After the nuke disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant,
I started wondering how come we had tried to do little to prevent
the destruction. There had been those who were for having
and running nuke plants and those who were against them.
There had been the communication gap between those who were for
something and those who were not. Yohroh Takeshi, who expertises
on anatomy, especially that of brain, says in
The Walls of the Fool
that the saying that we might reach a certain mutual understanding
between our opponents and us remains always virtual possibility i.e.
impossible thing for us to get around.
WHY? Because our brain will not work when we've got nothing to share with.
Yohroh illustrates this how two types of people never agree.
Those two types are philosopher and politician. As you know so well, Plato
says a great politician must be a philosopher. But this is impossible, for
philosopher and politician have different minds. Philosopher tends to head
for wisdom and intellect, while politician for making little of ordinary people.
As for as nuke reactors and nuke plants are concerned, our intellect says
that we can make a peaceful use of uranium or nuke reactors; those who
are endowed with little intellect are likely to have nuke disasters.
The disaster took place on 11th last March.
There had been a video clip how melt thoug takes place.
http://ex-skf-jp.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_22.html
What does this say?
When an accident takes place, in half an hour the fuel rods start to melt away
and in an hour the melt will reach the bottom and in three hours they will
melt down through the concrete, going down and down the ground underneath.
When they reported that caesium was detected on the following day
i.e. 12th we had to expect the melt through. We wished for any miracle
to happen; we prayed. But this was out of the question, when the fact told
us what had taken place there at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.
They knew what had taken place there, but they did not tell us; they were
politically minded.
Robert Oppenheimer was the leading scientist of atomic energy;
he was known as the leader of the Manhattan Project.
He knew what he had been dealing with;
he knew what danger atomic energy had got.
He believed in sharing what he knew with other scientists,
even with those Russian scientists.
He had tried to be fair, butwas condemned and treated as traitor.
He was a great conversationalist.
He had good tastes.
He was said to be arrogant. But this must be mapped again by what Yohroh says
about philosopher and politician.
Oppenheimer was a philosopher and not a politician.
He was honest enough to tell what he knew.
He must have regretted for not having tried to be a politician, for not having
ever tried to hide his knowledge from his political(ly) minded people.
The author says that the politicians humiliated Oppenheimer to show him that
scientists should follow them. Priscilla J McMillan says so in
The Ruins of J. Robert Oppenheimer.
I must say not only Oppenheimer but also all of us share the same problem;
we have both philosopher and politician in ourselves.
When you know something and would like to share it with other people,
you must feel yourself dishonest when you have to be political(ly) minded.
Those who are politicians tend to form the majority; they tend to blame and
accuse the honest. Perhaps you have experienced this in your own life, haven't you?
