Search This Blog

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Thinking of You, Dear Illusion

We humans crave our being....yes we do....most of us at least. Don't you think that we have the most special ability? Call it reasoning, call it thinking but I prefer the second. Some certainly think but they lack good reasoning after all. Hey hey! We have souls, what about this? Well let me be clear then; following you we and animals are in the same boat. Animals do some thinking for sure..but they can't tell the product of multiplying 1 by 1....OK OK some people actually couldn't do it!! Beethoven never was able to do the fancy arithmetic by the way. Anyway, At least most of us we people can learn how to tell this. Addition is more intuitive, we can reason it very well indeed. I prefer making it more distinctive for the moment. Bear it as it is. We can use and employ our thinking and feelings but have you consulted your precious soul or whatsoever before? Anyhow, what is it about thinking? Actually you've just hit the point!!! I am serious no bluffing. Let me rephrase..What is thinking anyway? What sort of things it is? Well, clearly I think it is some kind of a product. Elusive is really. Drop thinking now. How about music? It is some kind of a product too..Oh are we going in circles, my friend? No not at all. Get an instrument..let it be a piano, then, simply hit a key, a very materialistic key, isn't it? You will hear a tone roaming in the air. OK but you missed that we humans produce 'sounds' as well..voices to play the righteous. Well you got what I missed..I told you we humans got this very special ability, thinking. Anyway, sound is a result of some materialistic acts or causes. There is no sound as long as nothing vibrates the air around. Even MIDI format, artificial one, can't be generated without a suitable hardware, say, a computer. Back to the issue after our long drill, thinking is a result, not the very same type of result though, of our biological construction, there is no thinking without a capable brain. Well, right to some extent but I'd like to reach the source, there is no thinking without life. I am shocked, my friend. What is that you're saying? Can't you see that mammals got the same kind of life. Even worms got life but I am not sure if it is the same...different sides of things. Well your reasoning failed you this time..but your thinking took you there, didn't it? Well there is something to tell, chimpanzees are the most intelligent animals. Their genes are not so much different from ours..still there are differences anyway, I don't know what causes what. Anyhow, We Got The Thinking would be a nice humane motto. There is a very interesting thing about thinking generally and about awareness in specific; both accommodate differences.. they simply tolerate them. I mean that thinking is influenced by the communities in which humans live. You need a brain to think, then, your thinking is shaped by whatever social and environmental circumstances you were through. Family and other influences aside, we could possibly share many thoughts if we were through the same circumstances. But we could have many different thoughts as well, right? Yes I think you are right but why? Here interpretation involves in play. Family backgrounds, social constructions or circumstances as well, our nations and psychological aspects. All these things contribute to our thinking. Let's get back to our musical drill. You said that I have to get an instrument to get a sound, but to get a musical tune a musician must play this instrument not me. Well, good point but I meant sound in the first place. Assume that there is a book above the piano now it is falling down, for some reason, then it hits the keyboard...sounds, tones, will be produced. Arbitrary they are yes indeed but they are tones at the end, some form of sound. To produce music a musician is needed.. yes that's right. He tames the tones and orders them to produce a musical least he, the player, believes that it is musical. He is using his thinking and surely his feelings to produce it. You know, I am listening to the tune he is playing but I find it no musical....I don't like it....I don't think it is coherent. Well, this is my very right. I interpret differently that's all. I am talking reality not fiction, my friend. Wagner was considered as the composer of sarcastic?....Anyway, his music has proved him as a music master leaving the old sayings to burn away. Thinking needs taming too..ordering as well...insight to be proper, I think this is a cultivated sort of thinking. Social and environmental circumstances tame thinking, then, thinking shapes awareness. Awareness is some kind of knowledge in my opinion. Not all things that can be considered knowledge are true and not all knowledgeable people are truthful. You may interpret my thinking and understandings as think differently. But maybe....again maybe either of us is right about some of the differences.

They are materialistic instances and their actions controlling us. And indeed our thinking must lead to or at least must be based upon and concerned with some tangible instances. You know....even love can be considered as a result of livings....a result of what we encounter in life. Some are fond of thinking in its own right....I count them fools myself. Well, thinking in God is not a very different OK....humans often think of God in a way that reflects their own images of life....I am not an extremist at all....let's carry on. These images are basically the 'things' they faced in their it family, be it critical situation, be it a position one took earlier, be it anything...the point is that this 'anything' always has an impact on how we interpret God himself. Religion is beyond reasoning that's all....and if you tried to reason religious teachings, you would carry the burden of making a very fertile logical flow...this is never the case anyway. People just follow their passion....and maybe instinct when it comes to religions. Then, their passion becomes their thinking....that thinking may not be logical at all by the way. Yes it is not that simple but let's keep it impulsive to some degree. I guess it is reasoning that feeds religious clashes. Reasoning in such cases becomes a thing that distorts logics. And clashing logics feed clashing values. Logic is not a very rigid sort of things by the way...but it has many variations.

Logic is only logical when it really mentally depicts a very corresponding picture to reality. Reality is logic in its own right but it may be so cruel so that we need to replace it by another logic....we have to change things in real to change their logic. Life, reality, sets its first this logic may be just enforcement of rules but reality is persistent, isn't it? Tracing it from the opposite side, our logical visions can help us to set reality to what we imagine. But to change the existing, boring, cruel, some extent filthy reality, we have to change what makes its change real things in real life in a really coherent way of thinking. We have to use the unused relationships among things....those relationships that avoidable to people, organisations or state to change life. Time is logic's best friend or oppositely enemy number one. Time may justify logic helping it to hold true or it just may drain it of its dead cold blood. But time is an illusion really it just rises from time!!!! Time is our measurement of what is going on, what happened and what will happen. It is our measurement of actions and interactions always happen, happened, and will happen among real things. This way a year may become a lot of centuries.....just if it is filled with proper and strong actions. These strong actions only become that strong because they really use the true relationships among real things.....truth is a changing thing at the end. Yes it is changing....just fluid as water and sometimes just as air. OK so what is history then? I tell you social classes in essence this is the 'truth'. But when I look at the history of my love I find it a history of me not of my social class....OK my social class always had and will have an impact on me.....but my social class cannot love another social class. It is my love. Anyway, lengthy emotional drill, wasn't it? It helps you know. Reality can be changed...logic can be changed.....We just have to find the right replacement and to find this we have to find our way in real life to the real relationships among things. Those relations that are often hidden. Quoting you Marx it would be reason has always existed but not always in a reasonable form....but I remember you Lenin saying "“a lie told often enough becomes the truth" Oh I didn't forget you dear really said it....reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.....

Life is our Reason, our Lie and our Reality So Let's Make our Illusion

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Killings....What for?

I just want to know why ?
I just cannot understand. Terrorists...? The government itself to cover for everything going on now, Judges, the ferry tragedy, reforms......?
I guess Logically , it is difficult to believe that the government is ready for those attacks but, who knows ?
Anyway, I think it is more than enough for this regime....... It proves day after day how weak and inefficient it is. It is totally disconnected from its people.
Whether this regime is just as surprised as we are or is behind -or at least knew about- the attacks ?!!!! It does not matter, he is responsible both way.
Responsible for failure of our protection, responsible for generating hate, responsible for the blood of all those victims.
The regime is failing, those are the ending days, I do not know why I particularly remember now Cairo Fire in 1952....!!!!!!!!!

All what can I say: God Help us......But God will not help us unless we help ourselves....

Written By El3en Elsehrya

What reason(s) may be behind Dahab bombings? Who did them? What will be the outcomes? Well...why did some Egyptians demonstrate against what happened? What are their motives? Who gathered them? I think we can find answers to these questions if we only trace the bombings' benefits.....and impairments.
Who do you think did that? and for what? Is it somehow related to the newest Bin Laden video tape? Do the bombings have anything to do with the current regime? How? Are they beneficial or harming to any other regimes? Why?

There is another thing that we have to bear in mind,

7th of October in Taba, 2004 attacks,
7th of April and 30th of April, 2005 attacks in Cairo, 23rd of July, 2005 in Sharm el-Sheikh,
24th of Apirl, 2006 attacks in Dahab.

Taba bombings were a day after celebrating the victory of October the 6th and Dahab's were a day before celebrating the end of the Isreali encroachment in Sinai and just in the day of Sham el-Neseem, a national holiday in Egypt.
All classified as suicide bombings. Three attacks took place in Sinai and those which took place in Cairo were in Khan al-Khalili, El-Tahreer and the Citidal.

Are these bombings related? Is there a sort of timetable? Do the attackers belong to the same organisation? If not, are they motivated by the same organisation? Or there are more than one organisation involved and they use each other?

Asked about Dahab bombings the Israeli ambassador in Cairo said that there had been repeated warning from the Israeli government against visiting Sinai, where Israelis have been targeted in the past, following it saying "Unfortunately, the warnings became true". What does that mean? And what is that he was referring to?

26th of july, 2005, two days after Dahab bombings, two persons classified as suicide bombers struck a military base in Sinia belongs to the multi-national peacekeeping forces. Is that a new kind of attacks? What does it mean? Who should be blamed and for what?

Help me answering these questions. Just tell me what do you think.

Written by Boring Lips


This post was originally written and posted by El3en Elsehrya with the name Why?Why......?

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Sisyphus and the definition of MADNESS

Are we all Sisyphus ?

Madness : When you keep doing the same thing and expect a difference in outcome or expect a change ..............!!!!!!!!!

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Democarcy......whose Freak

Democracy is a term which is often used to reflect institutionalisation of freedom. However, when the term democracy is spoken neither it nor freedom has been given a definition, which is able to magnify the grounding conceptual activity. In this sense, the term democracy often describes a social state or social order. Politicians talk democracy either to refer to an existing social order or to a state of abstraction. This state of abstraction always implied one of two matters; a) germinating an existing social organisation to meet some pre-defined conditions, which are embedded in some social, political and economical layout, or b) a confiscation of a ruling system. People, usually, use the term democracy when they refer to an existing social and political organisation which they consider democratic. The term is, commonly, used to compare existing organisations: some organisations are democratic and some are not, or, some are democratic and some are evolving to be – these are, normally, the conclusions of such a comparison. People cannot be democratic but systems can. Democracy itself is a system which is intended to be a rumination of the conceptual freedom. As freedom is a conceptual subject, it is often perceived differently over time and due to different societal and political states. Therefore, democracy, which is a system, differs imputable to different interpretations of freedom. Reaching this point, democracy in the sense mentioned above is negotiated, negotiation in this context may expand to cover hard arguments and even conflicts and struggles, between the ruling system - the state, and the public. Hence, the public often negotiate their legal pace of rights and choices. Moreover, the public negotiate their own roles, that is, the public go into social processes which shape the form of the negotiation between the public and the state. These social processes are founded upon many aspects of the society, such as, social classes, distribution of wealth, public awareness, rates of consumption, and the identities, which are available for individuals to take on their parts. These aspects, in essence, are interrelated. Furthermore, the state itself plays an important role in constituting all of these aspects. The resultant relationships of the interrelationships of these aspects frame the equality or inequality of rights within a society. It follows that the public, firstly, form a standing point, which is shaped by social processes, the state intervenes in these social process though. The public, then, negotiate their pace of rights and choices with the state. So, when a group within a society whose principles and thoughts are challenged by the rest of the public and the state, it is more likely to be suppressed directly or indirectly. However, power is a key subject in all of the social processes. It does not matter how many members are within this group, it does matter how powerful they are. In the former case of this resultant suppression they are not in power at all, at this period of time. All of the former con-functioning issues collaboratively constitute the act of democratisation, an act which reflects power positions within a society. In this sense, democracy is not as same as mobocracy – a political system in which a mob is the source of control. Democracy is a system which is limited by formulations and regulations of an implementation of an ideology which is represented by the most powerful group or organisation within a society. So, when democracy is spoken it always reflects this most powerful organisation, which, in turn, reflects enforcement of an ideology. Thus, democracy in this manner is not a reflection of freedom but a reflection of a social system which serves a powerful dominating organisation.
Democracy, as a societal system, is shaped by power. A powerful dominating organisation within a society, which is a representative of an ideology, exercises power on the society itself to shape the public opinion. Domination in this manner takes many forms, soft and violent ones. Thus, directing the public to some social constructions which , in turn, lead to implementing the organisation's vision of democracy. The state is not an independent establishment. Following any democratic approach, even fake ones, the state is the outcome of the negotiation mentioned former. Thusly, it is an outcome which facilitates realising the ideology of that power organisation.

I think this what democracy means as a term used in political affairs.
In posts to come, I will write about different meanings and the role(s) of democracy.

What do you think?
Let's Talk!


Boring Lips

Burn it, so he can stay….!!!

Are we going to burn Egypt??
Are we going to separate into two camps, one with a crescent and one with a cross?
Are we to discard our Egyptian Identity?
Is it going to be “Formerly known as Egypt”?
Are we going to separate Egypt into a Wahabi Saudi colony and US colony?

And, for what and for whom? For the father and the son?
For those who want it burnt so nobody else could stay or rule.

I am not denying the presence of a problem, there is a problem but will it be Iraq again in Egypt?
Moslems should all declare condolence to the death of the Coptic brother and should widely and openly condemn the attacks.
Christians should hold on to some rationality and not to follow the radicalist voices from within.
There are lots of doubts between the two religions in Egypt now, this burning ash underneath the scene is dangerous and we have to address it frankly and loudly.
Yes, Copts were not given the same rights as Moslems in certain situations, which make them, feel bitter, this policy that was invented by Nasser is another ridiculous policy and should stop right now.
But, at the same time Moslems think that Copts are using the current worldwide circumstances to arm-twist the government, even asking interference from foreign countries like the US and this puts them in a position of questionable loyalty, which is not true.

We need the rational voices in both camps, and in fact I feel ridiculous by describing them as two camps. It is one camp, the Egyptian Camp.

V for Vendetta

People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.

This is an unbelievably amazing movie......!!!!!!!!!!

Saturday, April 08, 2006


What is exactly loyalty?
Does it mean automatic obedience?
Does it mean absolute trust?

I guess the right question that would help defining loyalty is what should a man be loyal to? Should a man be loyal to an idea or to a person?
Loyalty should never be to a person, it should always be to a concept or an idea, and then would automatically extend to anybody who is believed to work for the best interest of that concept or idea.
Loyalty to a concept protects that concept from manipulation or abuse by whomever implementing that idea.
That means that being loyal to someone you think he works for a believed concepts does not mean that you automatically follow him in all times, in fact it means that we have to criticize that person when we think that he does not work for the concept.
Loyalty is self-driven motive or moral, it is directed by our beliefs so; it cannot be challenged by a claim of sincerity or honesty from anybody else towards the concept.
From this we may conclude that loyalty does not mean always obedience, though loyalty means honesty in the interim.

During the last half century, the political and administrative environment in Egypt was totally saturated by the concept that was brought about by 1952 revolution - let us call it a revolution temporarily - the concept is that loyalty precedes competence. This was associated with the common false perception of loyalty as obedience and absolute blind trust.
That concept in itself is a very destroying concept because, why should there be a conflict or a choice between loyalty and competence? And when combined with the -intentionally- faulty interpretation of loyalty it resulted in the introduction of very low quality persons to positions they should never have been to, on the basis of their loyalty which was in reality an opportunistic hunger and greed.

The interesting question that I do not have an answer to is that “Is loyalty always necessary?”
I tend to believe that when it comes to decision making, or to long term planning, loyalty is a must, loyalty in this interim would be equal to “patriotism”, however loyalty in itself is not good enough to take the right decision, and it has to be combined with all the needed skills, knowledge and intelligence. When it comes to implementing the decision, a guess loyalty itself is not a necessity; however implementation should be monitored and inspected for protection against intentional and un-intentional mis-implementation.

Finally, are there a set group of concepts that we should be loyal to automatically or is it a personal choice?
In the ideal situation, it should be a personal choice, but in reality, people learn what they should be loyal to from the surrounding norms.
Those surrounding norms shape and define unconsciously a person’s identity which leads to the beliefs and concepts that a person decides to be loyal to.
That brings in light the concept of “Identity” which in fact is the mean focus of my current readings.
Identity, its definition, its development and its effect on the personal choices will be the topic of later posts……….

Friday, April 07, 2006

Commenting "Who is against who?" - First Paragraph by El3en Elsehrya


First of all, this really is an amazing post. Its comprehensive style and abstract content make it such a unique post.

Second, I will comment only the first paragraph this time, then, I will comment the remaining ones later. This is so because there are many important issues implied in the post, thanks to the author.

The author's paragraph:

"Why Americans refuse to support Hamas despite being elected by the people and being “Democratic”? , in the same time they claim supporting democracy in the Middle East..!!! Is the united stats really against Hamas or it is merely trying to give Hamas more popularity? , so they guarantee that people elect it as long as the US is against the organization based on the fact that Palestinians will automatically elect whomever organization that oppose the US. Can any political analyst deny that the US is well aware of the fact that with-holding aids to Hamas will only increase Hamas popularity..?"

It is not an illusion that the USA knows that by ignoring and standing against Hamas the latter gains popularity in both the Arab and Islamic worlds. I think the American situation leads to one of two main scenarios:

1) The USA uses Hamas situation to achieve both hers and Israeli advantages.

2) The USA does not want any sort of solutions for the Palestinian-Israeli situation.

The first scenario:

By eliminating any diplomatic relationship with Hamas, thus, refusing any of Hamas proposals or plans, it gives the Israeli a great chance to operate individually, as there is no Palestinian political organisation whom they can work with. Substituting relationships with Hamas by extending relationships with Abo-Mazen to become their follower. This follower is not given a lullaby though. He is given a couple of threatening rockets instead. Given the chance, Israel claims more rights on land and in universal media. As time passes and with these typical Arabian conditions, these claims become rights.

As Hamas followers realise that they brought nothing to the Palestinian hands but only consolidated the Israeli rights, it becomes apparent to the Palestinians that the radical Islamic trend is not the appropriate choice. An impact which is overwhelming for many Arabs who already doubt any other trend. When this is combined with the past great failures of each Palestinian political organisation, it is evident to the Palestinians that the solution relies in any of the American, Israeli or Western peace proposals already refused former. But who knows? Maybe another fine proposal comes to light! Or will Israel work solely, surely with the USA, to achieve a customised peace treaty?

The second scenario:

As Hamas neither gains any of the Palestinian rights nor achieves any of the radical Islamic visions, the idea of the uselessness of the radical Islamic trend is now solidified. For there are no educational, scientific, industrial, political or societal growth plans in most Arab countries and if they are present in a country, this country is defined by the USA, the West or Israel as an economical drive for them or as a drive for political advantages, the Arab are, then, confronted with a pre-set game of fighting themselves. The game is that Arabs will be working on finding a solution for the struggle, with no set of organised or appropriate plans due to their lack of civilisation. I am not claiming that civilisation is the American and the European current state, however, they are well systematised – a thing which is absent in the Arab world. This is not the issue here anyway. Through the struggle and its conditions the Arab peoples will either become more ignorant and poorer and they will never show openness to the outside world, or with the American cultural penetration of the Arab world they lose their identity, which is already distorted.

Either ways, the USA supports and puts her allies of kings and presidents in power, but in the same time she brings them to the line too. The reason for this is that the struggle is their last remaining resort to enjoy ruling the Arab citizens, the kings' and presidents' sheep.

The second is more of a general statement, but it could, typically, be fitting for the Palestinians too.

The two scenarios are recursive and do overlap. The second also may be preceded by the first or it may be applied on its own right.

The most significant issue to realise is that any sort of international conflicts concerns power, which in turn, leads to associated rights, even fake or artificial ones. Also, any international conflict, usually, has ideological references. It doesn't matter which ideological reference is righteous. What really matters is how to defend your claims, so, eventually, they may become the standardised rights. Here is where power strengthens itself; power fights for more power – for more rights.

Power in this context is not of a hierarchical form. It roams around and only smart players make use of it. However, the game has rules, such as, wealth, public awareness, social orders in different countries and so on. For example, the most powerful country in the globe, the USA, became that weak in Iraq.

The claimed democracy is a game which is a tool used to yield more advantageous situations for the interest of the USA. It is a power game stems from an ideological and cultural background Which I will try to cover later.

This article is of a limited scope. It serves as a structural model of what might take place, however it does not take dynamic aspects into account, such as, other players. It would be too long to be a blog post.

In later posts I will comment the remaining paragraphs.

This is what I think. Let me know about your thoughts and give me feedback.

Let's Talk


Saturday, April 01, 2006

Who is against who ?

Why Americans refuse to support Hamas despite being elected by the people and being “Democratic”? In the same time they claim supporting Democracy in the Middle East..!!! Is the united states really against Hamas or it is merely trying to give Hamas more popularity?
This way, they guarantee that people elect Hamas. As long as the US is against Hamas, Palestinians will automatically elect whomever organization that oppose the US. Can any political analyst deny that the US is well aware of the fact that with holding aids to Hamas will only increase Hamas popularity..?

Why did America raise the issue of Democracy in the Middle East? Does Americans really believe in Democracy? Or this is a way to allow them to intervene more in the internal affairs of the Middle East. Americans are the very same people who supported those regimes so, why they are flipping against them? are they trying to arm twist those regimes? Or it is a call for the people to rise to change the governments and bring new faces, furthermore, is this call for the best interest of the people or for the best interest of the US?

What is the Democracy that America wants? Is it the Democracy that guarantees that people would think the same way Americans want? Is it the Democracy that give birth to people like Dr. Rice and Colin Powel, the colored black people who are strong defendants of American values despite belonging to ethnic group long known for the deep hate to the white race who typically rules the US. Does the united states make deals with corrupt opposition leaders and buy them early when they are worthless and them back them up, then they can sell themselves to the people as savers so the US guarantee that even the people’s choice is always will be within the cards that are already in her hands ? Ayman Nour…?!!!!

What is the exact relation between the US and Moslem brotherhood, Hamas, and Iran? Does the United States make deals with all the players of the game? Iran in particular deserves probably several posts trying to analyze its exact relation with the US.

Who is Honest in the current political playground? Definitely not the current regimes. But did the US already buy all the other alternatives and we are stuck with all-bad choices. It is definitely a confusing situation, and all choices are surrounded by uncertainty. Is this also planned or not?

The whole scene now is hazy and convoluted; it is very difficult to be certain about the real intentions of any current political figure. The real problem of this whirly random situation is that it may result in new leadership that is no better that the current.
This is not a call for accepting the status quo - I believe that change is not a choice, it is a necessity - but it is a call to try to deeply examine and question all the current political options in Egypt. Probably our best option is not available yet on the current political scene.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To be cont