वाचून मला वाटले , हीच अवस्था आपल्या कित्येकांची आहे... १९४७ नंतर , गोपाळ गणेश आगरकरांचा असलेला महाराष्ट्रातील शिकलेल्या लोकांवर असलेला प्रचंड प्रभाव  , धर्माची आपल्या अंतरमानसावरील ढिली पडलेली पकड यामुळे आपली ओळख काय असे मूलभूत प्रश्न आपल्यासमोर उभे आहेत ... 


Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)