fortuna11111 wrote:
> Marcus,
>
> I recognize my being very sinful on no knowing Bulgarian
> historians missed such an important fact I never heard of. Ofg
> course, I am responsible of everything.
>
> I am also very sinful of not having read the old sources, so I will
> correct my mistake in the future.
>
> Generally, I am ver guilty, but I will refrain from shooting myself.
>
> Eva
I don't guess this is a matter of feeling guilty or considering yourself
as sinful Eva. In fact, I guess everyone of us first learned something.
And he learned opinons, stories , point of views of some people. There
is a time where none of us doubt about what he/she reads. There is a
time where we simply learn, read, and think what we learn is right, it
is OK otherways such things never should have been publicited, they
never should have been to find in a book, mostly in "oficial" books.
After an another time, we hear something else. Other opinions as these
which for us have been somehow the "absolutely true". Most of these
opinions showing an another directions as that of what we know. And here
begin the "tragedy". One feels unsure, one feels as one knows anything.
One begin to doubt about everything he learned. Then , the solution is
choise to go by onself to see the ancient sources , to try to make by
himself a properly or own interpretation, understanding of the texts...
Here we reach an another level, we know several opionions pro and
contra, we believe we are able to make right decisions and we get new
ideas or we become adepts of a certain ideea. But our horisont is wider
, we know more, we do not accept easy anything more _even_ if the one
who say that is the "right hand of God". And this is good so, we try to
find out what happend, we discusse with each other, and from all this
amalgam, something new can be borne, or an older thing can be confirmed
once again.
Now, unfortunately, as humans beings, we forget very quick the time
between point A ( the one where we begun to search) and the point B (
the one where we know more and do not belive anything else to easy).And
we forget too that everyone of us makes this "initiation" but at a
different time. Therefore, we think the people we are talking with are
at the same level with us, initialy we think this one has at least our
level of knowledge if not better. From this aspect, there are some time,
or mostly of time the virulent and violent or simply discrediting way to
speak if in these what is said by someone, there is no reliable proof.
And here we get again an another story. What is reliable? What means
this "being reliable"? You see, there is white and black as abolutely
extrems , as Anhaltspunkte for a mesurament scala. But between these two
extrems there are a lot of nuances, and the reliability varies in
concordance with other mark points in our knowledges. I should say,
there is nothing personaly to you, there is nothing against you. It is
the simply fact you show something but you are not able to demonstrate
it. If you cannot do it, then the reaction is the one you get. If you do
it, then is silence, and if your arguments are indeed inexpugnable, then
the idea become accepted.It is in fact simply life between humans. And
do not forget what the Romans used to say: "homo homini lupus". But this
is not so bad at it seems. It is just an another step to another stage.
A stage which should bear the title of "better"-stage. At least so in
teory.....
alex