Just as Orwell Said

        George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.

     Iran’s proposed plan offered to the P5+1 included two phases, both of which did not touch on its right to enrich uranium, but where open to concessions regarding quantity and levels of enrichment. Moreover, Iran also accepted to have its nuclear sites and facilities inspected by IAEA inspectors in any sudden visit, confirming with that that its nuclear goals are but peaceful. Its offer is being studied but has so far drawn applause and acceptance, at least from the media.  Catherine Ashton for her part described the diplomatic approach that Iran is treading as useful, Britain and France seem to be warming up to their Persian not-quite-the- adversary, and the Obama administration ignored both Israeli and gulf worries about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and political influence in the region and seems keen on going forward in talks with Iran and its new leader. The nuclear concessions offered by Iran will – if not already have – be met with political concessions from the US which are basically a given recognition of the role of Iran in all of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Palestine and the possibility of including Iran - rather than gulf countries - in the negotiating table with Syria. Whilst the western world refused at the beginning to include political issues in nuclear negotiations with Iran, they are now more inclined to embrace that only available option. The loyal and victimized allies in the Arab gulf now seem to be left out, and accommodating the villain of all villains seems to be the salvation.

     Political alliances and geopolitical considerations are meant to change over time according to countries’ interests and conditions. Should US interests and those of the EU lie in building bridges with Iran at the expense of Arab interests and Israeli fears, then this change of policy and approach would be perfectly fine. Nothing is engraved in stone. What is not fine however is the manipulation of public opinion with strong and blind convictions that give people every reason to fear an imaginary bogeyman. Depicting Iran as an evil nation with plans to annihilate Israel, destroy Arab states, enforce fundamental shiism, launch wars of terror on western nations and succumb the world to tyranny -quoting Bush Jr. – and then suddenly considering it as an option for a regional partner to restore peace in the Middle East (just like what happened in Iraq) and pacifying its nuclear ambitions, is not OK. Satan cannot repent and change course in a matter of 5 years’ time…unless of course he was not Satan from the very beginning…just a word stolen and altered to suit US interests at the time, just as Orwell said.

All You Need to Know Book

   

   

      At the ophthalmologist’s waiting room I was impatiently checking my watch, hoping it would strike 18:00 in defiance of the laws of nature controlling time passage. Masking my impatience with observing people’s attitudes at the grey large room, I was surprised to be actually entertained with an observation based on fellow patients. Men, women and children of different ages were resting comfortably on washed out green sofas, each defying time with his or her own entertaining gadget: a magazine, a book, a laptop, a phone and an interactive video game.  The only two (three if myself were included) exceptions to the case were the man sitting next to me and the man sitting two sofas ahead of me. Not accurately described as being old, the older men were about 65 -70 years old. Far from having a blank look in their eyes, these two men were staring into everything and nothing at the same time, their minds seemingly engaged with the elements present in the existing room whilst at the same time perhaps shifting into a virtual world of worries, ideas and chores. In all cases, what was on their mind exactly was of no interest to me, but what was – and consequently led to this article – was the fact of their “non-aided engagement” with their own thoughts.

      
     According to Michael Oakeshott, rationalism has been a growing trend since the 17^th century, being applied in all aspects of life (science, politics, religion etc.). Tradition, experience and facts accepted for face-value are all rejected by rationalists, where reason, and only reason, should be followed to reach conclusions about any given subject. Cleansing our minds from prejudices, we – rational learners – start a long journey of learning that requires acquiring two sets of types of knowledge:  technical and practical. In Oakeshott’s words, the process also involves “bringing all social, political, legal and institutional inheritance of our societies before the tribunal of our intellect”. He stresses the superiority of ideology over tradition, an ideology derived from a technique of thinking, investigating and interpreting….confirming that no knowledge is real knowledge unless it is technical knowledge, anything else is pure ignorance. As the philosopher Francis Bacon explained, all works of comprehension starts anew and take their own path, being guided in every step of the way…a comprehension that is an art of interpretation and investigation that complements the weakness of our natural reasoning. However, this rosy and logical picture painted by many philosophers and championed by Oakeshett seems to be spoiled by our modern ways. Oakeshott complains that this rationalist approach has been changing slowly, where we are moving further away from the true sources of inspiration and where the rationalist character has become more vulgar and rude…what used to be the art of thinking has become a manual of how to use your head at a fraction of habitual cost and what used to be the art of living has become the technique of success in life. Everything we need to know nowadays is written down eloquently and directly and we are spared the long dire process of thinking.

      Back to the waiting room, my observation was the following: nowadays, with the spread of books (paper and digital), vast variety of publications and communication tools we have turned into a “deluded information sponge”. We take everything- absolutely everything- in, with few questions asked.  We seem to be waiting for somebody else’s idea about a given topic, which would be taken for face value and stored at the back of our minds without any intention to doubt, question or analyse that thought. We are eager to know anything and congratulate ourselves for using the precious time – that could have been wasted - at the waiting room to flip through magazines and websites and take more info in….any info. What I am not sure about is how dangerous is that to our rational being? Are we really learning how to think? Are we clearing our heads of prejudices and receiving and storing others’ prejudices? Is Oakeshott right to complain that we misinterpreted rationalism and tend to convert the techniques of thinking, reasoning and reaching conclusions into a manual that is followed blindly?

     I am sure that some of us do. Most evident is that reality in politics, where the practicality of political engagement liberated many activists from the duty of political learning and the preference to acquire the magical politics technique that liberates the disadvantaged from political ignorance. His salvation can be found in an “all you need to know book” or a discourse that she can by heart and can apply directly and mechanically. How many journalists, bloggers (myself being one), reporters and programme presenters have brainwashed us and given us a false notion of being politically updated…themselves of course being brainwashed by others? How few are rational thinkers who can read an article published in a prestigious newspaper and written by someone with three titles preceding his name and rationally analyse it and value its essence? How impatient are we as readers and learners to take the fast track and get an honorary degree in knowledge? Are all of these patients – minus two – waiting at the ophthalmologist’s clinic members of the mpatient, passive and not-really-rational group? In all cases, it just struck me as a coincidence that such and observation was made while waiting for my eyes to be checked…although my argument may seem solid after this epiphany, I should stress that my arguments as based on 10 pages of Oakeshott’s book, read in 2 hours and written down in 1. So yes, I am a fellow member.