Underlying the Words

Every so often in life, you come to a realisation that broadens your perspectives, which peel away minutely the infinite layers of complexity that surround living. They pierce the veil of social obliqueness that governs our collective behaviour. Things that were confusing before, benefit from an infusion of clarity. This collective process I suppose is some aspect of maturity, but is distinctly unrelated to age. It comes from worldly exposure, to the realities and fictions that perpetuate every day life. These realisations are so critical that they are worth recording, lest that tomorrow in our fallibility, we forget these lessons, which would serve us so well in understanding our fellow travellers.

As you will have no doubt astutely noticed, I have felt that I have had one of these in relation to conversations. It has been an oft quoted saying that in conversations, two things are critical: that which is said; and that which is not said. It is easy comparatively to identify the first one, and as to the second one, no one but I fear time and experience, and perhaps your own hopes and fears will be able to explain what is being conveyed there. I certainly have had only limited success. It is to the first strand of information that I want to bring my focus on, because it is the only one I feel that I can have any success at interpreting by myself.

There is always in any conversation the clear first layer of information, what the person is saying, the physical words that come from their mouth, with all their symbols and allusions paired with the inevitable shades, for words are not numbers, of meaning and implication. They are the ostensible subject matter of the conversation, and convey the normal information that is to be imparted during the course of the conversation. I think now of this as the directed layer, that bit of information that they want you to ostensibly extract from the conversation, this is what they hold themselves out to mean. But the trite saying that people rarely say what they mean, or mean what they say, perhaps tells you how much stock you should put in this layer. By all means be aware of what is being said here, sometimes the particular wording of a commitment or a response can be of crucial importance, but do not presume the veracity of any information that one finds embedded only in this layer. Talk is cheap.

The second strand, and perhaps not very far from the first are the accompanying actions, the emotions, gestures and other presentational flourishes that go along with mere words. They are clearly designed to convey information in themselves, and I would argue are a better and more expressive guide than words. It naturally takes a lot more skill to be aware and interpret them, but most of us have some inbuilt ability to interpret a wide variety of facial expressions, intonations and gestures, no doubt because we use a wide variety of them ourselves, and have an idea of what they ought to look like. I think most of us though, simply do not pay attention to this layer, we do not know enough about the language it speaks in, and we rarely if ever give it the attention that it is due in understanding and interpreting an action. Even if we are aware of it, we don’t have the understanding to put it into context, to realise what information we are extracting from it is not present in the direct layer. Often we are only paying attention to this layer sub-consciously. It has been my intent to watch carefully now these actions, whether the crossed arms, or the fidgety fingers, and derive from them what insight that I may.

The final strand, the one that inspired this piece, and is the major realisation, is that there is an intellectual component to the person-reading process of the second stage. It embodies the constant question: Why is this person giving me this information? What information are they looking to convey? What reaction from me are they trying to seek? What information or response do they really want? It is to hone this checklist into an internal process, one that is actively and carefully invoked and considered at all critical times.

The nature of this layer is unfortunately slightly speculative, and I cannot guarantee that I have been correct when I apply this method, but it has certainly in a few conversations that I have had recently proved to be of interest and insight, as well as explaining various off conversations that I can remember from my past. I found friends conveying to me odd bits of information, that I could not understand why they would give to me; what purpose could there be to information like this? But a process of working through these questions has made me much more aware of the true nature might be of what was being conveyed, that certain sub-conscious questions or reactions were being sought, and that my responses answered these questions perhaps, though at the time I was not even aware that they were being asked. I caution again, that I may be reading too much into something innocent or neutral, but it appears to be that given the circumstances of life one has to extract information from where it can be found. Not all questions and answers can be given directly, and people will flinch from a direct response to a question that they might answer impliedly. Moreover some questions cannot be asked in anyway but indirectly, and one has even then to be careful in phrasing.

I feel this is important because I am finally coming to grips with the multifaceted nature of information, that there is a lot more information than I have ever come to grips with, or had the good fortune to learn how to construe. Much of it is concealed in social etiquette and by social niceties, but the signs and the information are there for the extraction if one is careful and willing to bear its asking price, which is merely that one is aware of the here and now, that one focuses on the world as one lives in it, to hear the realities of the now, to feel them, and to think t rather then bask in the casualness. That is after all the prime directive of my world. Think!

Boring, I Guess...

How do you deal with the realisation that fundamentally, you are a boring person? It is a difficult idea to come to terms with when have to consider it all in real terms, what it amounts to and what it really means both in the short and long term for your own internal perspective. It is perhaps the most enduring remark that a person I once termed a friend made on me, was to term me boring. I guess despite the strenuous denial that I engaged in at the time, this is my testament of surrender. It is an admission that they were correct.

What I a’m not so sure about is whether that really amounts to startling admission on anyone's part let alone mine, and whether in the long run that really matters. I say that because in my mediocre and limited opinion that in fact most people are boring people, and that interesting people are exceptionally few and far between, people who can transcend most of our narcissistic fascination with ourselves, due to the fascination they present as their lives being. I would suggest that most of the rest of the people are in fact quite boring.

On the other hand I think it might equally be argued that it would be possible that some people control or subsume the drama much better then most people do, that some are able to hide the drama that their lives inevitably have with better concealment, or that they exude more of either an aura of imperviousness or are more able to keep control of their world. I don't think I am like this, the crazy in my world is quite non-existent, except when I run in to the net creators of it in those of the super-dramatic lives.

There are only few exceptional souls that would really hold our attention, who either bring enough drama into their life or invent enough artificial drama to keep up with their own exciting life. The fundamental nature of people I believe is that 99.5% of us are in fact rather humdrum and boring, that we can doll up our lives on demand, but inside ourselves we donÂ’t really think that they are that truly fascinating. We think that they are instead pretty normal, pretty average, pretty much on the straight and narrow. Or maybe I am just making excuses for my own perpetual boredom with myself and my life, who knows.

I don't really, do you?

The Pathology of Posting

I’ve noticed a strong trend in when I post and what I tend to post about, and I don't think the correlation that I have observed really surprises me now that I’ve found the chance to think about it. I always see my posts as a way of formulating opinion, a way to work out what my own position is on something, to lay out in clear and precise nature what the arguments that are so loosely defined and so vaguely formulated when the monologue is internal develop a crystalline clarity when exposed to scrutiny by the commitment of pen to paper. This is a post about posting, but don’t let that trouble you.

What strikes me about this is that it seems to strongly depend and cohere to my feelings about life at that particular time. It seems that writing has become my answer to my own problems, a way of identifying as well as solving the problem. It’s an interesting methodology I guess, but I think people need a way to get through things, and it helps that I’ve found mine I guess. The odd thing I find is that, as much as I enjoy the writing process, I don’t have anything to write about when I’m feeling okay with the world. When things are good, when life is content, when there really is nothing to complain about in the magnificence of creation, I’m so tongue tied that I have nothing to say.

This post then really is in homage to the goodness of life that is given to me at this time. There is a serenity about it that I enjoy, a surety and a clarity of both routine and purpose that I have never enjoyed before in my life. This odd feeling, that for a little while the ship of my soul has both captain and navigator, both confident that the strong wind behind them is pushing continuously in the right direction.

I’m enjoying it while it lasts, it is as I’ve emphasised a reassuring and comforting feeling for a little while at least. What I find amusing though is that I have the cynical perspective internalised off course, but that simultaneously I’m unworried about its implications, sure that I can keep going on as long as the wind holds true. But in the interests of being careful and declaring my metaphor totally overextended, I’m very keenly aware that the wind is that of fortune, and it is a capricious and vicious wind, which often and violently changes, leaving many a ship in the lurch and a long way from shore. Life goes on though, and it looks like the right perspective on it makes life much more viable then it should ever be.

A Sense of Humour Changed

I think over the last few months, as I’ve become more aware of what I want to be and where I want to go, I have also developed another change, the import of which I am still trying to come to terms with, and especially to decide whether it amounts to a regression or a step forward.

I had what might be called a declining sense of humour. For a long time, from about 15 onwards, I had what I considered pretty high wit and sophisticatary in my sense of humour. I enjoyed the sharp pun, the sophisticated play on words. It was perhaps a manifestation of a desire to be more mature then I was, but it also is just the way my sense of humour developed. I never developed a taste for British black humour though; it was always more attuned to the finer word play then black depression coupled with either embarrassment or derision.

For the last few months I’ve found that I enjoy and am becoming to really appreciate the normal humour that is prevalent in every day life. In a way it marks a regression to the norm in that I like to watch and enjoy many of the shows that are now on mainstream TV, stuff like Friends and the much more superior Scrubs, make life much more enjoyable. I enjoy movies that I would find patent nonsense a little while ago. The Fantastic Four was good enough to enjoy and there were bits that were laugh out loud. Bruce Almighty and Jim Carey generally, which was slapstick humour that got a chuckle but a lot of rolled eyes has been rehabilitated as a good pick me up movie, fun stuff to get into a fun mood. It’s a big change.

Simultaneously I am actually finding much more humour in life. The absurd, the irrational, the silly and the stupid walk by us everyday in the street, a view from your window will show more comedy to the discerning eye then the most exquisitely planned comedy scene. There is an implicit joy in life that I feel I am tapping into for the first time, it brings a little bit of a smile to my life. There is a surrealism about life, that somehow what people think about life, all their worries and concerns, so weighed down on their way to their every day burdens is actually humorous. People don’t see the humour that I think you need to ferret out of life. For me both these things have become something that I find amusing. I found the second one all my life, but for the first time the actual rather then the intellectual world is a source of entertainment for me.

I’d like to think it’s a step in the right direction, an internalization of the quote that there is no reason to take life seriously, given that you’re never going to get out of it alive, that there is a certain logic in just enjoying the ride, understanding that it is a ride rather then anything more weighty then that. We are here for a little while, a few instances of the blinks of the cosmic eye. We might as well smile while we are here.

Some Thoughts on Freedom in Government

I'm watching a documentary on Nazi Germany, and it throws into sharp contrast the world of the free and the unfree, the danger of those willing to stay silent in the face of horror, those willing to let evil pass you by, because it doesn't concern you. The words of Father Martin Niermoller are famous in this context, and I won't repeat them.

I want to say a little bit about freedom, and how essential it is to our lives. More importantly I wanted to explain what it meant and how it should be properly conceived of by us in the modern day. In the end though, I found this quote that seemed to say more then I could ever say, and perhaps implies in its details more then I properly understood what ought to be included in the concept.


In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. – Edward Gibbon


Its such a simple injunction, the realisation that true freedom comes in our own willingness to take sovereignty of our soul and then to extend the proper and neccessary compassion to our fellow man, who like me and you, will inevitably slip and fall, and will need a gentle and helping hand to rise again and see them on their way once again. But perhaps more true and equally inevitable, is that this period of freedom will eventually fail. There is a certainty to this, that this democratic modern world will fail. It may keep its dressings and its institutional strucutre, but its substance will be, and currently is, being fundamentally undermined every day through the very nature of its creation and maintainence.

Maybe I read too much into it, that there is a chance that things could persever and not fail as they seem so inevitably determined to do. But I've never been a great optimist mind, so you will pardon me if I don't plan on that being a likely result.

The Transparent Face

I just want to put up this link and invite you to read it. It is an abolutely fascinating piece about what is hidden in plain site. The moral of the piece is that your face says more then you think it possibly can. There is so much about basic and real knowledge that modern science has only the most peripheral understanding off. It reminds me how vast the sea of knowledge really is. Modern man has barely passed the paddling pool....

http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_08_05_a_face.htm

Inherent Boundaries

It’s a sobering realisation when you finally come to accept that certain limits are inherent in yourself. They beyond your control in an absolute way. I do not mean external aspects, the external world is hard to even pretend to comprehend at the best of times, but when these things relate to you, to your own outlook and your own perceptions, you perceive that you have some sovereignty over them. You damn well ought to be able to control your own reactions and thinking, you ought to….

But like I’ve said I’ve come to the realisation that certain things are exempt from this. There are hard internal limitations, which far overawe the pragmatic boundaries of the external world that I can accommodate with a smile or at least a mental shrug. The iniquities of the world I can accept, the failings of my own mind and personality are unacceptable.

My real reason in starting a blog all so long ago, well a few months at any rate, was to ponder and pontificate upon friendship and my reaction to it, and hopefully by analysis change in my outlook, to be more embracing and open, more aware I feel compelled now to put on the record that this has failed, that no matter how I try and notwithstanding my effectiveness in compelling it from my subconscious and into the active forefront of my mind, that my perceptions remain immutable.

My initial position was, and it still does remain that I do like, or at least don’t mind people. Most people are fundamentally good. One person or two people at a time I can deal with. It is only when this number goes up, that the number of strangers spring into groups and the newness becomes in a way overwhelming that I want to step out and step away. It almost feels like my system becomes overloaded, there is too much difference, too many new people. It feels like I’ve been put into a forced situation where I don’t know what is going on, where there is a feeling of alienation coupled with the feeling that I don’t belong at all where I am. It doesn’t matter what the surrounding is, you can in fact do it in what I consider my own home, and I will be equally off put and out of place. It’s a strange feeling, especially because I know that with a bit of effort I could effectively mask it, I can be pleasant (well at least I think so) and sociably polite, talk with the purpose of getting to know people but in my depth I do not want to be here at all. It’s a sea change of hypocrisy that I can’t bring myself to reconcile myself to , and consequently makes me act like I don’t want to.

Do you just live with such internal hypocrisy? Do you strive to change them, and struggle in something that you know in the end that you will not persevere with, or even worse that where failure seems inevitable? I couldn’t properly begin to even give answers; all I know is that for my purposes it seems life now is just about living somehow with my limitations without even beginning to even consider how to change them.

Fi Zilil Quran

The Power of Nightmares

In 2003 the BBC showed a documentary entitled “The Power of Nightmares” which sought to identify the ideologies that underlay both ‘sides’ of the ‘War on Terror’. It identified the ideological basis of the neo-conservative movement in the philosophy of Leo Strauss. In a nutshell, Strauss argued that a nation needed a unifying myth to function as a rallying and launch point from which it could develop its greatness and global image. To do this by necessity it had to project itself into the consciousness of the world, and to be prepared to enforce its worldview to maintain its eminence. It did not matter if the myth or the worldview were actually grounded in reality, or that the elite did not believe in them. All that mattered was that the masses were made to believe it, and the elite acted as if they did. I wish to say no more about this side, but it is on the opponents, the philosopher of radical pan-nationalistic Islam, that I wish to focus now.

Turning to what might be loosely termed the opposition; Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zarqawi, the documentary makers suggest that they derived their philosophical base from the writings of Sayid Qutb, and specifically identified his 1925 book Fi Zilil Quran (“In The Shade of the Quran”) as the prime intellectual market of his ideas, and of their subsequent application and development by Al-Qaeda.

I pause a moment to add that it was suggested to me later and it seems plausible, that what Al-Qaeda have put into practice is an acceleration of Qutb’s philosophy, and in a way mirrors Leninism and Maoism in their conceptions of Communism, mostly in the belief that the precise mechanism could be alternated and the revolution accelerated by the forcible creation of the institutions and then the molding of the people to fit into those confines. It is a possibility that must be considered throughout.

I decided that I needed to see what Qutb had to say about Islam and especially to see how coherent a rationale he could offer to justify what his words has purportedly twisted my religion into; the business end of an anti-American and anti-modernity crusade that seeks to rebuild an Islamic state and rescind the progress of the Westphalian world. Or indeed to see if Qutb actually stood for that at all and if it might be the case that the documentary makers had identified the wrong intellectual in radical Islam for special mention.

Sayid Qutb

Before getting to the book itself, it is worth spending a few lines describing the author himself. Qutb (1906-66) was born in a small town in Upper Egypt and moved to Cairo as an adolescent in order to further his education.

He joined the Egyptian education ministry, and in that capacity went to the USA to research educational theory as it was applied there. His experience with racism there, and what he perceived as the essential bias in the western world, Qutb felt that he had to fundamentally move away from that model and revitalize the Islamic state that was failing in his

Qutb began to write in the late 1920s as a poet and literary critic, writing about social and political matters from a secular standpoint. By 1948, Qutb changed his mode of writing, and began to write from a more Islamic perspective, according to the limited knowledge of Islam that he had. Social Justice, his first Islamic book, was published in 1949.

After his return from a two-year study tour in the United States that ended in 1950, Qutb joined the Muslim Brotherhood, becoming one of their leading spokesmen. After the movement openly opposed the government of Jamal Abdul Nasser, Qutb essentially spent the rest of his life in prison after 1954, except for a brief period in 1964-65. After being temporarily released, Qutb was re-apprehended, tried and executed for treason in 1966.

Fi Zilil Quran

The 30^th volume of the writing of Sayid Qutb’s extensive ‘commentary’ entitled “In the Shade of the Quran”, sets out to be the combination of an exegesis of the Quran’s 30^th volume as well as to highlight the problems possessed by Islamic society and its incompatibility with the West. It attempts to identify the malaise that has infiltrated the Islamic world, and attempts to derive the solutions from the eternal message that the Quran brings.

I have chosen to focus on just the 30^th volume for three simple reasons, firstly that the author himself attaches special weight to this volume, believing it to be of signal importance, secondly that as the culminating volume of his commentary, the author has made special effort to include his philosophy and interpretation in more quantity then it necessarily was in previous volumes and lastly, the accessibility of a clear and concise English translation, with the approval of the authors brother Muhammad Qutb of this volume means that this is the only reliable English translation available of the work.

Quranic Exegesis

I do not propose to spend any time on the exegesis that Qutb presents, or upon his interpretation of the Quran. I think there are myriad faults in his attempts to interpret the Quran in many locations of his analysis. These problems can be summarized as:

1) Presumed equivalence of events

2) Selective acceptable ignorance

3) Inability to prove things he deems proved

4) Overemphasis on the literary aspects of the Quran

(1) Presumed Equivalence of Events

Sayid Qutb focuses on the 30^th portion of the Quran. This is a portion that focuses essentially on the end of days and the Day of Judgment, the Day of Decision, the Promised Day and the Great Catastrophe and the events that occur leading up to the last judgment, not in terms of what does or does not happen actually, but in terms of its import and effect, what it holds for those who are to be judged and the condemnation that awaits those who deny or disbelieve on the Last Day.

What perturbs me about Sayid Qutb’s analysis is that it presumes that all the different descriptions given above are equivalent, or for all intents and purposes that they may be treated as the same. This assumes that Allah has nothing better to do then to repeat himself again and again, with different phrasing or emphasis. That seems to be a questionable assumption. You have a book that claims to cover in its course all the events that have been or will be, and all things that are existent.

Surely confined as it is to a paucity of 600-700 pages in most modern editions, there cannot be the space to justify myriad repetitions of a single event, however import. The wise man needs but one warning; the fool will not listen to a score.

(2) Selective Acceptable Ignorance

Qutb quickly works into his narrative a story that states that if there are parts of the Quran that you do not understand then you can just ignore it. You don’t need to know everything about what the words mean. The meaning only needs to be known to the strict extent that they are required for you to fulfill your role in the world and to make the easiest transition to the next life.

I find this odd because the Quran itself informs you that this is folly. It exhorts the reader to ask the ‘people of the book’ in the event that you do not understand something. It is this precise requirement that Qutb does not deal with.

If he has to admit his inability to understand or deal with a certain line of the Quran, then it is incumbent upon him to admit that and to not persevere with an incorrect or inconclusive analysis. Sadly he does this far too often, undermining how much if any weight can be placed on the remainder of his interpretation.

(3) Inability to Prove Things he thinks are Proved

Qutb tends to take the Quran too literally at its word. A book that he takes the time to congratulate for the spectacular nature of its poetry and the splendour of its imagry cannot be anything but literally true in Qutb’s thoughts. While this might be defended as an orthodox interpretation, and many languages and traditions have their literalists, it seems especially out of sorts in the context of the Sura (Chapters) of the Quran that Qutb has chosen to investigate.

His attempt to presume that certain things are exempt from rational analysis seems flawed, especially in trying to treat the words of the Quran as being self evident. It is not something that I’m willing to accept so blatantly unproved, but it is further reinforced by my next point. Suffice it to say that it further undermined the credibility of his theological arguments.

(4) Overemphasis on the Literary Qualities

This is a weaker criticism then the others, but it is something that I find at least questionable about Qutb’s writing and argument. He seems to believe that the poetic quality of the Quran, its meter and verse, the sentence structure and its cadence and rhythm are of persuasive value in and of itself. I agree that it enhances its impact and its effectiveness, but it does not justify this amounting to a distinct factor in adding to his reasoning. It certainly does not prove a theological argument or enhance its strength.

I also concede, and perhaps in light of it ought to withdraw my objection, that Qutb’s right in stating that the language of the Quran is powerful poetry and metaphor. Its imagery is vivid and powerful, and it draws our attention to things such as the magnificence of dawn or sunset, the transit of the stars through the sky and the alteration of day and night, are truly magnificent things when we consider them. They do really jibe with our minds at some transcendental level, it really evokes the feeling of wonderment that something beyond the scope of our comprehension is going on. It is not a rational evocation, but it does not address itself to the rational. It addresses itself to the very fiber of man’s constitution and resonates there leading to very power and fundamental questions.

(5) Summary

In conclusion, I find that Qutb draws unjustified distinction, controverts explanation into interpretation before descent into hypothesizing, fails to establish his fundamental position and disdains reasoned argument by preference of lyrical and poetic argument. Furthermore I believe that he does not deviate very far from the traditional orthodoxy in how he interprets the Quran, and so adds nothing new or noteworthy. Where he is noteworthy, and the reason why I am reading him in the first place, are the conclusions he draws from the verses in their aggregate, and the philosophy of Islamic militarization, radicalization and ultra orthodoxy that he draws from them. It is that to which I will now turn.

His Political, Religious & Social Philosophy

It bears repeating that I do think he incorporates some interesting ideas into his discourse and that they are ideas of tremendous weight and equal danger in the modern world. It is for these that I wished to read Qutb, and they are what I want to focus on from this point onwards. The ones that I found particularly interesting were:

(1) Struggle against oppression

(2) The proper standard to judge people by

(3) Fair and moral behavior

(4) Armed Struggle

(5) A Repugnant World

(6) Tolerance and Compassion

(7) The Aims of Jihad

(1) Struggle Against Oppression

Based on Qutb’s analysis of the Sura an-Naziat, “The Pluckers”, in which the story of the altercation between Moses and Pharaoh is recounted he draws the lesson that tyranny and oppression, characterized by the ability of Pharaoh to declare that he is their one most “Supreme Lord”. From this conceit and arrogance, Qutb draws the lesson that tyranny is always a function of ignorance and irrationality.

The people outnumber the oppressor by millions to one, and if they have the ability to understand the real position, then they had the strength to liberate themselves from oppression. They could be free to undertake and organize their affairs and liberate themselves from oppression. They have to take the first step. Religious identity, with its power to show people their true worth and to remove them from the patina of fear that embraces worldly concern, create a people that not only are free to demand a society that should accord with what they visualize it as being, but are also unafraid of seeking that ideal society.

Here we can see the first inklings of the revolutionary ideals that signify Qutb’s work. It is already here apparent that he is famous for advocating. It is an ideology that does not balk at revolution to see its desired outcome, and that is precisely what the Muslim Brotherhood did in its short but abortive bid for power.

(2) The Proper Standard to Judge People By

Based on Qutb’s analysis of the Sura Abasa, “The Frowning”, Qutb draws up what he considers the only standard by which we should judge people by. He rejects all material and worldly standards to assess people. He argues that the proper standard to accept is that of how religious a person is, and how close they are to Allah as the best way to determine the proper weighting to give a person.

How do you determine the piety and devoutness of someone? Physical characteristics such as a beard or proclamations of piety cannot ever reveal the internal piety of a person. It’s an ethereal attribute and is not capable of external discovery. I would have to look into your heart and use that to determine what you think rather then how you act. Because essentially piety is a frame of mind rather then about behavior.

I find this ideal interesting and very tempting, but practically impossible. How am I as a mere mortal to determine how close someone actually is to Allah. It’s information that is beyond my ability to determine, and I am rather sure that it is beyond Qutb’s and any other mortal to so determine. I find this an exemplary ideal, but beyond that it is an idea of no practical or real world value.

(3) Fair & Moral Behavior

Based on Qutb’s analysis of Al-Infitar, the “Cleaving Asunder” Qutb draws attention to what he considers another fundamental concern of human behavior that should be required of people. He draws attention to the injunction that he believes underlies and underpins the basic notion of Islamic behavior towards other people. He postulates that the fundamental principle after the determination of a person’s value is to give him the credit due of that worth. This encompasses all manners of fair dealing and equitable conduct.

It is hard to understand how such a vague principle is of significant guidance in every day life. While a generic principle of fair dealing, and equal conduct and conscientious dealing are to be admired, I do not see why they should be exclusively theological or Islamically derived. I think that even a non-theistic model could come up with a model of behavior that is balanced to give everyone their fair due. Kant’s Categorical Imperative comes to mind as one secular notion that would suffice to generate a ‘fair treatment’ clause. Similarly Qutb’s notion that this is another aspect of the munificence of the Divine Creator and that it can only be solely derived from Him can also be similarly dismissed.

(4) Armed Struggle

Here Qutb, amidst much banal theorizing and abstract principles, becomes truly dangerous. He talks about the armed struggle that the prophet went through, and draws from them some simple principles that should guide the modern struggle when it takes its necessary shape and form.

Firstly they have to fight purely and only for Allah, no secular purpose should taint their campaign. Secondly they should never compromise in this cause; they should go for the most radical agenda that they can aim for and never shirk from it. If they do not win in this life, they can be assured of reward in the next for their unflinching support. Thirdly they should feel that the more adversity they undergo, the closer they attain the first two states. Persecution perversely becomes a sign of Allah’s favor and the greater the persecution they undergo the better they should consider themselves in the Lords sight, the only true standard of judgment. A final fourth idea is developed later on in the book, that in the broader picture the results are irrelevant, because victory and defeat are emanations of the Divine Will, He grants victory when it is His plans to grant victory, and the fighter should expect no logical or cognizant reasons for victory or defeat to undermine his struggle, the Divine Will has cast him as a fighter and it there where he should remain.

A highly militarized and radicalized worldview, that admits no conceptions of victory, compromise or defeat, only endless struggle as the path to the Truest glory. Qutb could not have penned a more harmful ideology if he had tried.

(5) A Repugnant World

It underlies the whole book, and is implied in many of the categories above but in his exegesis of Sura Al-Aalla (“The Most High”) Qutb makes it explicit that the world is a devious and undermining consideration, that should have no or very little position in the Islamic psyche. It should be relegated out of mind, as the world is both temporary and seductive without any chance of proper or good reward for those who aspire to rewards in the true life that follows this one.

Whatever the truth of this statement, and I do think it is of dubious spiritual provenance, it also seems to be blatantly contradictory to the normal Islamic message, and what Qutb draws later on in Al-Aala which is highlighted below. The world is indeed a trying and hard place, but Islam’s message has never been of worldly disengagement, but rather about making a better life in both this world and the next, and that both these goals are complimentary and co-existent. Islam itself is designed to navigate what Qutb decides to slice into a clear dichotomy that should be resolved in favor of the next world. The dichotomy is wrongly conceived, and proper Islam should be considered to help navigate the troubles of both this world and the next. I can only consider Qutb to be misguided in his interpretation here, or else drawing some sort of distinction I am unable to grasp.

(6) Tolerance and Compassion

If my reader is struck by a sense of a terrible non sequiter happening here, then he or she may be reassured to know that it feels the same way when you are reading through Qutb’s work. Amidst his license to kill, Qutb draws attention to the upstanding character of the Prophet (SAW) especially his tolerance and compassion for those around him, his flexibility in attending to their problems and his simplicity in living. Qutb holds these out as ideals to be cherished and followed by all Muslims who wish to be responsible parts of society.

There are only two alternate interpretations that I can come up of this. Firstly and rather implausibly given Qutb’s prior arguments, he means that people should be treated like this all the time, but this seems inimical with his exhortations to perpetual struggle and his general contempt of those who deny the truth of Islam and its message.

The only meaning that can be given to his ‘compassion’ argument then is that such caring and compassionate behavior is restricted only to those who live in Dar-al-Islam the “World of Islam’ and that it remains open season on the rest. It must be interpreted as an exhortation to treat fellow Muslims properly and to refrain from engaging in war with them and to not try and think that you are superior to them in any way. To give it the more benign and broader meaning, I believe would be to give Qutb more credit than he deserves.

(7) The Aims of Jihad

In a detailed and clear manner unprecedented so far in the rest of his philosophy, Qutb spells out precisely what the aims of the modern jihadi movement should be, and specifically circumscribes it by reference to the scope of the struggles undertaken by the Prophet. The guiding principle had to be confined to only removing obstacles to the Islamic call. The forceful imposition of the religion or the attacking of nations for political or social aims does not qualify as jihad in Qutb’s conception.

This presents a remarkable contrast to the active aggressive jihadist movements that now seem to proliferate. In the Islamic state it seems, or in the Islamic non-established community, Qutb makes it absolutely clear that the only rationale for attack is when the actual concept of ‘dawah’, the ability to let people make free and informed choice of religion and to not be subject to unfair social or political pressure that restricts this freedom.

The modern conception seems to be that the power to fight for sovereign Islamic state, but without answering the obvious questions that remain in the rise of a sovereign state, such as law and leadership. The famous groups in the UK such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir who are famous agitators for the establishment of an Islamic state in the UK, have notoriously failed to establish any premise from which the Islamic Caliphate, which for the majority of Muslims (specifically the Sunni) would be the recognized source of centralized religious authority. The problems to its re-establishment are insurmountable though, and the fact that they have not succeeded from even fielding decent contenders since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1916 suggest that they are unlikely to be able to do so.

Conclusion

Qutb covers a comprehensive amount of material throughout in his exegesis. I confess that I have culled much that I consider minor or trivial interpretation or ideas from the list above. Qutb has ideas on many fields, and feels himself qualified to comment not only on the Islamic world, but to chastise the behavior of the other great religions and their failure to live a peaceful harmonious existence with each other. The irony is probably weighed in kilograms.

The core of his book, and the part that I have endeavored to focus on is the comprehensive attempt to rationalize the Islamic society, to clarify what its foundational precepts were, and what the modern Islamic struggle, epitomized by the Muslim Brotherhood, ought to be. His account is a forward looking exegesis.

His initial social theory seems to be vague and generic, highlighting and prescribing moral standards that I would hope that all good people aspire to. There does not seem to be anything of special distinction or unlike the mainstream Islamic theorists who have espoused all these concepts before. It is the conception of the Islamic state orientated jihad that Qutb has that is what has drawn special attention. It seems that the jihadist concept espoused by Qutb does not jibe with those who are placed as his intellectual descendents, especially in the way groups such as Abu Sayaff and Al-Qaeda have behaved.

His vision is wrongly construed in the modern age. Numerous sources, not just the documentary I started with, such as The Guardian and The New York Post have claimed that the root of the extremist movement could be traced to his work. I would argue that Qutb never descends into explicit details, but does lade his work with constant and subtle rejoinders of the weakness in compromising to the World, and to buy into material prosperity at the cost of eternal reward.

An alternate perspective on Qutb is that he is the progressive front of Islam, the Islamic answer to the philosophers of the Enlightenment such as Locke or Mill. Focused on the supreme nature of the individual in the sight of both God and man, and how a life could be structured on the basis of the Islamic faith, while still not being counter intuitive to reason .he advocated individual responsibility, the necessity of striving in both intellectual and spiritual reformation of the dead weight that holds up the current establishment of the Islamic world. His organization, the Muslim Brotherhood was a revolutionary organization committed to delivering a sovereign and peaceful but arguably based on Qutb’s model, a non-extremist, state that would act in opposition and in an opposite manner to the

It is more that perhaps Qutb falls into neither of these moulds, that he inextricably combines radical reactionary with sophisticated liberal progressive in his message, a message that he claims is embodied in the very heart of what he seeks to return to. It is this diametrical opposition, Qutb’s desire to move both backwards and forwards in the western political perspective that makes him so difficult to explain and understand. I am sure though that Qutb was not a fond advocate of violence. He may believe that it was necessary for his cause, but he hoped that it could be done by alternate means, by raising a people enlightened enough to want to live under the Islamic state. His stigma to me seems undeserved.

Ethical Dilemmas

We live in an essentially complicated and dynamic world. It provides us daily with complicated and varied challenges, and these fluctuate both in their intensity and their results. Things are easier today, hard yesterday. Things that worked today will not work tomorrow. Through all of this, in the essential search through the distortion that life placed on the clear eye of the mind, a search goes on for order, a search for understanding that might give some clarity to the blurred vision we experience. To make what seems so hard, a little easier.

I have been doing a fair bit of thinking about what are commonly called ethical dilemmas; those situations where we find ourselves hard pressed to know what to do, to resolve the situation between what are conflicting and seemingly equally valid solutions. The more thinking I do, the clearer it becomes to me that at the top level ethical and moral dilemmas are not that difficult to resolve. Its not resolving them that is the difficulty rather, but that in their execution, to do the right thing, having already ascertained what the right thing to do is, that is where the challenge lies.

In fact I think there is an almost binary distinction that can be drawn that between its two limbs can expose most such problems. There are two components, firstly identifying what the easy thing to do is, and secondly identifying what the right thing to do is. If you want a cookie cutter formula to generate ethical dilemmas, this is it.

The challenge finds form in what we can require of ourselves. Do we have the discipline and organisation, the control and the calm, needed to do the Right Thing, as far as we are able to determine it. Can we accept the price that we have to pay? Can we subordinate our sense of individuality, personal dislike or fear to the demands of duty? It is these that generate a sense of dilemma, a sensation unfounded in fact in the actual nature of the difficulty. It is not that we are morally deficient in our understanding, it is that we are morally weak in our action. We lack enough conviction in our own moral principles, we are too quick to highlight personal inconvenience and reject personal difficulty in the pursuit of the easier solution.

The real deception of the dilemma is the notion of resolved’. We believe that if we can make a decision and stick by it, whether on the easy way or the right way, or in a manner equitable to both, that we can relieve ourselves of the burden that the dilemma imposed on us, and that we are free to move on with the next challenge in life. No one ever passed the world this memo, and correspondingly the world behaves nothing like this. We are stuck with whatever consequences flow from our actions, and more often then not it is the perilous axiom known as the Law of Unintended Consequences that we have the most to be wary of. The notion that tomorrow you will have to live with your decisions, to bear your chosen burden, even or especially when you cannot know what the burden will demand of you is what horrifies us into inaction in the face of a dilemma. You may be required to do nothing, your course may be optimal and most uninfringing. You may take a bold and decisive action that you will regret for years and might cost you the best part of your life. Verily, then one can see what could bring about such paralysing inaction.

But what I would not have people do is to misrepresent their paralysis, to feign that it comes externally, that a great weighing and balancing exercise is underway, and that much sand must slide down the hourglass before a determination is reached that they can accept. The decision is made in the blink of an eye, the right delineated from the wrong. I donÂ’t begrudge you the time to seek courage and solace, to find the strength to fight for what you must, nor do I begrudge you retreat from the field if you find the challenge insurmountable.

Just do not lie about why you did the wrong thing.

Fitting End

Two days. On Tuesday I get the special dispensation to pack up, sort out all my things, and become once again an exile in Her Majesties United Kingdom. I am hardly delighted at the prospect. Two reasons suffice. Firstly, I don’t like the UK and secondly, Hong Kong is home. I’m only going to focus on the first one.

I never settled into the UK, I just got used to it. It feels odd, constantly reminding myself of how different that which is me and mine is to the perspective prevalent in this place. It possesses an ethereal feeling of unrealness, some sort of waking dream while I walk through this landscape that is this blighted land, just working day after day, some good some bad, but none right. None truly, or perhaps very few, that feel like normal days, days where I feel I’m in the right place, doing the right thing at the right time. The sky is grey, the people grim, their demeanor dour, shrouded in darkest black. The trees are always dirty brown, the grass always dying. In summer, the sky is too bright, the stars to high and the color unreal. A stark sense of not belonging amplified by a world not worth belonging to.

I have never made a commitment to the UK, I do not want to belong there, and the more time I spend there, or even just contemplating ‘There’, the less and less I feel it is something that I want tainting me. In the few lessons I’ve learned, what it has in essence taught is to be even more insular and self focused, traits I already have in abundance. I find myself whole heartedly rejecting their views; I don’t buy into their cultural values, their societies, their economics or their politics. I don’t think they’re in the right place as a people, and I don’t think they’re going the right way. How does one be involved with an enterprise that feels at such a level to be wrong to you?

Oh sure, it is easy to say that I am taking this on the wrong scale, that it is about individual people, making individual people, and that outreach to individuals or even just seeing and dealing with the basic good that is in all people, will stave of this reaction. That I will find the normality in this web in time, and that I will understand its logic if I were to engage with it. Or rather, if I were willing to be seduced by it. But these individuals operate within a confined framework, they are constrained by a very specific world view.

I find this a country of martyrs, everyone drowning under a sea of problems, but none willing to take up the boats oars, expecting that someone else should be made to pay for an engine. This is a society which somehow defies the notions of an educated, responsible people that are the core of my world view. A people rich and complacent, wrapped up in their own small shell, requiring great tragedy or great effort to be roused. It is a reality that is so delusional, that I wish no truck or discourse with it. I have to be here to get an education, and that is exactly what I will do. But I am going to ensure that my learning is done somewhere else.

I will not sacrifice anything of myself to fit into a place in which I feel such sacrifice would be principle lost for convenience gained. Here in a society that seems to be governed by such sacrifice, I am especially unwilling.I do not want this societies cultural values, or its morality to ever come into contact with my own, and that requires my own eternal vigilance.

Laissez Faire

There are days when my structured moral code and my absolutist perspective on the world gives way to what can mildly be termed an extreme laissez faire attitude. It seems to be the most common course that people want to do, and are going to do what they want to do anyway. They’re not going to rationale analysis interfere, nor are they going to consider the long term consequences. But that’s what respecting peoples choice is about. It is about just letting them get on with it without all this unnecessary interference by over-moralized tub thumpers who just want others to think their own way. To compel others to make their choices.

Two examples of this are in my current attitude to prostitution and drugs. Let us start with them in the order that they’re listed. I cannot help but think that it is the world’s oldest profession for a reason. People have been doing it since time immemorial, and if history is to serve as a guide, they’re going to be doing it for long after you and me are gone. So why not stop making it illegal, and bring it above ground. The people who are headed that way will find a way to end up in that position, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and adding societies moral stigma to that calculus really doesn’t make a difference. All it does is make it harder to reach out and help these people.

The same line of reasoning applies to drugs. People have been altering their mental state for thousands of years, and more often then not intentionally. People go out of their way, and they procure these goods and they enjoy their effects. If that’s what they want to do, then why should anyone be getting in their way

There are a variety of compelling arguments for this. I think they can be summarized pretty effectively as this.

1. Government regulation can exercise a protective and supervisory role over these activities if they are legal. We can check whether the street walker has had a health checkup, and officially get her one if she hasn’t. We can limit or remove the psychological risks by getting access to proper counseling and care services when we need them. We can ensure that the scum who go around beating them up can be dealt with by the police, and that the innocent party is not afraid of the police or other arms of the state.

2. The freedom of contract argument. You are the captain of your soul. You get to do what you want, with the understanding that you bare all the consequences of your actions. To fulfill the states part of that obligation fully, it first has to let you do what you want in so far as it causes no involuntary harm to another person. That means that the drug addict should be free to do what he wants, and the sex worker should be free to sell their body. To do so otherwise derogates from the prime principle that people are free to make their own choices, without any parental or intervening body deciding what they want them to do. Even the religious zealot has to fold to this argument, the same God has given them freedom to chose their religion, and this election depends critically on free choice. One cannot selectively apply a principle that only benefits themselves. Free choice is as valid an argument for the prostitute as it is for the drug user.

3. It extracts them from their seedy nature. These are areas of the black economy traditionally run by organized crime, and let them turn a large and easy profit that finances the large part of their less profitable ventures. This would let us undermine and destroy what is widely agreed to be the most insidious menace in most cities, and to lower the risk of mob rivalries and the other miscellany of dangerous things that they are associated with. It means less crime happens overall, and that the strong organized effective crime that can subvert the whole institution of law and order in a country cannot grow fully established.

4. This is a more marginal argument, but legalized professions contribute revenue to the people, these can pay for all the costs of regulating the profession, and the extra can be plowed back into creating a better society as a whole.

What do you think?

Self Description

The nature of labels, what you describe yourself as has long interested me. There are many perspectives that people have of themselves cannot be apparent to a third person looking in. No matter how open the person, and how close the relationship, there remains a little window of the soul that remains opaque. No insight is gained here, or rather all insight is to be gained, but none shall have access to it. It is the ultimate sealed window of the soul. Behind this barricade I believe are our ultimate descriptors. They are what we label ourselves when we are most frank, most open and real about ourselves. And this is only done to ourselves, perhaps in the darkest of night, when the mind wonders on the cusp of sleep.

In a more everyday sense we all have the internal labels that we describe ourselves as. Things like introvert, extrovert, social, anti-social, friendly, grumpy and so forth. They are not necessarily real, they may not represent the actual us, but they are what we think that we are.

This brings me to a rather simple question; what precisely is the difference between these two concepts, and where does it stem from. To be precise what is the distinction between what I think I am, and what I am. Surely it should be that the second decides the first, that you are not free from your perception of yourself, and that to think you can be defies all common sense.

I think that there are two arguments to suggest that this distinction can be maintained. The first is that you can achieve what you did not believe was possible. It’s extremely rare, but its those moments where you look down the path which you have traveled, and are amazed what has bought you here, amazed that you possessed the requisite shove to get you this far. Of course others have also taken the initiative in parts, but the majority seems to be somehow your own achievement. Here in a very real sense, you have defied the limits of your description

The other is your ability to do new things, things that you are consciously aware that they are difficult or trying, events that you know will push against the natural inclination of your character, that will impose an additional burden on yourself, that you know you could refuse and deny if you so desired. But in spite of that, you persevere and push through the pain barrier. Things are different and uncomfortable, this is after all strange if not enemy territory, but you adapt, you grow to understand it and then your previous hesitation does not look so surprising to you then. The exaltation of achievement makes all the effort worthwhile.

They are perhaps twin aspects of the same argument, but I feel they are materially different in time and effect to suffice as two distinct arguments that prove that we can defy our self described labels.

Where it comes is a harder question. There is a fundamental divergence between what we expect of ourselves and what we can do. We kn0w that everyday, we aim low because you know you can succeed, you don't try as hard as you can, only as hard as you need to. This I think also happens at this major level. We become comfortable with what we are now, today is all that matters and today we're comfortable. We stop pushing ourselves, to explore new boundaries and try new things. And we fall into a rut, into a comfortable path, but with time it becomes harder and harder to diverge from.

We can become what we need to be when we allow ourselves to feel at risk. In vulnerability we can improve. Strength and comfort, routine and banality are the road to stagnation; exposure and challenge are the ways to growth and change, to a more able and better person.

A Method of Change

I recently asked myself what made people change, and what could motivate them to want to be different to the person they are today. The answer to motivation, I'm sure there are millions, but it was with particular regard to how that I was more interested in.

Interestingly enough I have found my answer within the very words that you're reading. What we all possess, somewhere within ourselves, is an idealized view of ourselves. The person we want to be. We know our own potential, no one but ourselves can be so intimately aware of our own boundaries and limitations, and more importantly what we could be.

It is this idealized version that I have tried to crystallize in my writings for the last month, and I do find that as things go up here, I start to really think about what I have just written, what they mean and what they require of me. I understand that often these demands are harsh, that the alterations that they demand are exacting, and will push me to my maximum limit. They will demand a self-discipline and focus that I have not traditionally ever found myself demanding of myself.

The other is from keeping my eyes open. There is an Islamic maxim that all people are your teachers, for anyone who teaches you one thing is your teacher, and there is no person alive from who you cannot learn one thing if you know what to look for. I try now to spend a few minutes critically assessing people and thinking about everything I now have learned to look for, in the form of an internal checklist. It clarifies the nature of the person in front of me, but it also readily clarifies for me my own nature and what I should be aiming to be, what flaws exist in my on behavior and how I should regard them, given how I regard them in others.

My writing has been a tremendous catalyst of potential change in me. I now have to put into effect all of its teachings, when my holidays end, and life in reality begins again with the start of the new term. Lets see how it goes.

Work Makes Free : The Ethos of our Age

It is a famous slogan, standing prominently on the gates of Auschwitz. In a twist of the most profound, I feel that in some insidious manner, this conception has survived the invasion of the Nazi Empire, and exported an idea equally insidious as that of the dangerous idea that was destroyed in the embers of the second world war.

In the modern capitalistic world, it somehow appears that in the vestiges of the American Dream, and its western counterparts, there is an exhortation to even greater labour, to spend more and more time working, so that one may buy more things, and that in things one will find solace. Work, time spent on the clock and on the job, will give you the means to freedom.

In essence, I describe the triumph of materialism, the triumph of the idea that not only are wants unlimited, but that wants ought to be unlimited. That the main duty is possession, the duty to buy more stuff, to gain more things. So many people nowadays, even I find in my own house, we have so much stuff so much that we don't ever use. Things bought today, for the express purpose that it is conceivable that some day we might find the use for it. Things bought to satisfy potential wants.

The mind boggles. It is clear to me I think, even at this stage that such an argument is fallacious. It does not follow that continual spending will eventually enable you to buy what it is you desire. Its a trite proposition that money will let you buy the husk of a thing, but the core of it can only be given. Sex can be bought, but not love. Acquaintance purchased, but never friendship. I need not illustrate with anymore trite examples. Suffice with these ones.

The real problem is that of the essential conflict. The few people I've managed to talk about this with have recognized the fundamental truth. The things that you want to do our in fact the very things that work prevents you doing. If you work for so many hours, in so zealous a pursuit, you're not able to do the things that make life worth living. You have a big house, but no time is spent in it. A fast car, but no time to drive it. You have all the things, but ultimately are denied the ability to use them. It's surprising that no one realizes this. Rather what may be surprising that if they do realize it, that they chose to ignore it. Not preferring to make any changes, or make plans in the management of their time, they just accept that they do not have the time at all. The mind boggles.

Fun Language

I've had the chance recently, to have a long conversation with someone who used their words in a really interesting manner. Instead of just using words in a banal manner, to convey meaning, they bought their conversation to life, they infused it with exaggerated metaphors, drew on references both mortal and mythological, and with every sentence sought to seek the boundaries of their language and knowledge with their words. The words had vitality beyond their meaning.

It was the most fun I ever had talking to anyone in such a long time. Its a very distinct style of speaking, and I find it leaves some people quite easily flustered. They're not used to the sheer variety of language, the twists the turns, the intricacy and even the false intimacy a word can generate. Those who don't get it, eventually end up tongue tied, lost without any response to words that revel in such flights of fancy. I myself was at a loss for large chunks of the time. It was only with careful listening to what was being said, to here the nature of the words and not just the meaning conveyed that I began to appreciate the game, and then to realize that it is a game.

I've discovered that the only response to such verbal repartee, is to engage in it yourself. To respond to each pointed edge with a quick verbal parry and a bit of ones own quasi-poetry. Conversations sound fabulous when played out in this confrontation, words swing by from side to side with an elegance more apt on the ballroom floor then the lips of men. I'm trying and talking like that to others now, and I find that they find talking to me much more interesting, though they do tend to be a bit flustered as to how to respond. Maybe in time they'll figure it out, or they may read this and understand.

Then the game begins again, twice as fun, because now both know that meaning is not confined to the words, it floats ethereal around the entire conversation. But more importantly that infused in the heart of this conversation, lies a small portion of nonsense, a casual happiness that is both welcoming and entertaining, while all the while being serious.

Try it, it's fun.

Failure

There is a tendency to play what is called the blame game. The idea is that if you can blame someone, anyone other then yourself that you can divest yourself of the taint of failure. There is something dangerous in the common conception of failure, that it critically undermines a person forever, or at least that seems to be the myth.

Failure is an undeniable part of life, the world is not certain in any way of course, it comes with its ups and downs. In the modern world somehow, this fundamental truth, this duality of reality, has somehow been denied. The idea is now to associate yourself with all the ups, you play for credit undeserved, even if it is gained at the expense of the real achievements of another being unrecognized. There is somehow a belief that acting like this will bring you the greatest advantage, in both the long and the short term.

To associate yourself with the taint of failure in any form is a cardinal failure. Even if it is assuredly your own mistake and failure that was responsible. One must ensure that you are not responsible, or at least that if you can handle it, that you should shirk the blame on to someone else. Never should it be you attached to the problem which you are connected too.

It invariably something that I find myself doing, its the easy thing to do, but I'm trying to ensure that I cease to do. The problem is that it's seductively easy to do. It requires a great strength of character I believe to be able to say that you are wrong, that you made a mistake. It's also amazing that when you do this, people's perceptions and reactions change radically. They feel the stress that they were labouring under is gone, and that they too can confess to what they did wrong in a situation, realize that things were too complicated to be reduced to a blame game, and move onwards with things. More then that they react better to you then they did before, they recognize the great strength that it displays.

Isn't it odd therefore that we try to avoid behavior that we are in fact given the highest praise when in fact we do the behavior that is seemingly discouraged.

Changing Your Mind

There's a trite quotation that is amongst one of my favourites which states simply that "A mind is like a parachute, they both work best when they're open". Its a powerful illustration of what is needed to make a person functional in the world. The ability to hold an opinion, to hold strong opinions even, needs to be balanced against the relevant counter force, which is to be able to keep a mind so flexible that it can adapt to the latest evidence, to change when change is warranted.

Its a difficult line to draw when one thinks about it. What amount of evidence is needed to keep yourself sure, when do you start to change to get in line with the latest effort. In Tesauro a case before the European Court of Justice, the Attourney Generale gave his opinion on what constituted the cutting edge of scientific knowledge for the purposes of a defense at law. One of the more interesting observations was that the cutting edge of scientific thought, of thought in any fields, was that the right view was usually championed by some lone wolf, who was considered to be on the outside of mainstream opinion. Gradually the evidence for a position would mount up, and eventually the mainstream would move to adopt the position that was previously considered fringe.

There seems to be that what amounts to evidence to change your mind are heard to quantify. There is clearly no security in following the main stream, the main stream is never certified to be correct, in fact the mainstream seems to change its position with enough alacrity to justify little faith in them.

The question then becomes, besides our own subjective experience, what else justifies a change of opinion. I guess that there must be some procedure, an amount of evidence that satisfies that our previous thoughts were incorrect, but I'm left without any answers as to what changes the mind, except an assurance that somehow it does, in a gradual or a sudden manner. Just how is hard to know.

The Discredited Question

The most important question that one can ask about the world that one inhabits, the most powerful and the most meaningful is 'why'. I understand that its not the most common question to be asked, and in certain scientific circles the question is reviled as being redundant or even meaningless. I cannot accept this and I have no intention of doing so.

There are two implicit questions asked when someone says 'why'. The first questions reasons, and asks why a specific event has occurred in a specific way, in specific form. It presumes a level of causality and coherence in the universe, that things have reasons, that cause precedes effect, and that from effect one may deduce cause. These are fundamental axioms of the macro world, that we can understand it. It is the only way that we can come to terms with the world that surrounds us everyday.

The second aspect that I think is inherent in asking why is that it asks what justification a certain position has, and implicit within that is the challenge to the outcome. It requires a certain critical awareness of the world around, the desire and the perspective to realize that it is not immutable, it is subject to frequent change, but that change may be directed and focused towards a particular end result. More then that though, it implies that one end is qualitatively better then another end, that there is a certain way that things ought to be. It reminds us of basic principles, the firsts from which all our other edifices grow and develop, and which must always be placed in the most prominent position.

The very power of 'why' is that it forces critical assessment of what we do and why we do it. It asks what things mean and within it subsumes all the who, what when where and how questions, they all being only tangents of the meta question. It is the question that is the catalyst for change in oneself, and which allows one to realize your full potential. It is a powerful word, but an even more powerful idea.

There is a certain shift in scientific thinking, especially after the development of quantum theories on the micro scale, that why is an utterly meaningless question in the quest of science. That why is indeterminable, that the question has no meaning because the answers are beyond our scope to offer. I think that is pathetic. If one cannot answer the question, the technique or the technology to solve it being non-existent does not mean that the question itself is invalid. There is nothing wrong in admitting that one does not know.

The further more disturbing implication I feel is that such a blanket denial of the why question seems to undermine the very nature of scientific investigation, or certainly what it should be at its core. The notion of Einstein of "wanting to know the mind of God", the big plan, the big picture, is subverted by saying that the picture is unresolved by us in any form. It should be this noble motivation, this desire to the highest aspiration of knowledge that should motivate those who live on the frontiers of knowledge. Instead now we must turn to inferior motives of pride or payment to motivate, but these are selfish attributes giving rise to a selfish culture of learning.

I strongly feel that 'why', the ability to question the very base and foundation of every aspect of our lives, to draw our own conclusions to seek and understand properly the structure of all things, is within the scope of humanity. It may be that we have not the tools in our possession to do it now, and that tomorrow or the next day may yield no answer, but the quest is eternal and is not to be so lightly discarded.

Patience with People

It is without doubt one of the great virtues of the world, but its hard to understand what its limits are and where it properly fits into the balance of everyday life. The conventional wisdom goes along the lines of 'all good things come to he who waits' but at the same time, it seems that things only fall into place for the go-getters. The conflict is between where one waits, and where one stops waiting and goes for what one must do

I've always been a very patient person, an unduly patient one I'm starting to think. There seems to be a certain point where you have to stop being patient with people and to let vent to your anger and frustration towards them. I have no idea where this point is, but I do feel that certain people that I know have crossed the line. They keep pushing the limits of your tolerance, one goes out of your way to accommodate them, to keep lines of communication and hopefully understanding open and viable, but they respond continually with a casual coolness and a lukewarm reciprocation.

I know they don't dislike me, that I'm not intruding on them or anything like that, and I do know that if I was to cross over in to that field I wouldn't press them anymore. But I don't feel that I am there yet. Where I am is people who don't mind you doing all the running in a friendship, but don't want to even walk at a brisk pace when you ask them to carry the baton for a while. How am I meant to accommodate them, to keep them happy at the expense of my effort. There are people whose company I enjoy so much more, and that I could put the effort into keeping the vibrant lines with these people open even wider, but some sense of duty and hope of success keep me also involved with those who try my patience just as much.

What is to be done about them I wonder?

Religion Unchanging

Its a common enough occurrence, to hear people say as if the most natural and logical of things, that religion ought to change with the times, that it ought to adapt to the particular foibles and perceptions of the modern age, that somehow modern man's great intellectual advances and tolerant society behoove that even God should modify his diktats to conform with our newly realized erudition. This notion is often called in Christian circles that of the Liquid Church, in Islam they call for a return to Ijtihad (Intellectual Striving) and wait for the Islamic Reformation to 'update' an religion out of synch with the demands of modern day life. These are but examples, and you will find such false progressives in every faith.

I think this notion is the most patent rubbish that I've ever encountered, all the more dangerous because of the importance of the topic that they try to mold in this manner. I think three telling arguments demolish any argument on this matter.

The first is what proof do you have that man has really changed? This minor aberration of civilization in the last 200 years? And what real civilization do you see there? Millions are starving, millions deprived of the basics at the expense of an elite few. Jealousy, hate, petty revenge and materialism probably still the dominating driving force on the planet. Prejudice, racism and sexism run rampant, heck I would say that we live in a even more sexist era then ever before, feminism now a corrupted idea of female objectification rather then any liberating ideology. How is that progressive against religious ideas that command you to treat each as his brother, and to give all you can in the trust that the Lord will provide you more. Tell me again how things have changed that we can discard such demanding standards in favour of lower standards.

Even if people have changed, then one wonders what basis that they have for thinking that the rules God laid down hanged. His message and the revelation still stand unchanged, no new prophet has arisen to show people that their is a new religious order that is both right and true. God in the conception of most of these religions is entire, eternal and unalterable. How presumptuous then to decide when to alter our covenant with God, and the never to vary it unilaterally. We don't allow two people to vary their contracts unilaterally, but we presume God won't notice or care when we alter our oaths to Him. Keep dreaming.

The second aspect of the same argument is that no one in their right mind expects the laws of physics to change between today and yesterday. They are eternal and unchanging, a veritable physical reminder of the nature of the covenant with God. Fixed eternal and unchanging. One would be a fool to presume that when one woke up tomorrow, that you could unilaterally repeal the law of gravity, just because you didn't like it anymore. This deals conclusively with the argument that people feel internally incapable of accepting the stricture a religion places on them, that it somehow cramps their ability to be themselves. The argument is patent nonsense, if it restricts then it does so in the same way that the laws of thermodynamics restricts, naturally, obviously and without an escape clause. To think that somehow you are too clever, too precious an individual to be subject to Gods law, is the height of arrogance and folly.

It follows logically and of necessity, that religion should be fixed, timeless and its edicts eternal. To do otherwise is to consciously err, and to believe that somehow you know or understand yourself better then your Creator. It is the most rampant delusion.

Hard Work

There is no substitute in the world, for the industriousness of a man. There are no shortcuts, no quick paths, no untroubled glades by which to circumvent this most demanding edict. Intelligence is unhelpful, unsuccessful genius is almost a proverb, wealth is no panacea, squandered wealth is also a proverb, and wisdom is a resource unavailing, the poor and wise are cliché in many stories.

I do not disparage all these other elements, I do not say that they are unnecessary, but rather that they are rendered nugatory by the absence of hard work. The other attributes are attributes of potential, they are the acorn seed with all the potential of the oak within, but are not and can never be, the means by which the seed may be bought to germination.

I have only slowly come to grips with the nature of hard work in the world. For many years, I have been fortunate. coasting by on the wings of my intelligence, and have scrapped through many a situation, worse for the close calls endured. I found enough leeway to scrape by, and scrape I chose to, confident that I could always get away in the same manner.

It has taken me two years of university to realize that this cannot be, and that the margin for error now has grown tragically thin. And I understand that the only way to reclaim that margin is through work. The focused mind, the discipline, the desire that accompany hard work will enable me to transcend the limitations that I labour under, but it comes with the accompanying understanding that it will, if it can be harnessed, lead to much greater and better things.

Its not an easy thing, to be so always proudly lazy and unapplied to change my course so radically will require great stubbornness of mind, a trait that I know I have not been blessed with, and a heartfelt desire to achieve the results. I know now thought that I have potential greater then I have ever exhibited to this date, that I have let myself down by not pushing to the greatest extent my boundaries and limitations, and to truly try and transcend not the examiners and the markers, but myself. To push my abilities to their maximum and to endure the inevitable failures that are on the horizon, but to fight back their down heartening effect and to rise again messianically, to fight another day.

I do not know whether such a program can succeed but I mean to find out.

Emotions and Actions

I take no pride in acknowledging that at times I can be a pretty moody person, and that my mood swings can be swift and sudden. I often find that days can be like emotional roller coasters, brilliant mornings, happy afternoons, and a totally despicable evening. What aggravates this problem for me is my inborn cynicism which makes it more likely then not that a bad mood will continue for days.

Its the queerest feeling, knowing that your in a bad mood, despising the world and the people that inhabit it, wondering why you're even bothering to stick around in such a den of infamy, but knowing also at the same time that its just my brain being stupid and moody, suggesting dumb and stupid things and trying to aggravate the self pity the down mood is feeding upon. Side by side with that is a feeling that "this too, shall pass", knowing that perhaps tomorrow or the day after, I'll get up and everything will be fine with the world, that the sun will stream through the window and reflect of the mirrors bathing the world in light, that the breeze will blow swiftly through the windows and the curtains will greet it with a gentle wave.

The thing I'm starting to learn is that emotions are not unidirectional, they alter your actions and moods but your action and mood can also transform your emotions. If in a foul mood one smiles, instantly happier thoughts fly by, good times shared with friends, fun times now passed, and the faked smile turns into a happy one, a genial chuckle escapes as libation to times gone by, and hopefully good times to come, to friends far from sight but alive in the heart. And one is happy again.

What a powerful change when you realise that its not in chemical control, but instead in your control. What a power to use and harness.

On Beauty

It seems to go without saying, that we live in a world now where beauty is only skin deep in the general perception. Not in the sense that we only consider the exterior of a person, but that we give disproportionate weight to the exterior, and have been deluded in to believing that the exterior is of greater import then the interior.

The conventional argument then proceeds to blame the media, but I can't make that leap myself. I do not see how we can casually blame other people for what is a societal perception on the whole. It is not confined to one sector or generated by one sector to further its own goals, but is in fact a collective perception. To a great extent we all buy into and perpetuate this common myth.

I can understand the biological arguments that compel the scientist in his critical assessment of beauty, the harsh metric of biological fitness is completely incapable I think of answering the question in any meaningful manner though. One only has to look at common cliches such as that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder to know that this is not the case. Beauty both applies and transcends such cruel approximation and denigrating definition.

So what does drive our collective conception of beauty? I will of course concede that physical lust must play a role, as does the imagination of the human mind, but the question must be asked that what does it on a societal basis. The only answer I can offer is that we live in a society that ascribes too much worth to physical appearence, and does not understand that evil can wear a fair face. In fact that face does not and cannot testify to what it conceals.

Its hard to remember this in everyday life, to realise that no one is deserving of extra advantage by virtue of their physical appearance, and equally important that it ought not to count against anyone. We have what is almost a reflex action that counters our democratic tendencies and instead encourages us to make the easy choice and discriminate on the factors that are most easily acquired by us to decide upon.

It behoves us all to not surrrender to it.

Foundations

I asserted a while back what our society ought to be basedupon, but simultaneously I wondered what I thought society was currently found open. And oddly enough I found that the answer I was seeking might best come from the field of economics. What suggested that to me was the famous quote by the father of Economics, Adam Smith in his seminal The Wealth of Nations. In it, in words that are eminently quotable, but equally questionable, he asserts:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest."

The first question that jumps to mine is why? On what basis should we accept Smiths sweeping statement that it is only the self interest of the baker that grants us our bread. Why not his love of his art, his profession, his desire to be productive, his simple ability to be able to help other and extend to them his compassion?

I posit all these as alternates, but I do not really contend that they are in fact viable. It stands to reason in the world that we live in that, and given the pysche of the people who inhabit it, that this is the only true and viable method on which to base a maximally efficient and properly productive society.

It is here though that the cardinal flaw of the argument appears. The essential circular nature of the reasoning is laid bare for the first time. Self interest creates the optimal conditions for productivity which is typified by the economics of capitalism which is the simultaneous philosophy of capitalistic self-interest. Self interest creates a system designed to perpetrate a society and a people conditioned to always put their own benefit above that of the other. It is not so overt as perhaps the Objectivists would hope, and for that we can be thankful that the other human virtues of Wisdom, Justice, Courage and Temperance which have due to the kindness of the greeks and thier decency in predating Adam Smith and Ayn Rand, have embeded their thinking into the western mind.

It is this combination that takes the edge of the cardinal desire of self seeking, and it is what ultimately makes our world a better and more habitable place for it. The self seekingness proceeds to procure efficiency, but it does so at what must be considered an unacceptable cost, it demands nothing less then the very nature of humanity and compassion be sacrificed at its alter.

I believe that we live in a society that is more and more retracting from making this commitment. We understand that their are things more important than profits , that the desire to material things is not sufficient, that there is a immanent and transcendent dimension to being a human, a certain spirituality that defies just the material plane. I think that this is the story of the 20-21st Centuries. It is the understanding that man is more then the sum of his parts, and that to classify him and pigeonhole him as just that has failed. Man is not a beast, a beast of burden of the economic engine, but also its master and the navigator, free to chose how far to sail as well as determine if he desires to sail at all.

This is a hopeful conclusion I know, but hope in the last resort perhaps, hope in our own abilities and our own beliefs, in their essential correctness, is perhaps all that we have. If we hold to them only then do I think will we see a world that is better for all, and not just a few elite who by chance have been born with a whip to crack over the shoulders of their beasts of burden.