November 28, 2005

In a long lasting conflict we paint the image of others, conflicts within the conflict mushrooms as it goes for too long; in Afghanistan after the invasion we experienced many different sorts of regional, ethnic, social, personal, and psychological conflicts. The psychological combat is a relief mechanism.
These acts protect the individual from things that would otherwise make him uncomfortable and anxious. One defence mechanism is projection on others –who is perceived enemy and pretty much everyone is an enemy – of feelings, characteristics and desires that we can’t admit exist in ourselves.

A major factor in projection is the creation of a scapegoat. An ‘enemy’ serves as a scapegoat when it is accused of bringing about an outcome that was actually perpetrated by another, perhaps even oneself. The accusation is used to justify ones’ own behaviour, which is similar to that foisted on the others. Everyone is usually seen as aggressive, seeking dominance and conquest and capable of evil and brutality. One can ignore ones’ own behaviour and preserve ones self image because no matter how badly one is behaving, the world is a bad place, others are even worst.

Kabulis experience this in the 90s when belligerent parties were making projection of each other and the outside world; almost everyone in the outside world was considered evil. As the conflict prolonged this became a social trend too, and individuals started to perceive others through a defensive mechanism.

Having an enemy allows one the satisfaction of recognising one’s own moral superiority and the rightness of one’s cause (if there is one).

November 23, 2005

“the understanding of the thing you do a bit better” answered Lech Falandysz, law professor, when he was asking what happiness was in his farewell gathering with students, few days later he died of cancer.

Challenges of Liberalism and Post modernity from an Islamic View

November 22, 2005

Individual is not merely free to choose, she is forced to be free obliged to understand and live her life as an act of successive choices, each rationalized by the commitment only to increase the choices available to her. individual is free to choose but her only choice is to increase her range of choice every other choice is irrational, unauthentic, perverse. She must pretend that facticity, death and the unknown do not exist. This never ending pretense constitutes her becoming for the gilded chains of freedom can never be discarded. Every relationship, every social institution is transformed by post-modern liberalism into a market institution. The only identity actually available to individual in this prison of rights and choices, is the identity of the entrepreneur.

Post Liberalism is a coercive instrument which moralizes and normalizes individual’s life. They go to every mean to feel free.
Liberal (L) governmentality is also concerned with extending the realm of the political rule, is extended to order the affairs of a population to promote its well being. The state and its apparatus is concerned with inter relating the political spheres to the nonpolitical spheres in which the ‘political’ is grounded.

In this sense governmentality is transformed to constitute a set of activities which relate the spheres of the formation of consciousness to the spheres of dominance. Governmentaity is more than police. In eighteenth centuary France police implied complete documentation of society ‘L’ was to be made totally transparent, her scrutiny was to be perpetual and the ordering of her life, her thoughts and her desires was to be complete the dictatorship of the proletariat was an extension of the classical police regime.

Post Modern Liberalism (PML) as a mentality abandons this fantasy of a totally administered and planned society. Classical liberalism recognises the necessity of self governance of the entities it confronts. The sovereign does not exercise its totalising will across a national space ‘L’ is recognised to possess those inviolable individual and welfare rights which allows her to seek the maximisation of pleasure. Classical liberalism saw a society prior to the market which defined individual’s community conciousness defined the social constraints. This recognition of individual as an autonomous, self created and self oriented being required the recognition of the autonomy and self regulating legitimacy of the market and of society. The objects, instruments and tasks of liberal rule were formed, in accordance with the need to promote individual’s rights and the autonomy of the market and society. But the recognition of these rights and autonomy was to be reconciled with the perpetual domination of the liberal, state over, individual and over her society.

PML is concerned with the elaboration of theoretical systems but his self centeredness leads him to construct fragments of his own life into theoretical positions. It is never the theory and always the self his own self and no other which is the centre of his universe. It is this obsession with the death of the self

PML is freedom within the family, community and the market. But to make individual free in these spheres politician has to invent means for shaping and managing individual’s conduct and perceptions. individual’s “public” evaluations and conduct are evaluated by codes of orderliness, prudence, civility and consequentialism. Her “private” deliberations and behaviour are to be moulded by equipping her with languages and techniques and self understanding and self mastery. To be free individual must be taught to accept as natural and rational the pleasure/efficiency maximizing, conduct, characteristic of post enlightment libral society. Individual’s becomes free when she becomes a normal citizen of a liberal social order. Freedom is nothing else.

"که خان یی نو پـــــــه یاران یی"

November 21, 2005

“که خان یی نو پـــــــه یاران یی”


November 20, 2005

Is violence a need or a mistake? violence comes to existance when people mishandle or can’t handle a conflict. However, as time pass violence transforms to a habit. i think current crisis and world war three is a bit of both. western response to 911 strengthening anit-western ideology leading to fundamentalism in the middle east and asia. because of lack of understanding of global policy and the emergence of islamic radicalism in the middle east and asia; bankruptcy of left governments in the middle east and asia; impoverished democratic governance; oil curse. so it was clearly a mistake. but it’s also a need. the emergence of right wind, pragmatist, extreme government in the US needs to wage war

November 20, 2005

It would have been fun if we let out our souls for a couple of hours every 24; for example when we are deep at sleep it takes off. It could have been a great relaxation for the body, bearing the weight of the soul and the soul being caged in by the body. Every morning we could have been refreshed and reborned just like a child. The age of the soul in the body would have been the same as an infant, therefore innocent and unambiguous. We wouldn’t have had all the hatred, suspicion, jealousy and distrust we are thought and inserted.

Actually I thought about it when I was to argue about an issue and I needed a devil advocate. It was so cool. I think I really figured out the issue. If our souls would have left the bodies then they could have met and discuss issues and figure out things that we can’t normally and the next day, we know all about it without exhausting our brain.
I bet there are stuff you want to discuss it honestly with someone – as a matter of fact I want to discuss everything honestly with people.

You know, there are people just want to be extreme for some reason, they either want to be part of something real big, perhaps because they feel flecky on their own and what they are, or they want to be the best.
I have a classmate who is even not American but his opinions are very right wing American, and he pretends to be one.
I wanted to have a very honest chat with real him. Clean from all sorts of acquirable values. So I could figure out what is exactly going on in his brain.

from one of the lectures – interesting

November 19, 2005

Decisions (i.e. foreign policy) are made by people, as individuals and institutions; individual decision makers are wrapped up in several layers. Domestic and transnational. These layers are mingled and there are connections among them. these impinges directly the ablity of decision maker under both conditions of certainty and likelihood.

Decision-making: is the process of evaluating and choosing among eclectic alternatives course of action (or inaction).

In a decision willingness and opportunity are driving factors.

There could be several different causal reasons for a given decision: we wear jeans because everybody else does, we wear it because it looks good, we wear it because it’s cheap and durable, we wear it because we hate skirts, we wear …… no matter what a decision has been made.

In political decisions (and any decision) it’s important to know what are the willingness’s as oppose to opportunities.

Some people stresses that a good decision is not good or bad but it’s the rational one. Rational decision is to maximize benefit relative to the cost. This means gathering a lot of information and calculate cost against benefit, after identifying all of the options. So rationality is purposive and than posses; humanistic and organizational capabilities imposes a limit on rational behavior.

The neo-liberal prospect is that rationalism spoils values. (not quite sure how to explain it, but will do some studies)

What is outlined above is bollocks and can’t happen in the real world. Great deal of research has been done in this regard, one could do it’s own if not sure about it.