Note to my friends:
I deactivated my Facebook profile (never to activate it again, promise to myself!), uninstalled AIM and MSN, just to see what I can do with the spare time, especially with the weather getting nicer. Besides, sharing and having access to too much information is bad for you. Some things are better not known. If you want to reach me, you can call me, Skype me, E-mail me and of course read my blog (even better, comment on it!) That's what I'll do when I want to reach you. Love!

Breaking the Habit

Memories consume
Like opening the wound
I'm picking me apart again
You all assume
I'm safe here in my room
Unless I try to start again

[Bridge:]
I don't want to be the one
The battles always choose
'Cause inside I realize
That I'm the one confused

[Chorus:]
I don't know what's worth fighting for
Or why I have to scream
I don't know why I instigate
And say what I don't mean
I don't know how I got this way
I know it's not alright
So I'm breaking the habit
I'm breaking the habit
Tonight

Clutching my cure
I tightly lock the door
I try to catch my breath again
I hurt much more
Than anytime before
I had no options left again

[Bridge:]
I dont want to be the one
The battles always choose
'Cause inside I realize
That I'm the one confused

[Chorus:]
I don't know what's worth fighting for
Or why I have to scream
I don't know why I instigate
And say what I don't mean
I don't know how I got this way
I'll never be alright
So, I'm breaking the habit
I'm breaking the habit
Tonight

[Bridge:]
I'll paint it on the walls
'Cause I'm the one at fault
I'll never fight again
And this is how it ends

[Chorus:]
I don't know what's worth fighting for
Or why I have to scream
But now I have some clarity to show you what I mean
I don't know how I got this way
I'll never be alright
So, I'm breaking the habit
I'm breaking the habit
I’m breaking the habit
Tonight

Linkin Park

Ömer
"Ben kendime inanıyorum," dedi Ömer. Neşeli gözükmeye çalışıyordu.
"İnanıyordun... Fatih olacaktın, çok para kazanacaktın. İstanbul'u, Türkiye'yi fethedecektin... Bunların çirkinliğini bir yana bırakıyorum. Sen bunları yapmadın kı?.. Başkaları evliliğinle alay eder diye de evlenmedin. Bir şey yapmıyorsun. Çünkü hep zekanın hakkını vermek istiyorsun. Sanıyorsun ki, bir şey yaparsan elinden eleştirme, yok, yok, yalnızca alay etme hakkın gidecek. Evlenmiyorsun, çünkü evlenirsen başkalarının evliliğini basit, çirkin, sıradan, yüzeysel bulmaya hakkın olmaz. İstanbul'dan da kaçtın. Oraya sığındın. Peki niye buraya geliyorsun? Çünkü herkesin ne yaptığına bakacaksın. Herkesin ne kadar bayağı olduğunu görerek keyifleneceksin. Sen buraya meraktan geldiğini söylüyorsun değil mi kendin? Buraya meraktan değil, işte bunun için, beğenmemek için geliyorsun. Benim dergiyi eline aldığın zamanki heyecanını düşünebiliyorum: Kimbilir ne gülünçlükler vardır, inşallah vardır diye dua etmişsindir kendi kendine..."
...
Ömer: "Peki, şunu söyle, bakalım," dedi. "İnsan hem yaşayabilir, hem alay edebilir mi? İnsan hem mutlu olur, hem de her şeyin gerçekte olduğu gibi kötü olduğunu açıklayabilir mi?.." Sonra kendi cevap verdi: "Böyle bir şey olmaz!" Cevdet Bey ve Oğulları, sf. 493-494.

Refik
"...Bu düşüncelerini doğru bulmuyorum. Böyle düşünerek, hiçbir şeye inanmadan nasıl yaşamaya devam ediyorsun, anlamıyorum?"
"Ne var bunda? Herkes öyle yaşıyor. Bir şeye inanmadan yaşayan bir ben miyim? Bir yıl önce sen neye inanıyordun peki?"
"Ben mi?" Refik iyiniyetle, saf saf gülümsedi. "Ben o zaman bir şeye inanıp inanmamak gerektiğini düşünmüyordum ki." Heyecanla ekledi: "Ama sen... sen biliyorsun. Bir kere bildikten sonra olmaz artık." sf. 333

"Peki nasıl olur? Halkı sopalayarak aydınlığı getirmek nasıl olur? Biz eğer bu ülkede aklın ve yeniliğin ışığı parlasın istiyorsak, bunu halk için istemiyor muyuz?.. Yenilik ve ileri bir toplumun halka zorla benimsetilmesi sizce yanlış değil mi?" sf. 387

Dokuz ay önce ayrıldığı İstanbul'daki son gününü hatırladı. Beyoğlu'nda dolaşmış, günlük hayattan tiksindiğini düşünmüş, kendini bir Hıristiyan'a benzetmiş, kimsenin ilgilenmeyeceği tuhaf bir yaratık olduğuna karar vermişti. "Bütün bunlar neden oldu?" diye mırıldandı. "Nasıl oldu? Ben neyim? Neden yoldan çıktım? Ben iyi bir insanım!" diye düşündü. "Beni böyle görüyorlar... İyi, saf, dürüst..." İnsanın başka bir özelliği olmayınca başkaları ondan öyle sözeder: İyi insan. sf. 411

"Şeytan girmiş bir kere içime! Ben de bu memlekette yabancıyım!" Ama bu sefer bu toplum dışı suçlu bilinçten keyif alıyor, sigara gibi hafif içine çekerek damarlarında onu dolaştırıyordu. "Demek hiçbir şey benim iyiniyetime, istemime ve seçmeme bağlı değil. Dışarda kalmaya mahkumdum. Çünkü ruhuma aklın ve aydınlığın ışığı bir kere düşmüştü! Her şey şu devlet, inkılap, cumhuriyet dedikleri şeyle çevrili. Bana yol yok!"
...
"Nasıl gelecek aydınlık? Ben buna inanmıştım. Aydınlık mı karanlık mı? Karanlıksa hep mahkumum ben demektir. Karanlıksa boyun eğiyorum ve özgürlükten vazgeçiyorum demektir? Ama neden, kimin için, hangi özgürlük? Muhtar Bey'in dediğine bakılırsa, özgürlükten, ya da aydınlıktan vazgeçmek bizi ilerletecek... Öyle mi? Peki özgürlüğü kim istiyor? Devlet istemiyor! Tüccarlar buna fazla meraklı değiller. Toprak ağaları nefret ediyor! Köylüler duymamış. Başka kim var? İşçiler?.. Bir de ben! Hah, hah... Özgürlüğü ben istiyorum!" sf. 412.

Cynicism and Naivete

I can't stand cynicism. I can't stand those who look down on people that care about something other than themselves. These people, like Ömer in Orhan Pamuk's Cevdet Bey ve Oğulları, don't do anything, but find the right in themselves to make fun of people who are working on something. They console themselves by assuming other people's work unimportant, their passion amusing, their goals unrealistic, their love cheesy. They disguise their insecurities behind false pride. They always stand on the other side of the border.

I like Refik, I relate to him. Call me naive, call me dorky, call me cheesy. I'm writing this blog hardly anyone reads. I like mainstream music (if I try to pretend I have a more sophisticated music taste, I'm trying to impress you), I haven't read most of the things I should have, I don't know most of the things I should know. When the weather is nicer, I will walk around with a stupid smile on my face. I'm not cool, I'm not detached. I care about things I can't change and people I can't move. But I'll try.

I will never make fun of people who are in love, who like simple things, I will never belittle their interests and passions. (Well I may not agree with their opinions but that's a matter of debate, not dismissal.) I'm more likely to be envious of them, and I will admit that, and try to work towards bringing some meaning into my life myself. Maybe some of my goals will prove to be unfeasible when I think through them, some of them will require a lot of work, technical and detailed and boring perhaps. In some cases I will find out I'm not hard working or determined or intelligent as it takes. Things, people, emotions will be impure, difficult. It's too easy to be idealistic, after all.

But it is required.

p.s. Even now I'm thinking this entry resembles one of those Chicken Soup stories Hıncal Uluç quotes in his columns! The fear of coming off cheesy fills me. But I already established I am.

Details

A very cheesy quote from "Before Sunset," which I guess explains how some girls feel. Now I feel like each new person I get to know is like a present, very unique.

"Celine: I mean, I always feel like a freak because I'm never able to move on like...
...this! You know.
People just have an affaire, or even... entire relationships...
They break up and they forget!
They move on like they would have changed a brand of Cereals!
I feel I was never able to forget anyone I've been with.
Because each person have...
you know,
specific qualities.
You can never replace anyone.
What is lost is lost.
Each relationship, when it ends, really damages me.
I haven't fully recovered.
That's why I'm very careful with getting involved, because...
It hurts too much!
Even getting laid!
I actually don't do that...
I will miss of the person the most mundane things.
Like I'm obsessed with little things.
Maybe I'm crazy, but...
When I was a little girl, my mom told me that I was always late to school.
One day she followed me to see why...
I was looking at chestnuts falling from the trees,
rolling on the sidewalk, or...
ants, crossing the road...
the way a leaf casts a shadow on a tree trunk...
Little things.
I think it's the same with people.
I see in them little details, so specific to each other,
that move me, and that I miss, and...
will always miss.
You can never replace anyone,
because everyone is made of such beautiful specific details.
Like I remember the way...
your beard has a little bit of red in it.
And how the sun was making it glow that...
that morning, right before you left.
I remember that, and...
I missed it!"

Paternalism vs. Tolerance

What is the best way to integrate immigrants into European societies?

First of all, the question is whether it is necessary to integrate them in the first place. The trade-off is one between freedom and security. Does the immigrants' choice to segregate themselves threaten the security and well-being of the wider society? Should we tolerate the immigrants' way of living as long as it doesn't hurt us directly, or should we pursue the integration objective for the immigrants' own good? Do we want to dictate what is best to a group of people even if their choices do not have a tangible affect on us (yet)?

Much similar to the question of mutual reflection and transformation I tried to address in "Europe," both sides need to be flexible and adjust themselves. As Milan rightly pointed out, immigrants have the responsibility to show an effort to adapt to the society they are in, but they can only do that if they feel welcome.

Prohibition won't work, precisely because it requires only a one-way adoption of European values by the immigrants. We should ask ourselves how we would feel if we were asked to abandon something dear to us because it is "backward." This adds insult to injury. It is only me who can decide whether it will be better for me to reform my way of living and expressing myself. I don't want to be dictated anything by those who think they are better than me.

Instead, as Anna rightly pointed out, policy-makers should ensure that immigrants mix with the locals from an early age. Immigrant children should go to the same schools as the locals. Immigrants should enjoy equal opportunity in the workplace and public space. This is the only way locals can influence immigrants in a real way. This is the only way they can exercise their "soft power." Well educated immigrants with a good income do not have any difficulty integrating with the society they live in.

The parallels with the headscarf ban in Turkey is clear, I believe. The solution is not paternalism and prejudice. It is tolerance, good will and equal opportunity.

Democracy in the European Union

It is often claimed that European Union is an elitist project that rests on output legitimacy. Democracy was sacrificed for the sake of efficiency. People put up with the democratic deficit just because the results have been acceptable so far.

On the other hand, whenever they perceive an EU policy threatening to their welfare, Europeans have the chance to show their discontent in the national elections. This is the channel through which Europeans can hold their representatives in the Council accountable. This has crippled the political will of European politicians. When unsure, they just throw their hands in the air and try to reassure their constituents with promises of referenda.

The sad thing is that they don't care enough about the outcome of the referenda to explain the issue in question to people. This jeopardized the Constitution Referenda last year, it is likely to repeat itself in the future.

European politicians should be bolder to exercise their political will, and more through in explaining their policies to their constituents.

Europe

What comes to mind when one thinks of Europe? Rationalism, secularism, rule of law, professionalism, individual accountability and responsibility, efficiency and progress. These are admirable values, all necessary for development. Turks aspire to them.

The other side of the coin is not as noble: Rationalism and efficiency comes with self-interest. Europeans left a mess whereever they colonized. They attempted to share whatever territory was left of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. One cannot trust them. Our suspicions are confirmed by their unwillingness to show good faith at the negotiations table.

We would be happy to transform ourselves to become more like Europeans. But then, we are reminded that Europeans are not so nice and benevolent, after all. Who wants to be like them?

But do the Europeans have the responsibility to make the world a better place, anyway? Or is it in their own interest to do whatever they can to make the world a better place?

In Cumberland Lodge, in the middle of vast, beautiful parks owned by the royal family, European Institute students asked themselves whether they should feel guilty of Europe's past. The location was somewhat ironic.

One must feel guilty only if one is directly responsible for a regrettable action. In that sense, today's generation of Europeans are not responsible for what their fathers did. Therefore, they must not feel guilty.

On the other hand, as Willem Buiter and Dillon rightly pointed out, if you have something stolen in your house, and if you are aware that it is stolen, you must return it. With awareness comes responsibility for our future actions. We are not responsible for the past action, but we know, we are aware of what happened in the past and that it was unjust. This knowledge renders us responsible for our future actions, not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, but also to correct the injustice, especially when we have the means. The truth is, although we are not responsible for our father's actions, we do enjoy the consequences.

(With denial -as in the case of the Armenian Genocide- we try to stay unaware, just so that we are not responsible.)

The connection therefore is not between responsibility and guilt, but it is between awareness and responsibility. Europeans are responsible to try to correct the injustices their fathers committed by whatever means they have (not by trade-distorting preferential treatment, but by direct development aid.)

Simply telling the world that they are the best will not make European values the best. Unsurprisingly, the rest of the world still has suspicions about the motivations of the west. Only concrete, legitimate actions to correct the injustice and bring progress to the rest of the world will convince humanity that Europe is truly a role model. This is the "soft power" Europe must exercise. This is the bigger story that might add more meaning to European lives.

Proof

Friday night I saw David Auburn's Proof in the Arts Theatre in Leicester Square. It dealt with the questions I asked myself in Warm Heart, Cold Heart, Post-Emotionalism and the Third Way and Addicted to be Linked. A young girl (Cathy) drops out of school to take care of her mentally unstable father, who used to be a genius mathematician. Upon her father's death, she confronts her sister about the choices they made, and her father's student (Hal) about the magical proof that is found in her father's desk.

***SPOILER***
When Cathy accuses her sister of living her own life while she was taking care of their dad, her sister reminds her of the tacit division of labour between them: While Cathy stayed with their dad in Chicago, she worked in NY and paid the bills. She also points out that it might have been better for their father if he was institutionalized. Again, division of labour: There are institutions who are specialized in taking care of the mentally instable, so their families can continue living their lives.

As rational as this sounds, it is pretty cold and harsh. It is really nobody's responsibility that their father fell ill. It is just plain bad luck. Who, then, should take care of him? Any one of us could fall so ill that we can no longer take care of ourselves. Behind a Rawlsian veil, it gets harder to decide on general principles. But then, one could also claim that if someone sacrifices too much to take care of a loved one, their unhappiness would leave them useless, even harmful. Someone should either fast without complaint, or not fast at all. But apparently her father appreciates and asks for Cathy's support.

Then Cathy gives Hal, who convinces her that he cares deeply about her, a key to her father's locked drawer. In the drawer is a notebook that has a revolutionary mathematical proof in it. Cathy claims to have written it as she was spending most of her time in the house, taking care of her father. Hal, dedicated to mathematics but far from a creative mind himself, refuses to believe her.

Hal genuinely cares about Cathy, and he means well, but her newly-found genious catches him by surprise. It tips the balance of their relationship in his head, as he pictured himself as the stronger one, the care-taker. He finds it impossible (and if not, unfair) that this young girl comes up with something that he couldn't after years of hard work.

I thought the play made good points on human nature, on selfishness, sacrifice, envy. I hope I will be able to write stuff like this one day! (If I'm patient enough to sit down and actually create something meaningful!)

Inequality, Injustice, Illegitimacy and Insecurity

I went to two very inspiring lectures over the past week. The first one was Joseph Nye's lecture at King's College on Feb. 14, titled "The Future of American Power." Nye is a Professor of International Relations at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and he's credited for having pioneered the "soft power" theory.

The second one was Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei's lecture on Feb. 19 at the LSE, titled "Global Security: Challenges and Opportunities." ElBaradei is Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.)

ElBaradei spoke of how inequality is the source of insecurity in the world. He spoke of people who live without electricity, who use biomass to cook food, who go to bed hungry, who die because of their poverty. He compared the American spending on defense with the spending on development aid. This comparison shows that Americans choose to address solely the symptoms of the problem, not the roots.

Then he spoke of the unequal value we put on human life. People in Congo, people in Rwanda, people in Darfur die, because they are not important enough [for us] to be kept alive, he said. "How can we expect them to grieve us when we don't grieve them?" he asked.

This reminded me of a lecture I covered on March 23, 2004 by Pulitzer Winner journalist Samantha Power. You can access it here. Here is an excerpt from the article:

"Power started her lecture by quoting a speech President Bush made on Nov. 6, 2003 in Washington, D.C. “Sixty years of western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.’”
...
Power said “the enemy of my enemy can be my friend” attitude in foreign policy must change. She gave the example of U.S. backing of Iraq when “Iran was the enemy in the neighborhood.”

She said at the time Saddam Hussein was violating the rights of the Kurdish minority in Iraq, but the United States overlooked these violations.

“Lines not to cross were moved to keep Iran down,” she said.

When Iraq started threatening not only Iran, but also Kuwait and Israel with its weapons development program, it became clear that the United States could no longer support Hussein, according to Power.

Power outlined many obstacles to integrating concern for human rights into U.S. foreign policy.

The first one, she said, is that “victims of human rights abuses don’t vote in the U.S.” She said even she, “the genocide chick,” did not vote on the 1996 elections on the basis of how the Clinton administration “allowed” genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia.

According to Power, the second obstacle is a structural one. She said unlike domestic politics, foreign policy does not have “checks and balances” to make sure “urgent will not trump the important, and short term will not trump the long term.”

Power said the third obstacle is people’s lack of “moral imagination.” She said even though people know real-time facts, like the number of Rwandans who died in the genocide, they have no real knowledge of the “human stakes,” they do not stop to imagine the struggle of every person.

The main default of foreign policy is that short-term security and economic interests always get in the way of the concern for human rights and that while ethnic lobbies like Albanians and Armenians play a constructive role for policy change, their efforts focus on a particular group and lack universality.

Power called U.S. foreign policy “gratuitous unilateralism,” recalling the resistance of the United States to the International Criminal Court. She said the United States tried to convince its allies not to turn in U.S. soldiers to the international court and cut or suspended military aid to countries that refused."
***

This brings me to the Nye lecture. Nye went back to the days when the Soviet troops left Afghanistan and the country "collapsed on itself," but the Americans did not mind because it was "half way around the world." Their indifference lasted until Sep. 11, 2001.

Nye used the metaphor of a "three-dimensional chess board" to explain current world politics. The first dimension is military power, one aspect of "hard power," and noone can challenge the US on that. He said that the world is already multi-polar when it comes to economic power, another aspect of "hard power." The third dimension, however, covers the transnational threats such as terrorism, poverty and global warming, and the US should use the "legitimacy of its actions" to influence other actors' actions, i.e. "soft power."

So far, the US has not been very successful in doing that. Nye pointed out that the number of recruits of the extremist groups in the Middle East exceeds the number killed or captured by the American troops. Even if the Americans dismantle one group of extremists, another will spring up as long as the perceived inequality, injustice and illegitimacy is not addressed.

Injustice: ElBeredei said he has difficulty asking countries to conform with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, when the nuclear powers do not fulfill their obligations to disarm.

***
Now we should each turn to ourselves and ask, "why don't I care?" Why are we indifferent to the poverty, violence and suffering that happen far from us? (The distance is both in terms of time and space. We don't care about those who suffered in the past, and we don't care about those who are suffering far away, now... This means we won't do anything to make sure that people won't suffer in the future.) Why do we lack that "moral imagination" Samantha Power describes? I wrote many posts ("Post-Emotionalism and the Third Way," "Luck and Responsibility," even "Indifference") under the label "Post-emotionalism" exploring this phenomenon. We put too much value on individual responsibility, we try our best not to intentionally hurt people in our vicinity, but as long as we are not directly responsible for their suffering, we simply do not care. Our perceived lack of responsibility in their suffering frees us from guilt and the obligation to do something about it.

We are indifferent as long as they don't touch us. We live in bliss. But people who suffer far away can come closer and touch us. Inequality, injustice brings insecurity, terror. That's the feeling I described in "Turkey's Paradox." I don't feel free in Turkey, because I don't feel safe to be free. And the feeling of fear, insecurity stems from inequality. The fear won't leave us until we become aware of the sources of the problem and do something about it. Or else, our survival will be a matter of chance.

Comments on Turkish Economy

in response to Pratik's posts on Turkey:
India, Turkey and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
Turkey's Silver Lining - An Outsider's Account of the 2001 Financial Crisis

Hey Pratik!
Thanks for your interest in my country :) It seems to me that you got the facts right, but the dots need a little more connecting. I will paint a slightly gloomier picture of the Turkish political economy today (and hence Dervis' influence.) Feel free to correct my economics wherever I go wrong!

Among all the emerging markets, Turkey still remains one of the most susceptible to global and domestic shocks, because it still finances its large current account deficit with short-term capital inflows. First a little history to explain the roots of the problem.

In the 1980's, Turgut Özal liberalized the Turkish economy by replacing import substitution with export promotion, opening the capital account and encouraging foreign investment in the country. The problem was that the social safety nets for losers from the reform were not in place on time. Instead, to avoid losing their votes, weak coalition governments kept making discretionary payments to losers, while subsidizing the exporters heavily, and this in turn led to high public debt and high interest rates. Banks preferred lending to the government instead of the private sector, and this reduced the competitiveness of the economy as a whole.

In the run-up to the crisis in 2000-2001, the Lira was overvalued: Its rate of depreciation was not able to match the inflation rate. This led to a large current account deficit financed by short-term capital inflows. There was a currency-board that pegged lira to the dollar. The sterilization of the inflows resulted in a bigger monetary base and lower real interest rates, and the banks which held treasury bills became extremely vulnerable. Sensing a crisis was looming, investors took out a large chunk of their short-term investments in 2000, but IMF came to the rescue. After the argument between the President and the PM in 2001, however, a second flight rendered the floating of the Lira and a large devaluation unavoidable.

Now the Turkish lira is again perceived to be overvalued, and the large current account deficit is again financed by hot money. The difference from 2001 is that the banking system is more robust (thanks to Kemal Dervis who established the independence of the Banking Regulatory Authority) and the Lira is floating. However, this does not mean that the economy is not vulnerable. The most recent fluctuation, which also hit Hungary, came last May, and the Central Bank had to raise the interest rates considerably to prevent a capital flight.

The deep-rooted political tensions between the nationalist-secularist establishment and the more liberal-minded (including EU proponents) are likely to stay (For more on this see http://lightcapsule.blogspot.com/search/label/Turkey) The current government was not able to act decisively, but there is no real alternative. The social security system continues to run large deficits, and a recent reform proposal was reversed by the Constitutional Court. 2007 is feared to be a "lost year:" General elections will follow the controversial presidential elections. A crisis would especially hurt those who borrowed in foreign currency.

Meanwhile, another important criticism is that while FDI has increased, rather than starting businesses and creating new employment, foreigners prefer to acquire existing Turkish firms and banks.

I wanted to play the devil's advocate and paint a gloomy picture, but I know first-hand that all this does not prevent local entrepreneurs from making investments and creating employment. I hope the efforts of the private sector will improve our competitiveness despite the decades of bad public administration.

Thanks for the Sunday morning brain stimulation, but now gotta head over to the Chinese New Year parade!

A radio interview with Turkish writer Elif Şafak about memory, faith, femininity and language... I admired the clarity and richness of her thoughts.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7217653

Indifference

Once I read somewhere (now it's a cliché) that the worst is not dislike, but it's indifference. Because a person who dislikes you still cares. If they make you upset, you can still annoy them. But you can't touch a person who does not care, who is not aware. They are out of the reach of your influence. Their unresponsiveness is not because they want to seem detached (if this was the case, it would be a sign of caring) but that you are not a matter of importance to them. They overlook you.

They don't do it on purpose, so you can't really accuse them of being a bad person (if that would change anything!) They just don't care about you, and that's not a crime. Your hands are tied in front of them.

The best thing you can do is to remain indifferent for as long as possible. Unfortunately, the moment you try to stay indifferent, you have already entered the territory of conscious action, from which there is no return. Every time you claim you forgot someone, you confirm that you haven't. If you have really forgotten, you would not be thinking about them at all.

You understand the value of indifference once you lose it. It's like health. Cherish every moment of it.

My only consolation is that there are so many people I'm indifferent about, I wouldn't even be able to point them out to you (if that helps!)

Princeton:
Purpose.
It’s that little flame
That lights a fire
Under your ass.
Ha!
Purpose.
It keeps you going strong
Like a car with a full
Tank of gas.
Everyone else has a purpose,
So what’s mine?

Oh look.
Here’s a penny.
It’s from the year I was born.
It’s a sign!
Ha!

Ba ba ba ba doo doo doo doo doo.
I don’t know how I know,
But I’m gonna find my purpose.
I don’t know where I’m gonna look,
But I’m gonna find my purpose.
Gotta find out.
Don’t wanna wait.
Got to make sure that my life will be great.
Gotta find my purpose.
Before it’s too late.

Ensemble: He’s gonna find his purpose.
Princeton:Whoa ooh oh.
Princeton and Ensemble:I’m [He’s] gonna find my [his] purpose.
Ensemble: He’s gonna find his purpose.
Princeton:Yeaaah yeah yea.
Princeton and Ensemble:I’m [He’s] gonna find my [his] purpose.

Princeton:
Could be far.
Could be near.
Could take a week
A month
A year
At a job.
Or smoking grass.
Ha!
Maybe at a pottery class.
Could it be?
Yes it could.
Something’s coming.
Something good.
I’m gonna find my purpose.
Yeah.
Ensemble: You’re gonna find your purpose.
Princeton:
Whoa ooh oh.
I’m gonna find it!
What will it be?
Where will it be?
My purpose in life is a mystery.
Gotta find my purpose.
Gotta find me.

Ensemble:You’re gonna find your purpose.
Princeton:Whoa ooh oh.I’m gonna find my purpose.
Ensemble:Your’re gonna find your purpose.
Princeton:Pur- pur- purpose Yeah yeah.
I gotta find me!

More Avenue Q lyrics:
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/fornow.htm
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/iwishicouldgobacktocollege.htm
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/theresafinefineline.htm

A Small Note on Higher Education Fees

Today at Warwick Economics Summit there was a debate on higher education fees, and one of the participants asked whether the fees should be determined based on the costs of each student or the expected salary of the graduate (as the private benefit from the degree is the expected increase in the salary.) Actually, the fees are determined by both! The cost is reflected by the supply curve, and the expected salary (utility) makes up the demand curve.

P.S. Pratik's analysis on the need for raising the cap on variable fees, and the political economy of higher education reform (i.e. the need to explain the reform to students and parents to make sure that the proposal is politically feasible, and even more importantly, that people can utilize the system to its utmost potential once it is implemented.)
http://pratiksrandomwalk.blogspot.com

Being Good

"People who can't be witty exert themselves to be devout and affectionate." George Eliot

Today I made a comment and one of my friends said, "she's being all nice and sweet again..." I pondered out loud in response, "I wonder if I'm really good or if I'm making myself [sound]good." Then my other friend said, "you're conscious of your bad side, so you're trying to make sure your good side prevails... you're a conscious person."

When I was in middle school I wrote something about being an orange versus being a lemon. Being an orange is all nice and sweet, but I'd really like to see myself as a lemon, because a lemon is much more interesting!

The Baobab Tree

If there is one metaphor for life, that's the Little Prince, my favorite book in the entire world.

You know, the Little Prince lives on a planet with his rose and volcanoes, and he goes on a trip to see the other planets.

Every character in the book is golden, but tonight I'll tell you about the baobab trees. You know, we each have a planet. The wind brings seeds to our planet, and little baobab sprouts may resemble small rosebushes. We may believe in them, we might think they will grow into something beautiful, we tend to them. But they are in fact baobab seeds, and if we let them grow too big, they will take over our planet and break it into small pieces. So we must uproot them as soon as we realize they are baobab trees.

Just take my word and read this book if you haven't already, it's just beautiful.

Feminism and Academia

There are levels in the sky. I'm not talking about the Islamic seven floors of heaven story, but the clouds where academics sit. I have great respect for people who stop and try to look at the situation they are in from outside. You try to identify the variables and cause-effect relationships in order to understand the motivations behind your own actions. But if you look at reality for too long from too far above, you might start to see things that are only intelligable to you, and all your theorizing and big words are no use to most of the people who are actually living the reality.

I guess one of the most difficult "situations" to step out of and examine objectively is our sexuality and gender roles.

Yesterday I went to Angela McRobbie's lecture Illegible Rage: reflections on young women's post feminist disorders. I was hoping to hear something that I could relate to as a young woman with no extreme problems but some discontent, anxiety and fatigue. To be honest, I did hear some interesting things: Of course I knew about how fashion photography and girls' magazines make us all over-conscious of our body image. Everybody knows that (although this doesn't reduce the importance of this fact.) But she called looking at these pictures "fascinated gazing," which hints not only at admiration, jealousy and inferiority that always hangs on the backdrop, but also lesbianism.

She cited Judith Butler quite a lot, and not having read any of her work, last night I did a little search online to find out what she says. I found this essay written by Sally Young (who was apparently a first-year undergrad when she wrote this) about Butler's Gender Trouble. (Please feel free to correct me if you know more about Butler!) The question I think she's trying to answer with her work on sexual identity is, "To what extent are our actions driven by biological instincts, and how much of it is guided by socially constructed norms?" The heterosexual categorization of sexes and sexual identity assumes that the male has masculine characteristics, and the female has feminine characteristics. Butler disintegrates biological features from sexual identity and argues that both sexes are conditioned by the society to perform the role expected from them. She argues that both men and women may perform "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics according to the situation they are in. And femininity does not necessarily bind all woman together. Young gives the example of a "poverty-stricken factory worker woman from the The Third World" who will more easily relate to a male co-worker than to a powerful businesswoman in New York. Butler argues that if we give both males and females the right to perform both masculine and feminine acts, the problem of inequality will be resolved by itself. She gives the examples of drag queens and pop stars who feel strong enough to resist the pressure of the society.

Here's my cut at the whole situation. I do think gender identities have a certain, tangible biological basis, and the different ways male and female brain works remains a very interesting research area. I think men and women do pursue different goals which do not always complement each other.

At the same time, I feel like gender roles and responses are taken to the extreme, caricaturized by the mass media and passed on from generation to generation. Take romantic comedies and soap operas, for example! All the characters behave very predictably. People who watch them, including myself, assume that people in the real world are so clear-cut like that and develop false expectations from our relationships with the opposite sex. Likewise, fashion magazines create perfect prototypes of ideal women and then market the products that can take us closer to the ideal.

On the other hand, I believe women are increasingly adopting masculine characteristics (as they were encouraged by the feminist movement), and men feminine characteristics, but this is not the be-all end-all solution. I can speak for women that having to be masculine at work and feminine in private life takes way too much energy. Women are expected to be strong and focused at work, and sexy and emotional in their private lives. Our happiness now depends on success in both spheres. This is a very difficult balancing act, and sometimes it gets very difficult to keep one sphere from the influence of the other. Women feel the pressure and stress in this rat race, and they perceive the competition from other women more threatening than competition from men. I think this is proof to my claim that gender roles do have a biological basis, and they cannot be adopted and dropped so easily.

Lastly, I do understand that women are not the only ones who are trying hard to achieve. I sympathize with the insecurities of men in their business and private lives, the society's traditionally high expectations from them, and their big responsibilities. Moreover, the society is not as tolerant with straight men showing feminine characteristics as with straight women showing masculine characteristics. It will take us more time to accept that men can be weak, than asserting that women should be strong.

The Case of Hrant Dink sheds light on the Case of Turkey

Hrant Dink's very thoughtful and sensible arguments on Armenian identity (in Turkish.) Of course I'm not to decide what's thoughtful and sensible, Armenians are the ones who should decide that... but we have a saying, "Friend speaks bitterly," meaning frankly. I think Dink's thoughts are frank and bitter -and therefore truly friendly- to both sides.

http://www.agos.com.tr/ermenikimligi.html

The English version of his last three pieces:

http://www.agbu.org.au/HrD-03.PDF

The first sentence of the last piece was taken out of context and Dink received a 6-month sentence in violation of Article 301 in October 2005, despite an equally sensible "Friend of the court" report, which found Dink not guilty considering both the specific sentence in question and his general mention of the "Armenian Genocide."

http://www.agos.com.tr/bilirkisiraporu.htm

The court of appeals (Yargitay) approved the sentence, despite the attorney general accepting that Dink was not guilty. Dink made the following press statement in response, saying he would never insult Turkish people, because insulting people because of their differences is racism, it's an atrocious crime, and racism is exactly what he is trying to fight.

http://www.agos.com.tr/basinbulteni.html

Dink stayed in Turkey, and he was assasinated in Istanbul on 19.01.2007.

Now that his suspect, a 17-year-old boy is arrested, and the threats he received from an ex-general is surfaced, the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Hrant Dink sent an article to Turkish newspaper Radikal right before his death.

http://213.243.28.21/haber.php?haberno=210582 (Turkish)
http://www.agos.com.tr/#latest (English)

In this beautiful article, he asks why he was convicted under Article 301, while the cases of writers like Orhan Pamuk and Elif Şafak were dropped. The media quoted that one sentence over and over again in a campaign to isolate him. He concludes that he was convicted, attacked in the media and received threats because he was Armenian, and "those great forces" saw an interest in silencing him. He likens his worries about his and his family's security to the uneasiness of a dove. But he says he is one of those whom comfort bores. He's not one who would leave a "boiling hell" and seek refuge in a "ready heaven."

"We were sort of people desiring to turn hell to heaven."

The case of Hrant Dink sheds light onto these "great forces." But it also sheds light onto people who won't accept that. Thousands walked on the streets of Istanbul to voice their agony and anger over his assassination, shouting "we are all Armenians." The coverage of the issue in the Radikal newspaper is courageous and respectable. The posts in the Ekşi Sözlük (http://www.sourtimes.org) show that people are aware of what's happening. And hopefully they care.

There's meaning to a greater story, after all. There are still those people who believe in a greater story, the possibility of turning hell to heaven.

Something I wrote in 22.12.2005, a slightly shorter version:

Warm Heart, Cold Heart

The symptoms of being in a high: High self-esteem. High hopes. High awareness of all the opportunities that lie ahead of me, and how capable I am of taking them. All the cities I could “spend a year” in, all the different, interesting jobs I could take, all the different ways I could make a difference in the world… The colors of the world, all that history, all the different songs, different tastes, different people, all the passion, joy, variety and beauty… I have done quite a bit already, and I could do so much more! I’m independent, I’m self-sufficient, strong and capable, I don’t have any attachments or hard feelings, I don’t need anyone. Everybody pursues their own happiness, and one can’t really count on anyone to love them purely and unconditionally. I don’t trust anyone completely, so I don’t care about anyone because I’m certain noone can care about me like they should. So I’m a rock, I’m an island, I touch noone, noone touches me. And this is my high, my branches reaching out to the sky, all so self-possessed, they are so high above that they would all claim they are rootless.

Then all of a sudden I go into a low again. Now I don’t look into the future, but I look into the past. I see the people I loved, and whom I still love. Most of the time they are away from me, and so is happiness. I see missed opportunities in their lives, and in my life. I see people who had passions and dreams, who now have only habits and obsessions. I want to stay with them, I don’t want to have to go away from them all the time, I can’t leave them behind. I care for these people, and still I’m afraid that I don’t care for them enough, that I can’t make them happier. I want to go back to my roots, where it’s warm and familiar, where I miss and where I’m missed.

Then my cold heart tells me that if I went to my roots, there would be some missed opportunities, I will become someone with habits and obsessions. I shouldn’t be tricked by love or my motherly instincts, because I suspect they will get old as soon as they are fulfilled, and I will give too much and get too little in return.

And my warm heart tells me that having no pain, no attachments, no responsibilities means being cold and lonely. And I know that I owe my ability to even dream about all these possibilities to my family's patient, hard work.

I don’t know how to be happy, and what step I should take next.

.....

But wouldn't not seizing these opportunities betray their hard work in the first place? We all have to be rational.

Luck and Responsibility

One thing I learned in my "Religion Culture and Knowledge of Morality" class that I never forget is Hz. Muhammed's following Hadis: "On doomsday, everybody will be given their due rights. Even the revenge of the sheep without horns will be taken from the sheep with horns."

What do you feel when you see someone less fortunate than yourself? I feel guilt, and even more so, fear. In my post about the Third Way and Post-Emotionalism, I described the wide-spread belief that those who are unfortunate can improve their situation. Put another way, we believe that those who are unfortunate are responsible for the misfortunes that befall them. Probably this is true in some situations, and not true in others. What concerns me is how our assumptions about the reasons behind inequality shape our emotions and reactions.

Let's say we see a poor, uneducated person. It is easy to soothe our conscience then: We tell ourselves that if this person works hard enough, he can climb to an upper social class. We all have fathers and grandfathers who did just that. We do not feel guilty of our relative richness, which we see deserved, and thus we do not feel any responsibility towards improving that person's welfare. (This perception is true on a wider scale, too. For a long time, it was believed that African countries were poor out of choice: They were lazy and corrupt. This perception freed developed nations from guilt, and the obligation to help Africans. As Jeffrey Sachs showed in the End of Poverty, though, Africans are in a poverty trap because of their bad luck - they simply cannot improve their situation on their own.)

Let's say we see a person with HIV. Easy again, they must have had unprotected sex or are a drug addict. It was their choice to be negligent, so we don't need to pity them. We are not afraid of catching HIV, because if we are careful enough, we can prevent it from happening. Everything is under control.

Let's say we hear about a person who was mugged or raped. If they were walking in a sketchy neighborhood, if they were wearing a mini skirt, we feel better. We prefer simple stories with clear cause-effect relationships. They put themselves in trouble. If we avoid reckless behaviour like that, we won't get mugged or nobody will rape us. If we wear our seat-belts, we won't fly out of the car, and if we don't smoke, we will reduce our risk of getting lung cancer. Everything is under control.

But what if a friend gets mugged and shut in our neighbourhood? What if a conservatively-dressed woman gets kidnapped and raped? What if a young boy gets shut on a crowded street on New Year's Eve? What if a young girl in our apartment building dies of cancer? It wasn't their fault. Then, how can we justify us being here, alive and well? Who can guarantee that we will remain so?

Although I moved around a lot myself, it's still like it's said to me:

Hareket Vakti

is karası gibiyim o temiz ellerinde
dil yarası gibiyim o masum sözlerinde
kal deme hiç bunu benden isteme
sus bu gece bana aşktan sakın hiç bahsetme
dur bu gece bana dokunma beni delirtme
sana boşuna umut vermek istemem

çağıran bir şeyler var hep
beni uzak şehirlerde
bana ait birşeyler var
o sert gülüşlerde

sen yine olduğun gibi kal
benim için sakın değişme
giderim bugün ha yarın
hareket vakti gelince

sen yine olduğun gibi kal
misafirim bu şehirde
bir el sallarsın yeter
hareket vakti gelince

mum gibiyim
senin ışıl ışıl o gözlerinde
kum gibiyim
uçsuz bucaksız o çöllerinde
kış gibiyim
yakan yaz güneşinde

hırsız gibiyim
kadehteki o ruj izlerinde
dil gibiyim yanağındaki o beninde
kal deme hiç
bunu benden isteme

çağıran bir şeyler var
hep beni uzak şehirlerde
bana ait birşeyler var
o sert gülüşlerde

sen yine olduğun gibi kal
benim için sakın değişme
giderim bugün ha yarın
hareket vakti gelince

sen yine olduğun gibi kal
misafirim bu şehirde
bir el sallarsın yeter
hareket vakti gelince

çağıran bir şeyler var
hep beni uzak şehirlerde
bana ait birşeyler var
o sert gülüşlerde

sen yine olduğun gibi kal
benim için sakın değişme
giderim bugün ha yarın
hareket vakti gelince

sen yine olduğun gibi kal
misafirim bu şehirde
bir el sallarsın yeter
hareket vakti gelince

Barlas

Taking Sides in Iraq

A very true saying goes, "not taking sides is injustice to the right side." Saddam Hussein was executed in Baghdad today, just on the eve of Eid. Probably he deserved this sentence. So we might say the output of the trial is legitimate. But the lawyers I just listened to on TV claim that his trial did not meet the international standards, and the execution was carried out too quickly to avoid any legal or violent contestation. Watching the video of the moments right before his execution, I could not help but pity him. Think what the Sunnis in Iraq and Muslims all over the world will think seeing this execution video right on the eve of Eid.

Bringing democracy is not a justification for invasion. The hope was that ensuing security and democracy would make people forget and forgive the means through which democracy was pursued, i.e. invasion. But the lack of legitimacy in the process is the greatest obstacle in the way of the desired outcome. This is not an ex-post conclusion one reaches after seeing the violence that ensued in Iraq. This is a general lesson that needs to be taken.

This is all I have to write in 2006. I wish a happy new year to everyone.

Rats

The story I'll tell now, I read long ago. It's disturbing and chauvinistic, and although it was presented as a real experiment where I read, I think it is just a made-up story. I will use it here, because it is a useful metaphor, more like a warning (to myself and any girls who might be reading this.)

Male rats and female rats were put in a box with an electric wire seperating them. After a while, a male rat attempted to jump to the other side, but was tangled in the wire and died. None of the rats moved for a while. Then, seeing that the male rats weren't doing anything, female rats started jumping over the wire one by one, falling dead one after another.

We girls are used to doing our best. We think that we can attain everything if we work hard at it. We believe in meritocracy. But relationships require mutual effort, and it won't work if it is only us who is trying to make a relationship work. Besides, if we change ourselves too much, we won't be the same person he loved in the first place. So doing your best isn't always working hard. Doing your best is realizing what works and what doesn't, putting effort in the right person, protecting and preserving yourself. (For more on this, read "He's Just not that Into You.")

Attachment

In an interview with the Sabah newspaper, Orhan Pamuk said that he believes in attachment more than love. He described attachment as something "instinctive, childish," likened it to what a small child feels when his mom goes shopping. I guess you realize you are attached to a person in periods of "dispossession." It comes with spending time with that person, being able to be comfortable, safe and "yourself" around that person.

Rationalism and Constructivism

So my German friend was right, after all :) Every option has a pay-off, shaped only by the player's material interests. The option with the highest pay-off is the preferred option. Rationalists argue that the pay-off associated with each option, thus the preferences are fixed. Institutions they work within only constrain their means to reach given ends, and ideas are only language and symbols to justify their "self-interested policies." Agreement between two players is possible only if their interests coincide, or they accept each other's preferred options simultaneously through issue-linkage. Let's say Actor A advocates Policy A, and Actor B lobbies for Policy B. Actor A's pay-off associated with only Policy B is very low. But if Policy A and Policy B are passed simultaneously, the combined pay-offs may be acceptable to Actor A. Through issue linkage, pay-offs of Policy A and Policy B stay constant, but their combined pay-off also becomes relevant, breaking the stalemate.

Constructivists, on the other hand, argue that actors' understanding of the pay-offs may change, without an actual shift in material interests. Especially in crisis situations ("a policy window"), actors may be more open to new ideas - because they realize that what they always believed in doesn't work. A charismatic actor ("an institutional entrepreneur") comes up with a new idea, and uses such a policy window to persuade the other actors. As they interact and negotiate ("social learning" within the existing institutional framework,) actors change their minds about the pay-offs associated with each option.

Post-Emotionalism and the Third Way

I found out that what I tried to describe in the last few entries has a name, and it's called "post-emotionalism." I'm putting all the related entries under one label now.

"Certainly, there is evidence, for example, that over the past quarter of a century people in Britain have come to see personal relationships 'less in terms of social responsibilities and obligations and more in terms of personal resources and fulfilment.'...

It has been suggested that we live increasingly in an amoral, 'post-emotional' age, in which people's emotional responses have ceased to be aesthetic or authentic and their goals are informed by a self-centred form of survivalism. The consumer culture to which the inhabitants of Western societies are subject leads to a 'Disneyfication' of the emotions. Though people can express or 'perform' emotions, these are trumped by rational self-interest...

Post-emotionalism entails a hollowed-out form of compassion for others and a distinctively apolitical preoccupation with one's own interests and well-being, or those of one's most immediate family. It is ostensibly consonant with a Third Way approach to social policy that regards the welfare functions of the state no longer in terms of meeting needs, but of managing risks. " - Hartley Dean, from "The Third Way and Social Welfare: The Myth of Post-emotionalism"

Although people believe that everybody should be held responsible for the choices they make (and disapprove of the "dependency culture,") there is still recognition that people are vulnerable to risk and uncertainty. Dependency out of choice is not tolerated, but people realize that they might be dependent to others (and others may be dependent on them) out of bad luck.

[T]he majority –in spite of the prevalence of popular prejudices against welfare dependency- acknowledged that they themselves were at least potentially dependent beings (and/or that other people dependent on them); and that there are at least certain things to which all human beings are or should be entitled… From behind a Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ as to the extent of the risks they face, people do by and large espouse an implicit theory of social justice (Dean, 704, 705.)

Another very very true piece :) Again Hasmet Babaoglu! (04.12.2006)
http://www2.vatanim.com.tr/root.vatan?exec=yazardetay&sid=&Newsid=96024&Categoryid=4&wid=9



“Arkadaşlığın bir üstü, sevgililiğin bir altı”

Hani yıllardır yazıp duruyorum ya... Aşktan söz edilmesine bayılıyoruz, içinden aşk geçen şarkılara, türkülere, şiirlere yanıp tutuşuyoruz; dahası, aşka âşık oluyoruz; hepsi tamam ama aşkın hayatımızdaki anlamı “arıza” gibi bir şey. Oysa “arıza” çıksın istemiyoruz. Kafamız bulansın, işimiz gücümüz aksasın istemiyoruz. Açıkça itiraf etmekten çekiniyoruz ama kimi zaman sevmek artık sevilmek için ödenecek bir bedel gibi algılanıyor! Ve en önemlisi şu ki altan alta asıl derdimiz aşk şarkıları eşliğinde âşık olmak falan değil. Hayır! Aşk şarkıları eşliğinde EĞLENMEK istiyoruz!Modern flört kültürü gizliden gizliye aşktan kaçtıkça, aşk da gitgide kaba saba bir delilik; hatta gazetelerin 3. sayfa haberlerine özgü bir suç türü olup çıkıyor.

***

Geçen gün Marie Claire dergisini karıştırırken Hollywood’un yeni gözdelerinden Kirsten Dunst’ın bir sözüyle karşılaştım. Hazcı beklentileri yüksek olan günümüz insanının aşka dair endişelerini çok net ortaya koyuyordu. “Arkadaşın bir üstü, sevgilinin bir altı olmak en ideali!” İşte modern flört kültürünün en özlü ve yalın anlatımı! Zamanında “Vampirle Görüşme” filmindeki küçük kız rolüyle gönülleri çalan ve şimdilerde “Hollywood’un en erotik bakışlı genç kadını” olarak tanınan Kirsten Dunst’ın, bu sözünün ardından söyledikleri de çok anlamlı. “Böylece kimse yara almaz, zarar görmez. Seks utanca dönüşmez, yetişkin duruş bozulmaz, aşk daha uzun sürer.” (Tabii, buradaki “aşk” sözcüğünü “ilişki” olarak anlamak gerek!) İşte aşk üzerine onca şamatanın, onca aşk filminin, onca aşk hikâyesinin gençleri getirip bıraktığı nokta! İnançsızlık mı? Korku mu? Acı çekmeye ve bunalıma dair en küçük bir ihtimalin varlığından bile uzak durma çabası mı? Yoksa hayatımızın bütün hücrelerine egemen olmaya başlayan “iyi vakit geçirme-eğlence-haz” anlayışının en son hali mi?Belki hepsi!

***

Yaldızlı laflarla aşkı savunup bu bakışa burun kıvırmak kolay! Önce bu hali anlamaya çalışmak ve aşkın tarihini-sosyolojisini sorgulamak gerek. Aşk insan içindi. Ama herkes için miydi acaba?İnsanlığın hiçbir büyük geleneği aşkı herkes için ve herkese göre bir şey diye anlatmamıştı. Aşk hiçbir zaman herkesin çıplak elle dokunabileceği bir ateş olarak tarif edilmemişti. Her gelenek “yanmak”tan söz etmişti. Sonra nasıl olmuşsa olmuş, romantik çağ Batı modernizminin içine bu ateşi üflemiş; içtenliğin ve cinselliğin aşka, aşkın da mutluluğa yeteceği iddiası geniş kabul görmüştü. Bugün o romantik yanlışın, o popülizmin acısı çekiliyor. Aşkın mutluluk ve huzurla aynı platformda yer aldığını sanmanın acısı şimdi şimdi çıkıyor. İlişkiler arkadaşlığın bir üstü kadar mahrem, sevgililiğin bir altı kadar canlı-renkli olsun isteniyor. Malum, arkadaşlık yeterince yakın değil fakat eğlencelidir. Sevgililik de çok yakın fakat bu yüzden “boğucu”dur. Tablo bu. Tartışmasına gelince...Bitmez.


This one is basically in line with the one below (read that one first.) There are a couple of cool points though. The first one is that "loving is seen as the price to be paid for being loved." Second, Kirsten Dunst defines the ideal relationship as being "above friends and below lovers." "Above friends," because we want it to be close and intimate, but "below lovers," because we want it to be chill, lively and fun - we don't want it to be suffocating. That way, she says, "Nobody gets hurt, sexuality doesn't turn into shame, the adult posture doesn't break down, love is sustained longer."

Lastly, to Babaoglu, the assumption "sincereness and sexuality will be enough for love, and love will be enough for happiness" was a mistake. The truth is, love is not for everyone, unlike what movies try to make us believe (besides, if our lives were that exciting, we wouldn't take refuge in stories.) And it brings neither happiness nor peace.

A very very true piece from Turkish columnist Hasmet Babaoglu, 26.11.2006:

http://www2.vatanim.com.tr/root.vatan?exec=yazardetay&sid=&Newsid=94839&Categoryid=4&wid=9


Aşk, iş hayatı ve modern zamanlar

“Hoşçakal sakin kafam, Hoşçakal kanaatkâr ruhum...” Bilin bakalım Shakespeare ne zaman söyletir bu sözleri Othello’ya? Ülke yönetmeye kalkışmadan biraz önce mi? Ticarete girip hesapları karıştırdığında mı? En yakın dostlarının ihanet ettiğini anladığında mı? Hayır! Hayır!

***

Aşk kapıyı çaldığında böyle seslenir Othello. Çünkü bilir; aşk hem çok ateşli hem çok kırılgandır. Sanıldığının aksine huzurla değil, huzursuzlukla kardeştir. Ve aşk mutluluk değildir; âşık olunanın varlığından mutlu olmaktır. Peki modern insan nasıl? Biliyoruz... Onca “kendiyle barışık olma” arayışına; parayla saadet satın alma kültürüne; Ferrarisini satıp bilge olma gevezeliğine karşın modern insanın ne kafası sakin, ne de ruhu kanaatkâr! Ne zihni durmak biliyor modern insanın, ne de ruhu doymak! O halde... Shakespeare’in ünlü kahramanı gibi hepimiz âşık mıyız?Kalplerimizdeki bu bitmek tükenmek bilmeyen kımıltı, aşk yüzünden mi? Bir bakıma, evet! Ama durun, durun...Öyle değil. Othello gibi değil yani... Modern insan âşık ama işine âşık! Şunları bir düşünün bakalım. Yoğun arzu, tutku ve bağlılık, kalp kırıklıkları, mutluluk ve mutsuzluk med cezirleri, kuşku nöbetleri, ateşli sayıklamalar... Bütün bunları modern insan nerede yaşıyor?Çalışma hayatında yaşıyor daha çok. Sevdiği tarafından terk edilmeyi kaldırabiliyor ama iki yıldır beklediği terfi gelmeyince kendini “terk edilmiş” hissedip yataklara düşüyor. Geceleri uyuyamıyor; aklı hep işinde oluyor; işiyle sevişiyor. Tatminsizlik bütün ruhunu sarıyor, bütün eylemlerini yönetiyor. Kıskançlıklar, kuşkular, hayal kırıklıkları deseniz... Neredeyse hepsi işiyle, işyerindekilerle ilgili.

***

O halde gerçek aşka ne kalıyor? Hadi aşkı da geçtik ama aşka benzer flörtlere; içinde bir parça aşk olsun diye adaklar adadığımız ilişkilere ne kalıyor? Pek bir şey kalmıyor. O durumda kimse kimsenin kafasını bozmasın; çok “arıza” çıkmasın isteniyor. (Oysa aşk başlıbaşına “arıza”dır, bu dünyaya başka bir dünyadan “emanet” ciddi bir uyumsuzdur; tersini söyleyen yalancıdır.) Acaba aşk şarkılarına, aşk şiirlerine vurgun fakat kendini üstünkörü flörtlerin; akılcı beraberliklerin; “seviyeli” evliliklerin sakin denizlerine bırakmayı tercih eden insanlar olmamızın nedeni bu mu? Enerjimizin başka bir alanda tükenip gitmesi mi sebep?

***

Aşk meşk denilen şey, kabul edelim ki çoktan işten arta kalan zamanlarımızda hoşnutluk-haz-kafa dinleme-eğlenme kaynağımız olup çıktı. Ağır rekabete dayalı iş hayatı ve başarı kültürü içimizdeki binlerce yıllık “ateşi” yavaş yavaş kendi alanına çekiyor. Şiirler direniyor bir tek! Ama dikkat edin; şiir sevgisiyle dalga geçen “akılcı”lar da çoğalıyor. Şarkılar direniyor bazen. Ama damardan şarkıları hor gören; müziği oyalanma vasıtası olarak değerlendirenlerin alaycılığı baskın çıkmaya başlıyor.

***

Tablo açık. Ekonomi global, aşk git gide yerel. Arzular zengin ve dizginlerinden kopmuş, aşk yoksul ve zincirlenmiş. Hayat genel, aşk istisna. Herkes yalandan bilge, aşk hâlâ deli divane. Göreceğiz bakalım, ne olacak sonu(muz)?

******

For those who don't speak Turkish (I love to overlook "0 comments" and pretend I actually have a readership!)... He says that we long for the true love that is described in songs and poems, but we try to avoid all the imbalances, disappointments and "defect"s it might bring to our lives. We want to remain level-headed, keep our peace of mind and stay focused to our work, and reduce love to a fun leisurely activity. Therefore we prefer "superficial flirtations, reasonable relationships, measured marriages..." Cynicism saves us from getting carried away.

The last part deserves direct translation: "Economy is global, love is local. Desires are rich and unbridled, love is poor and chained. Life is the norm, love is the exception."

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Turks, who are relieved that Orhan Pamuk's Nobel Lecture was just a personal account, must read it again. It's also very consistent with his political remarks. Take this paragraph:

"But as can be seen from my father's suitcase and the pale colours of our lives in Istanbul, the world did have a centre, and it was far away from us. In my books I have described in some detail how this basic fact evoked a Checkovian sense of provinciality, and how, by another route, it led to my questioning my authenticity. I know from experience that the great majority of people on this earth live with these same feelings, and that many suffer from an even deeper sense of insufficiency, lack of security and sense of degradation, than I do. Yes, the greatest dilemmas facing humanity are still landlessness, homelessness, and hunger ... But today our televisions and newspapers tell us about these fundamental problems more quickly and more simply than literature can ever do. What literature needs most to tell and investigate today are humanity's basic fears: the fear of being left outside, and the fear of counting for nothing, and the feelings of worthlessness that come with such fears; the collective humiliations, vulnerabilities, slights, grievances, sensitivities, and imagined insults, and the nationalist boasts and inflations that are their next of kind ... Whenever I am confronted by such sentiments, and by the irrational, overstated language in which they are usually expressed, I know they touch on a darkness inside me. We have often witnessed peoples, societies and nations outside the Western world – and I can identify with them easily – succumbing to fears that sometimes lead them to commit stupidities, all because of their fears of humiliation and their sensitivities. I also know that in the West – a world with which I can identify with the same ease – nations and peoples taking an excessive pride in their wealth, and in their having brought us the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and Modernism, have, from time to time, succumbed to a self-satisfaction that is almost as stupid."

You can read the whole lecture here:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2006/pamuk-lecture_en.html

***

I ran into a really cool photo exhibition while I was strolling along the Thames on Sunday: http://www.colinobrien.co.uk

And I bought two books from the book market under Waterloo Bridge. And withdrew Euros from an ATM and thought they were Pounds until the guy in the book market rejected them. It was a nice day. Now I'm home, which is also very nice. And 'nice,' although not interesting or exciting all the time, is a good, peaceful thing.

***

"A writer talks of things that everyone knows but does not know they know. To explore this knowledge, and to watch it grow, is a pleasurable thing; the reader is visiting a world at once familiar and miraculous. When a writer shuts himself up in a room for years on end to hone his craft – to create a world – if he uses his secret wounds as his starting point, he is, whether he knows it or not, putting a great faith in humanity. My confidence comes from the belief that all human beings resemble each other, that others carry wounds like mine – that they will therefore understand. All true literature rises from this childish, hopeful certainty that all people resemble each other. When a writer shuts himself up in a room for years on end, with this gesture he suggests a single humanity, a world without a centre." - Orhan Pamuk, in his Nobel Lecture

I realize that my entries have gotten pretty personal lately. I was hoping to avoid that at the beginning, because I thought personal matters were keeping me from what I really need to focus on (see below entry :) But writing is healing. Knowing someone out there might be reading is also healing. I share my weaknesses with you, only because I have faith in your good faith.

"Talent develops in quiet places, character in the full current of human life." Goethe.

“There can be no me in isolation, to be considered abstractly: I am the totality of roles I live in relation to specific others… Taken collectively, they weave, for each of us, a unique pattern of personal identity, such that if some of my roles change, the others will of necessity change also, literally making me a different person.” Henry Rosemount.

“In their efforts to mediate all of the stimuli and accommodate all of the possible connections, young people continue to create new sub-selves and meta-selves-in effect, giving over bits and pieces of their persona to each new relationship just to stay engaged in all of the networks that surround them. The fear is being excluded… In an era of global connectedness, the old idea of a fixed, self-contained, autonomous consciousness is giving way to the new notion of the self as an unfolding story whose plot lines and substance are totally dependent on the various characters and events with whom one enters into a relationship.” Jeremy Rifkin, Universalizing the European Dream (think of Facebook!)

"Actually I was angry at my father because he had not led a life like mine, because he had never quarrelled with his life, and had spent his life happily laughing with his friends and his loved ones. But part of me knew that I could also say that I was not so much 'angry' as 'jealous', that the second word was more accurate, and this, too, made me uneasy. That would be when I would ask myself in my usual scornful, angry voice: 'What is happiness?' Was happiness thinking that I lived a deep life in that lonely room? Or was happiness leading a comfortable life in society, believing in the same things as everyone else, or acting as if you did? Was it happiness, or unhappiness, to go through life writing in secret, while seeming to be in harmony with all around one? But these were overly ill-tempered questions. Wherever had I got this idea that the measure of a good life was happiness?" Orhan Pamuk

Addicted to be Linked

As far as I remember from my theology class, the road to happiness in Zen philosophy is to lose, forget yourself in whatever you are doing. I think writing is the closest I get to that. There are moments when I write that I can totally concentrate on what I'm writing, especially if I left it to the last minute (and those moments are very rewarding.) Often enough, though, even my writing experience is disrupted with expectation to be remembered, acknowledged, loved. I listen to music - I always find something in the music or lyrics that relates to my relationships. I check my E-mails. I check Facebook. I check my cell phone to see anyone wrote me. I get upset if nobody did. I get more upset if I was expecting a text or e-mail from someone. I write E-mails. I text people to figure out the details of what we will do that night. I get jealous if the person studying next to me gets a call. I'm walking around with this "overall fog" around my head that constantly distracts and confuses me, the need to stay connected and included never seizes.

I was thinking this phenomenon was borne out of my own insecurities, I sometimes feel like I used all my intellectual energy when I was a teen and now is the time to catch up with everything else. But whatever their reasons, some of my friends are also suffering from the same symptoms.

One friend told me that she used to be an introvert child, completely content in whatever she was doing, actually getting angry if anyone tried to intrude. As she grew up, she started going out and interacting with people, and now she has difficulties concentrating. Another friend said he constantly feels the need to be out and about, and whenever he has free time between two things he has to do, that's when he reads. We started questioning what might be the reason. Why do we feel horrible if we stay home and read on a Friday? My friend offered that it could be the "consumerist society" that gives the message that we have to go out and do things with people. Sometimes even our social interactions turn into a rat race.

I don't see how this constant dependency on connections will bring me success in anything. I need to learn to focus and stand on my two feet.

"It is dangerous to spend all one's time with Beethoven, just as all privileged positions are dangerous.
Tamina had always been a bit ashamed of admitting she was happy with her husband. She was afraid of giving people a reason to hate her.
...
The privilege of love was not only a paradise, it was also a hell. Life in love was constant tension, fear, agitation. She is here among children to gain, at last, the rewards of calm and serenity.
Milan Kundera, the Book of Laughter and Forgetting

I can't sew it anymore

When I was younger, and I was disappointed, I would just lie in my bed and imagine that my soul is like a ghost made of white silk, or white smoke or dust, and somebody made a few cuts on it with a knife (imagine Zorro). So I would just lie there and imagine that I was sewing the cuts in my soul. So I was trying to do that again but it didn't work this time. I told myself I'm strong, I'm a fighter, I will wake up stronger tomorrow, but it doesn't work. I pitied myself and my fate. I still have this weird belief that I deserve to be happy. Why? When there's so much poverty, sickness, death, disappointment, insecurity in the world, why should I be happy? When I'm so reckless with people's hearts (I'm probably not even aware of half the hearts I break) why am I so disappointed when they hurt me?

But then, I look around and realize there's so much happiness in the world. There are happy couples. There are happy families. There are happy babies. This gives me the wrong impression that I, too, might be happy someday. But I guess I won't.

"All of us are prisoners of a rigid conception of what is important and what is not, and so we fasten our anxious gaze on the important, while from a hiding place behind our backs the unimportant wages its guerilla war, which will end in surreptitiously changing the world and pouncing on us by surprise." pg. 268.

"It takes so little, so infinitely little, for someone to find himself on the other side of the border, where everything -love, convictions, faith, history- no longer has meaning." pg. 281.

"Jan had never shared Passer's admiration for things changing, but he liked his desire for change, seeing it as mankind's oldest desire, humanity's most conservative conservatism." pg. 294.

"When things are repeated, they lose a fraction of their meaning. Or more exactly, they lose, drop by drop, the vital strength that gives them their illusory meaning. For Jan, therefore, the border is the maximum acceptable dose of repetitions.
...
I am certain, on the contrary, that the border is constantly with us, irrespective of time and our stage of life, that it is omnipresent, even though circumstances might make it more or less visible...
...It takes so little, a tiny puff of air, for things to shift imperceptibly, and whatever it was that a man was ready to lay down his life for a few seconds earlier seems suddenly to be sheer nonsense.
...
Jan had friends who like him had left their old homeland and who devoted all their time to the struggle for its lost freedom. All of them had sometimes felt that the bond tying them to their country was just an illusion and that only enduring habit kept them prepared to die for something they did not care about. They all knew that feeling and at the same time were afraid of knowing it, they turned their heads away for fear of seeing the border and stumbling (lured by vertigo as by an abyss) across it to the other side, where the language of their tortured people makes a noise as trivial as the twittering of birds." pg. 296, 297. Milan Kundera, from the Book of Laughter and Forgetting.

The Border

I was preparing a job application yesterday. I did some research about this think-tank, found signs of meaning (coincidential likeness between them and I, what they hold important and what I hold important) and got really excited. I worked on my CV, cover letter, tried to make them perfect. Then my parents called and as I was explaining this think tank to them, they started to make jokes. It's upsetting when people take what I care about lightly. Then I start questioning the importance of what I care about. Then I went to a panel discussion EU Enlargement. I listened to the same things being discussed the upteenth time. What I saw unimportant and beside the point was really about to hijack something I cared about. And after the discussion, a Turk told me the upteenth time that if it was so easily going to be hijacked like that, then there was no point working for it, because "they" didn't have good faith. I didn't even attempt to reply the upteenth time, because I was already on the other side of the border.

(And I agreed secretly. I sometimes find these conversations annoying, because I don't comment on what he cares about. Everybody thinks they can comment on what I care about! I wish I studied something so specialized that noone would dare to comment on.)

Maybe it's not important. Maybe I think it's important, because I already invested in it - I can't be objective about its importance anymore. It must be so sad to realize that what you dedicated your life for is actually wrong, or unimportant. Maybe there is a point of no return, you can't accept the unimportance of something after you spend a certain number of years working for it. After that point, you just keep doing what you have done for years, and you try to convince a world that doesn't care that your story has a point to it. (Or, even worse, you continue advocating something that is wrong.)

Maybe that's how people don't believe in a common story anymore, because all of them proved to be wrong or unfeasible. What I know, is that I'm tired of listening to this stuff over and over again, because they lose their meaning all too quickly.

“Hep birlikte inanacakları bir hikaye kalmayınca, hepsi tek tek kendi hikayesine inanmaya başlayacak, herkesin kendi hikayesi olacak, herkes kendi hikayesini anlatmak isteyecek. Kalabalık şehirlerin kirli sokaklarında, bir türlü çekidüzen verilemeyen çamurlu meydanlarında, milyonlarca sefil, başlarının çevresinde bir mutsuzluk halesi taşır gibi taşıdıkları kendi hikayeleriyle uykuda gezerler gibi gezinecekler.” Kara Kitap, sf. 158.

“Böylece sürekli eğlence arayan bir çocuktan nefret eder gibi hikayesiz yaşayamayan aklından nefret etti. Bir anda, dünyada işaretlerin, ipuçlarının, ikinci ve üçüncü anlamların, gizlerin, sırların yeri olmadığına karar verdi: Bütün işaretler anlamak ve bulmak isteyen kendi aklının ve hayallerinin kuruntularıydı. Her eşyanın yalnızca o eşya olarak varolduğu bir dünyada huzurla yaşayabilme isteği yükseldi içinde; o zaman ne yazılar, ne harfler, ne yüzler, ne sokak lambaları, ne Celal’in masası, ne Melih Amca’dan kalma şu dolap, ne de Rüya’nın parmak izlerini taşıyan bu makasla tükenmez kalem kendi dışındaki bir sırrın şüpheli bir işareti olacaktı. Yeşil tükenmez kalemin yalnızca bir yeşil tükenmez kalem olacağı ve kendisinin de başka birisi olmak istemeyeceği bu aleme nasıl girebilirdi acaba?” Kara Kitap, sf. 276.


"You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever." - Steve Jobs

Meaning

I like to think that there's meaning to my story. What happened in the past leads up to what's happening now, and what's happening now will lead up to something great and meaningful in the future. When you start thinking this way, all you see is signs of meaning. (When you have a hammer, all you see is nails, as my professor says :) And I can't help but start to guess what will happen in the future. I came to this city because of a series of decisions, but also a series of coincidances. So and so people are entering my life, not earlier, not later, but now and here. Maybe we were in the same place before, but our paths didn't cross until now. There must be a reason why they cross now. This is all so magical.

But then, maybe not. I'm only seeing it because I was looking for it in the first place. I don't want my life to be ordinary, I don't want it to be meaningless. That's why I'm overlooking everything that's ordinary in it, everything that's meaningless, all the idiosyncrasies, everything that doesn't fit the story in my head. And then when the story is stillborn, I get all disappointed.

I should follow Jobs' advice instead.

The World Is a Beautiful Place by Lawrence Ferlinghetti

The world is a beautiful place
to be born into
if you don't mind happiness
not always being
so very much fun
if you don't mind a touch of hell
now and then
just when everything is fine
because even in heaven
they don't sing
all the time

The world is a beautiful place
to be born into
if you don't mind some people dying
all the time
or maybe only starving
some of the time
which isn't half bad
if it isn't you

Oh the world is a beautiful place
to be born into
if you don't much mind
a few dead minds
in the higher places
or a bomb or two
now and then
in your upturned faces
or such other improprieties
as our Name Brand society
is prey to
with its men of distinction
and its men of extinction
and its priests
and other patrolmen

and its various segregations
and congressional investigations
and other constipations
that our fool flesh
is heir to

Yes the world is the best place of all
for a lot of such things as making the fun scene
and making the love scene
and making the sad scene
and singing low songs and having inspirations
and walking around
looking at everything
and smelling flowers
and goosing statues
and even thinking
and kissing people and
making babies and wearing pants
and waving hats and
dancing
and going swimming in rivers
on picnics
in the middle of the summer
and just generally
'living it up'
Yes
but then right in the middle of it comes the smiling
mortician

So happy, so proud that Orhan Pamuk won the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Isn't it ironic that it was Pamuk, who was tried for insulting "Turkishness" last year, brought this great honor to Turkey with his good work, his work telling about the beauty and peculiarity of his country and his era?

Of course they will continue to insult him, and insult the Europeans who awarded him. But their insults won't change their misery or his success.

...
17.10.2006

Since the Beaver didn't publish this, lemme put it down here. What is Internet for, anyway? To publish things that wouldn't have been published otherwise! (I'm on my disappointed, cynical, hopeless day, sorry!)

Clash of Populists

Author of many of my favorite books, Orhan Pamuk, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature on Thursday, the first Turk to ever win the prize. Not surprisingly, the news was met with as much hostility and suspicion in his native Turkey as happiness and pride. Turkish web-site Ekşi Sözlük, a very informal version of Wikipedia, soared with critical entries shortly after the announcement, while journalists were quick to overshadow Pamuk’s success by reminding his controversial remarks.

Pamuk is famous for his novels like the Black Book, My Name is Red and Snow. His work centers on the struggle of Turks, who are deeply rooted in traditional and religious values, while aspiring to adopt a Western mind-set and habits. The context is modern-day Istanbul in the Black Book and the eastern city of Kars in Snow, while My Name is Red tells about the struggle of 16th-century Ottoman artists against Western portrait-makers.

Pamuk’s characters try to keep their lives together as they are being pulled in different directions, but they do not reach clear-cut conclusions over what is right and what is wrong. In a lecture in 2002 in Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., Pamuk himself said that he does not try to offer any golden solutions. “My light touch or my art that revolves, turns around, makes these elliptic curves around the problem may give the good reader the idea that we are always some part of the problem. Problems are not different from us. I intend [for] my books to be beautiful things between the problems and our minds — so they will distance us [from the problems,]” he said then. Apart from his overarching theme, what strike me most in his novels are his disturbingly realistic observations of human melancholy, weakness, or litost, as Milan Kundera would call it.

His subject matter was interesting enough to keep both Westerners and Turks occupied, but in February 2005, Pamuk said to Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger that “30,000 Kurds and one million Armenians were killed here. And almost nobody dares to say it, but me.” A group of nationalist lawyers sued him on the basis of the now infamous Article 301, which makes “insulting Turkishness, the Turkish Republic, parliament, government, judiciary, military and police” a crime. (There is also a clause that increases the punishment if the alleged insults are made abroad.)

Upon pressures from the European Union, the charges were dropped because of a technicality. The law is likely to stay in place for the foreseeable future, as the government does not have the guts to get rid of it in the run-up to the general elections next year.

As the controversy unfolded, some journalists and commentators labeled Pamuk’s words as an effort to win the Nobel Prize by marginalizing himself politically in his country. Now they claim that Europeans were pursuing a political agenda by giving the prize to Pamuk, at a time when freedom of speech, Armenian Genocide and Turkey’s EU prospects are on the headlines. Incidentally, the lower house of the French Parliament approved a bill, which makes the denial of Armenian Genocide of 1915 a crime, on the same day as the award announcement.

I sincerely believe that Pamuk deserved the Nobel Prize, because he is a very good writer, and his subject matter is relevant in today’s world. If boosting his chances for the prize crossed his mind when he made his remarks, and if the Swedish Academy’s decision was indeed influenced by politics, then the Turkish nationalists should blame their own stupidity for reacting in such a way that handed Pamuk the prize in a golden bowl. It is ironic that an author who was tried for “insulting Turkishness” last year becomes the first Turk to ever receive this honour.

Turkish government’s reluctance to change Article 301 just before the elections is understandable. Politicians are expected to be populists, accommodating the –sometimes- irrational sensibilities of their constituents. Some journalists and intellectuals, too, aim to cater to the growing nationalist sentiment with their hostile criticism of Pamuk.

While Turkey has its fair share of populists that do not want to hear anything they do not like, apparently France has plenty, too. Although Turkish populists and their French counterparts defend opposite views on issues like the Armenian Genocide, they employ similar methods: They try to limit the freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, French and Turkish populists’ clashing views lead to the same conclusion in one important area. In the end, both sides argue that Turkey and the EU are incompatible, and Turkey should not join the EU. I hope that they will not succeed, because I believe the so-called “clash of civilizations” is nothing but the clash of populists.

Mirror

I know at the end of this entry you'll think "so what?" but I still want to share my discovery. I realized that what we call love or affection is as much about ourselves as the object of our affection. We are actually running after the great feeling of being admired, being loved as a whole person, with our virtues and flaws. When we realize that someone likes us, we immediately start seeing ourselves in the eyes of that person, and we start to think that we are quite lovable, after all. We almost make peace with ourselves then, we start liking ourselves. But the sweet feeling of greatness and accomplishment depends on whether we can trust that person's opinions. Only then do the qualities of the other person become relevant: Are they good-looking? Are they intelligent? Are they intellectual? If they are, then we can start loving ourselves in good faith: If he loves me, no doubt I am lovable! But if they are not, then their love doesn't prove we're as lovable as we'd like to be. Crudely put, it is really about what we would like to be worth and what the market thinks we are worth.

Once someone loves us and we love ourselves in return, we want to maintain that feeling. We want to be loved now, tomorrow, always, just to be able to love ourselves.

Studying Social Sciences

I just started studying in a school that claims to be one of the best social science institutions in the world. And again, I'm starting to wonder whether I'm doing something "sufficiently challenging." I'm sure I'll be more challenged in the days to come, and I will be the one who will decide whether I use my brain just to get by or more. I know what I'm studying is interesting and important. I know that progress in no physical science would be possible without the rules and institutions shaped by law, political science and economics, all based on philosophy. But at times, I can't help but envy those who actually learn TO DO something. I'm envious of doctors, engineers, architects, businessmen, bankers, lawyers. I couldn't (or wouldn't, too, in some of these cases) be any of that after this point.

I know what I can't (or won't) do, but I have no idea as to what I will do, and I know I'm being a spoiled brat, but I'm not the only one around here. I feel like those of us who study social sciences, and who take it seriously, are learning how TO THINK properly, but we are quite unsure where to direct our energies. We are having difficulty to focus, and we are actually in desperate need of something concrete. I am, at least. But I suppose thinking within certain logical boundaries is an asset. Hopefully I will be able to utilize it in some valuable way soon that a rational employer will be willing to pay me.