of the context from which western science
and philosophy first emerged 2,500 years
ago, today the dynamic differences between
the near-east and west apparently remain.
it is proposed that cultural differences
at the level of perceptions of experience
are somehow clashing between public views
of the west and private views of the near-
east. that is, dissonance may exist as a
result of incompatibility at some basic
level of earlier assumptions with origins
in the concepts that are the context for
events then and now: largely centered on
the relations of religion, science, state.
to try to encapsulate this very complex:
western ideas of science became a view of
what is considered 'the public' view of
events, though which are actually still
influenced by western assumptions in how
they are evaluated, valued. that is, views
of science can become 'westernized public'
perceptions, which have less to do with
science than with cultural influences,
biases, embedded in scientific views.
therefore, science effectively muddles
private western views and values within
its supposed 'objective public' vantage,
which have been shown to be self-evident
in the rise of post-modernism loopholes.
(this part is an assumption that i have
read of and will repeat here because it
could be relevant though i may be wrong
about it being the main influence...)
views of western science are taught in
western universities which many students
from around the world come to learn about.
and to return to their specific cultures
to build upon their knowledge locally. it
is at this point that the 'public' claims
of science, and the ideological motivations
of development in the form of modernization,
encounter the traditional and local 'public,'
in which the western influence in ideological
thinking, embedded in views of such science,
may create frictions and tensions if it is
not accurate to real experience about claims
of objectivity in that it may serve western
values or a western worldview as a result
of its cultural origins, that is, having
this methodology arise in a context that
has very different cultural assumptions.
this would mean that, for instance, what
is a Western worldview may clash with an
Arab, Palestinian, Persian, African or
other view of the world, by claiming to
represent a universal public which is not
as universal as it claims, and such claims
are the way for 'modernization' to develop
and be legitimized, by default, unless an-
other approach were to be realized. such
an alternative might be considered the
need to establish a new approach to define
a scientific and modern 'representational'
public, where reality is represented as
accurately as the observers can model it.
and cultural observations influence what
are observations of nature, unique Ways
of Seeing (author: Berg) that could bring
a wealth of new scientific perceptions if
such a goal were to be pursued, which is,
in effect; establishing an Arab Science,
or some public representation of what is
considered the common public (if Islamic,
possibly even) which would establish the
science that reaches a universality that
is grounded in a shared cultural reality
that it uniquely serves, even if with a
local bias, it would not be western bias.
then what is shared between near-east and
middle-east science and western-science
could be considered the 'universal' science,
in a way similar to how certain regions and
peoples pursue different perspectives of a
similar phenomena. for instance, Russia is
unique in its approach to electromagnetism,
having pursued other assumptions about how
it is modeled than the .US, and the result
is a wide-range of scientific exploration
that both realms can compete and cooperate
and yet follow their own cultural intuition
as to what is the most meaningful research.
likewise with China. India, most likely, and
most places where a local quality may have
particular influence on what is considered
important to understand. a place that may
be rich in geological resources may have a
large interest in developing the best geo-
logists and pioneering new ideas through
basic research, well beyond what is today
practical, and invent new methods and ways
of understanding that could transform the
industry and world as a long-term result,
and also become an export of the expertise.
it is around this idea of a cultural context
and 'representing' what is evidenced as real,
in a way that is held in common by the world
as it exists, in science, yet beyond a bias
is inherent in its cultural origin. the goal
would then revolve around improving concepts
of 'the public' of science, religion, state.
to do so would also require some redefinition
of how the private dimensions of a culture can
co-exist in this same context, and it may need
to be defined to protect both the public views
and private views so that they complement one-
another rather than compete with one another.
that is, the state governs the relationship
between the public and private domains of
individuals, groups, institutions, by way of
laws to define and protect freedoms, duties.
if the state is able to establish a certain
dynamic that can foster greater collaboration
between a new cultural publicness of science
with the traditional views of the world, it
may be function differently than simply having
western science materialized in the western
ideology modernism develops by, by default.
that is, instead of a Western view believed to
be a universal public trying to unsuccessfully
incorporate itself into an Near-east culture
which has very different cultural perceptions,
a new science that rises from the local public
could adapt and build up a public science that
is in harmony with the cultural values, yet it
defines a secure place in which to relate to
tradition and not challenge its demise by way
of neutral or even immoral cultural designs.
that is, local control over such developments
in science, and thus also in modernizations.
the mathematics of science would largely be
identical, though maybe new realms of such
discoveries would open up based on unique
perceptions of a people. whereas the cultural
issues of science, how it is understood as an
idea, the debate, critique, transmission and
communication of empirical observations, it
would possibly be much more integrative if
it would matched with the language, logic
or ways of thinking, and psychological or
mental modeling of a particular place, with
a particular sensibility in which ideas are
related, as the most real representation in
which to make universal the local knowledge.
that is, to define the public and the modern
in relation to what is traditional awareness.
that there is a continuum and not a rupture.
that cooperation between public and private
views, exist, not competition where one view
wins and the other is destroyed. with such
a balanced state of affairs, values may be
adapted to new insights into what works for,
say, economics for education of people and
optimization of systems so that the society
works in harmony- and views which limit this
would be debated, in truthful and accurate
representation of the situations, to render
the best decisions possible that work for all.
i.e. religion and science and values, morals,
and questions of adapting of some traditions
in relation to goals for 'modern' development.
modern being defined by the people it serves.
to take the pulse of the modern 'world view'
in the present is to see these same issues
in a world state of imbalance and dysfunction.
what is common in the extremes can be found
in the same ideas which originated with early
science and philosophy, which has a lot to do
with issues of the public and private realms,
how they are perceived, and also represented.
that is, both what is represented and who is
representing what is considered to be reality.
the common dynamic appears to be, it is here
proposed, existing in a 'private' context by
way of inheritance from earlier generations.
yet the claims made by various peoples are
of the universality of ideas: what is public.
the public representations are today limited
by private individuals and perspectives that
are not yet able to exist in the world scale,
as they are not integrated and instead compete
of views of what this public should really be.
that is, a type of world discourse may be being
had, in the form of the War of Terror, in that
various points of view are representing what
is considered the most real and accurate way
of viewing the universal situation, from a
particular cultural context which has bias as
a shared and inherent element of perspective.
it is not a judgment but an element of ideas,
how they are culturally constructed, embedded
in a particular way of seeing, that even the
realm of science is unable to transcend today.
what is remarkable is that this representation
of points of view, however violent, not only
aims at defining what is real and representing
ideas -- but that this is indeed and without a
doubt a type of active reasoning that exists in
the current horrific scenarios -- that ideas
are still accessible in the ideologies because
the question is reality, the most real view of
events that can be shared and considered public.
universal. and it is paradoxical because there
is a truth to all perspectives, and distortion.
some of which is based in cultural ideologies.
for instance, it may not be the intent of any
westerner to infringe upon the god-given rights
of any citizen to determine their values, and
yet the westernization of societies by way of
modernization and science may challenge systems
to change their values automatically, without
conscious choices or intentions by peoples to-
day, though no less real as a result of not
addressing the inherent cultural bias of such
very large technological systems of science.
this would not be an act of ill will or of
disrespect but moreso of historical ignorance
and with its awareness, an attempt to address
this shared grievance that plagues all of us.
i.e., representation that is not real enough.
it is not real to experience and is a threat
to core values, beliefs, and moral standards.
the fact is, if it is philosophical in origin
from some 2,500 years ago, is that no one is
actually in control of the ideas because they
are subconscious or unconscious as a result
of the solidification of a point of view in
which earlier questioning became answered in
a set view of what is real and to be believed,
and an ideology became an unthinking approach
which has been difficult to see outside of its
own cultural development for what it is, and
is not. that is, to judge it realistically to
the ideas it purports to serve, and only in
the effects elsewhere may the causes be seen
more clearly as to the true nature of events.
that is, the debate over modernism is not to
be found in universities in the .US because
it is prevented from being questioned, and
yet those voices in the Middle-east who have
brought modernization under review enable a
more accurate representation of this shared
experience to be developed as a public review,
debate, criticism, exchange, potentially as a
way to address these shared and vital concerns,
both at the global and local levels or scales.
the problem is that what this is mentally is
an enormous cultural enigma that freedom of
ideas and exchange of cultural observations is
being conducted also in the physical realm by
way of warfare, guns, bombs, death and despair.
as a manifestation of these same forces which
are clashing, to put bodies in-between gears
of these cultural faultlines and what amounts
to ideological machinery to retain a position
that defends a core set of values, and beliefs,
and rightly so-- yet it is completely tragic.
because minds can only resolve such issues,
in a way that the most real representations
are shared, both sides win the truth and lose
what should be lost, a shared false illusion.
Islam and the West are not at war, if these
cultural issues of science and philosophy are
approximate as to the origin of a conflicting
view of a shared world that has not yet found
a way to evolve, peacefully, to co-exist with
respect of different views of what is public
and what is private and how these are related.
it would instead be more of an issue of how
a westernized science in the form of a modern
ideology is not sufficiently integrating into
a uniquely different cultural context with a
unique perception of issues of representation
of what is public and private that now clash.
likewise, though oppositely, Islam is not out
to destroy Western culture, yet its integration
of cultural beliefs are at odds with a universal
ideology of modernism which saturates science in
western values while desaturating cultural values,
which clashes in public and private representation.
in such a way it would likely be possible that
science and ideology, and how the state is to
be dealing with such questions at the level of
nations and internationally, could possibly be
an effective tool to pacify further violence so
to seek some structural approach to addressing
what are core concerns that could effect change
in perception of these issues and what can be
done about increasing shared cultural respect.
that it is not intention but inattention that
is the cause of these events, by some kind of
evolution of ideas that become confused and
distorted and serve their opposite purpose-
until they are fixed again, and now it needs
to be worked through using peaceful means...
this is to say, there is 'reason' to various
points of view of ongoing events. with due
respect to the .US and other western countries
who say 'we do not reason with terrorists' it
is at some point believed to be necessary to
at least allow a citizen to make note of the
fact that the point of view of bin Laden was,
at some time, that of representing a view of
events which were also historically related
to these dynamics, and spoke to a liberation
of persons in the Middle-East from a tyranny
of western ideology, if it can be translated
as such. effectively, it is a point of view
which 'represents' a call for freedoms from
something that is less, and a call for more
for citizens to decide their own directions
with regard to these issues; which, framed
in the view of physical violence may not be
acceptable as a type of discourse or reason,
and yet to dismiss these ideas as unreal,
irrational, or ideological - alone - would
be also to dismiss something that is real
and being represented about a situation in
which a hope for change is stated, in the
ideas, a dream for better representation of
what is considered real and possibly by the
people of the regions, not determined by a
western design. and also, a statement was
said against tyrants of that region also,
such as Saddam Hussien, as being against
these same goals of releasing the people
from such despotic government of bondage.
this is to say -- if, if considering that
there is one problem shared, and there are
multiple points of view, and that some of
these may be working for similar ends, in
the end, if the true situation is correctly
represented, ideas empirically understood,
that someone who seeks to represent a view
that challenges this epic questions, rises
into warfare as warriors have always done,
is in effect seeking a more realm way of
representing something that is challenged
and is fighting for ideas to remain real.
certain cultural values, beliefs, morals.
ideas beyond and prior to violence, even.
and the attempt to enact the ideas, the
route of which it must be said is not to
be acceptable as civilized for it is war,
and it is hell, and it is never a goal,
that the ideas being fought for, may also
be the same ideas being fought against!
that is, it may be a shared representation
of what is real, true, right and good for
the people of the middle-east and near-east
to achieve a more real representation of
their peoples in relation to their culture,
likewise the west with itself and the world,
and in this way to share a belief in ideas
that are the basis for democracy, freedom
of thought, law -- that the only difference
is that instead of terrorism these ideas,
in the west, would be expected to be voted
on, with these ideas on voting ballots.
that is, voting for the people who are
said to represent the public, universal,
the private views - to establish relations
between religion and state and science so
as to not rely on the west for its present
and future self-determination and liberty.
the situation in Iraq would appear to be a
shared interest for all in the Middle-east,
if so, which would be proven if the .US was
to leave the country and ideas such as these
about voting for public representation would
become the process by which the minds of the
region replace those who vote by violence,
by killing off freedom to be represented by
anyone other than those wielding violence
against their own people, held in cultural
bondage of what becomes their own design.
unless there is a chance to change patterns.
if the .US left, and ideas are the central
principles by which to develop a new Iraq,
which is representative of people in the
region, would it not be possible that the
wars could end and focus on rebuilding new
relationships upon ideas of shared reality?
that is, not to coerce a point of view of
the world, yet it would appear that a goal
of a public representation exists in ideas
shared by all, and likely most .US soldiers
hold on partly because of a moral duty for
preventing the rebirth of Saddam's regime.
to see the ideals, the dreams, the goals of
greater possibilities then to be enacted in
violence of the utmost inhuman kind, such as
beheadings and killing of civilian Iraqis,
this representation does not seem to be the
same as the goals which have to do with the
western ideology, but of the middle-east.
in the western tradition, the idea of how
ideas are represented is directly related
to a philosophical division (now becoming
integrated again) between a mind and body,
both of individuals and states, by way of
Descartes. there is a very large question
of the state and how it relates to such a
questioning that is ancient, and universal
if questioned beyond just western views.*
as a corollary, classical architecture has
often been equated to human individuals,
where the 'capital' is considered a head,
and the architectural column, a human body.
that is, ideas are structurally supported
by the physical body, just as a brain is
placed atop the spinal column of nerves.
this architectural symbolism is unnerving
if compared to the current approaches to
the ideas of human representation in Iraq:
because what is being beheaded are the ideas
of those the executioners is said to represent.
this approach is in service of physical power
over that of ideas of people without power,
identical to Saddam's model of government.
without a new freedom and protection of such
people, the larger goals can never be achieved
for more accurate representation of cultural
ideals, goals, values, beliefs, through murder.
through fear, through hatred, through violence.
as such a non-violent development of ideas would
make it much more possible to represent new goals,
yet in the current context how will designs of
peace, for the people of the region, triumph
over what has become ideological madness, evil.
that is not a view against, but for a shared view
of the world, to establish hope and build upon it.
is there a way to call a truce to the approaches
if they are accurately enough described and to
work through these shared philosophical issues,
in a way respectful of cultural differences and
yet also to retain a new regional independence?
how is the world going to fix itself without ideas
that can consider these issues-- war tactics will
result only in greater pressures that close down
options, when peace could open up a new reality...
what if art, architecture, design, education, and
other areas could bridge cultural interactions in
a way that could develop greater understanding,
appreciation, and awareness, not only of our own
differences but also what we share now in common?
what if the wars could end, the .US would withdraw,
and support to whatever extent is requested of it,
and the Middle- and Near-east were to secure the
region as a common goal of .UN peacekeeping using
regional peace-officers, upon which the relations
between the middle-east and west could be reframed
in relation to themselves and the greater world, so
to address the increasingly complex questions ahead.
a shared view of the world is possible and necessary
to accurately represent the present situations in a
neutral enough context to make the changes necessary
to secure a new peace- can we develop it together?
* composition and questions of design of the state
http://www.electronetwork.org/works/ae/towards/comp/state/
brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
architecture, education, electromagnetism
http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll
http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/