A Time for Philosophical Reflection...

‎

Reflection on Time, Space and Being in a New Context

Ali Asghar Kazemi*

June, 2011

Tehran

 ____________  

 Contents

Forewords 

A Time for Reflection

Basic Concepts                              

1.       The Notion of Time

2.      The Realm of Space

3.      The Nature of Being

Changes in the Context

1.       Being and Virtual Reality

2.      Rise of Universal Man

3.      Lost in  Cyber- Space  

Final Remarks

Bibliography

Further Readings

Forewords

The extraordinary marvel of the new information technology has provided opportunity for all to plunge into the sea of knowledge for doing rigorous research or simply satisfying one’s intellectual curiosity in a particular field. This revolution has indeed changed all dimensions of our life and has given us the capacity and chance to tackle with all matters and questions of our interest.

With a bit of skill in computer and internet, it is now possible to have access to an immense amount of information concerning every conceivable fields of knowledge in the world. The problem for students in doing researches now is no longer the accessibility to the sources and literature but the selection of proper data and materials to verify or validate a proposition or hypothesis. This is indeed a real revolution that only past academic generations can fully appreciate.

This essay is the product of a simple curiosity and conjecture about man’s fate on earth in the light of extraordinary changes in knowledge and information technology.  The emphasis here is on three important concepts of time, space and being facing such drastic unexpected transformation. I hope this will encourage other interested students of social sciences to ponder upon similar topics.

A Time for Reflection

While not very many people are interested in theoretical matters, there are some important issues in our daily life that have ontological character that require philosophical reflection.

For example, few ideas have penetrated the human consciousness as profoundly as that of time, space and being. The idea of time and space has occupied human thought for thousands of years. These things at first sight seem simple and easy to grasp, because they are close to everyday experience. Everything exists in time and space, so they appear as familiar conceptions. However, what is familiar is not necessarily understood. On closer examination, time and space are not so easily grasped. [1]

By the same token, being and existence, in the words of Heidegger is not definable by a "what", like a simple thing, but by a "who" that is shaped by existence in time. Thus, human being is to exist with a certain past, a personal and cultural history, and by an open series of possibilities that one can seize hold of or not.[2]

There is no doubt that the revolutionary change in technology has also affected the notions of time and space and consequently the reality of human being. Today we talk about “real time,” “cyber space,[3]” and “virtual reality.[4]” This means that we live in a world quite different from what our ancestors used to experience. How much are we aware of our existence in today’s life? How far are we limited in time and space in the fulfillment of our ideals? What is the present condition of human beings in closed societies?

 In this essay we intend to reflect on the old notions of time, space and being in the light of new development in knowledge, with a view to comprehend man’s present condition  and to find out whether he is better off  or worse in life.    Read full text in pdf

[1] See: Relativity Theory, http://www.marxist.com/science-old/relativitytheory.html

[2] In what, then, does the being of being human consist? Heidegger's answer is existence (Existenz). Therefore, the question of being is to be accessed by way of what Heidegger calls "an existential analytic". But what sort of thing is human existence? It is obviously defined by time: we are creatures with a past, who move through a present and who have available to them a series of possibilities, what Heidegger calls "ways to be". For Heidegger, there are two dominant modes of being human: authenticity and inauthenticity.  See Infra.

[3]  In current usage the term "cyberspace" stands for the global network of interdependent information technology infrastructures, telecommunications networks and computer processing systems. As a social experience, individuals can interact, exchange ideas, share information, provide social support, conduct business, direct actions, create artistic media, play games, engage in political discussion, and so on, using this global network. The term has become a conventional means to describe anything associated with the Internet and the diverse Internet culture. Wikipedia

[4] Virtual reality (VR) is a term that applies to computer-simulated environments that can simulate physical presence in places in the real world, as well as in imaginary worlds.

* Ali Asghar Kazemi is professor of Law and -International Relations in Tehran-Iran. Students, researchers, academic institutions, media or any party interested in using all or parts ‎of this article are welcomed to do so with the condition of giving full attribution to the author and the ‎Middle East Academic Forum. ©All Copy Rights Reserved.‎

Dans l'ombre d'un Système Incohérent

‎

Dans l'ombre d'un Système Incohérent

 

Ali Asghar Kazemi

Juin 2011                                    

__________________    

Un système est un ensemble d'éléments interdépendants et en interaction ou composants formant un ensemble intégré. Ces éléments s'influencent sans cesse d'une manière directe ou indirecte en vue de maintenir leur activité, de stabilité et de survie (l'existence), dans le but d'atteindre les objectifs projetés du système.

Afin de rester stable, un système doit consommer une certaine quantité d'énergie qui est appelée entropie du système. Entropie est associée à la quantité de l'ordre, le désordre et / ou le chaos dans un système.   L'efficacité d'un système concerne le ratio de son entrée à la sortie.   Lorsque ce ratio est trop faible ou négative, le système est dit pour être auto-destructeur.

Les systèmes peuvent être «ouvert» avec une interaction permanente avec leur environnement, ou "fermé", sans ces relations. Les systèmes fermés ont une tendance à l'auto-détériorent parce qu'ils n'ont aucun moyen de recevoir des feedbacks de l'environnement afin de corriger leur trajectoire, la structure ou le comportement.

Les systèmes politiques ont les mêmes caractéristiques et suivre le même ensemble de lois et de modèle de comportement. Systèmes isolés ne peuvent reproduire leurs valeurs et leurs principes et dans le long terme ont tendance à aller dans la solitude de l'environnement international principal. Les coûts d'un tel isolement sont généralement trop élevés pour le permettre. De nombreux pays dans le passé ont volontairement passé par cette expérience et ont finalement décidé d'entrer dans le courant de l'interaction globale. Cas de la Chine et le Japon dans les siècles passés sont de bons exemples.

Dans le cas de l'Iran, l'isolement a été imposé sur le régime islamique en raison de sa conduite défiant à l'égard de grandes puissances sur de nombreuses questions, y compris le projet nucléaire. En effet, le système politique régissant l'Iran ne fait pas exception à la règle générale que dans l'isolement à long terme sera la cause de graves dommages à la nation dans son ensemble. Le problème est où le blâme doit être mis dans cette situation aggravante?

Un système politique partiellement fermé avec une structure rigide idéologiques dans la phobie constante d'être menacée par l'environnement, l’Iran a  consomme’ toutes les énergies morales et matérielles pour faire face à ses présumés ennemis internes et externes au cours des trois dernières décennies.    

Depuis le premier président élu de la République islamique, Bani Sadr, à la présente Ahmadinejad en place, presque tous les titulaires d'une charge importante en Iran   ont été d'une manière ou d'une autre accusés de s'écarter du chemin de l'Islam et l'Imam, durant ou après avoir quitté le bureau. La liste est trop longue, mais deux importantes figures Moussavi (ancien Premier Ministre) et Karroubi, ancien président du Parlement, sont maintenant parmi les groupes d'opposition en résidence surveillée. Les anciens présidents Rafsandjani et Khatami sont également dans la même liste noire et sont harcelés ici et là de leurs opinions et positions politiques. A l'heure actuelle de nombreux anciens hauts responsables, professeurs, avocats et journalistes sont en prison pour diverses raisons.

On est vraiment déconcerté pourquoi tant de personnalités importantes, dans la norme du régime islamique, ont tourné le dos au régime? Yat-il quelque chose de mal avec la «structure» du système, ou le problème se situe sur l'attitude et la performance des "agents" politiques? En termes politiques, la  question peut se limiter à une "agence-structure" dilemme.

Le débat concernant la primauté de la structure ou l'agence en ce qui concerne le comportement humain est une question centrale ontologique dans la sociologie, science politique, et les autres sciences sociales. Dans ce contexte, «l'agence» se réfère à la capacité des individus à agir de façon indépendante et de faire leurs propres choix libre. [1][1] «Structure», par contraste, se réfère à des dispositions récurrentes motifs qui semblent influencer ou de limiter les choix et les opportunités que les individus possèdent. [2][2] Le débat structure-agence peut donc être compris simplement comme la question de la démocratisation versus dictature et de la socialisation contre l'autonomie. [3][3]   

Dans le cas de l'Iran actuel, il semble que la structure et l'agence sont en interaction permanente afin de limiter l'influence et l'impact de l'autre. C'est, de la structure, sous rigoureux et rigides principes idéologiques, inhibe la sphère des choix et des actions de l'agence et, réciproquement, l'organisme doit mettre en action toute sa puissance et sa capacité à échapper à des obstacles structurels.

Ce processus ne laisse en effet pas plus de force pour l'agent d'exercer ses devoirs et obligations vis-à-vis du peuple et la nation dans son ensemble. En d'autres termes, l'entropie du système est tellement élevée qu'il devrait consommer tous ses efforts pour simplement survivre dans une situation fragile et dans un environnement hostile.

Ce raisonnement méthodologique peut être vérifié dans les affaires quotidiennes des organismes gouvernementaux à divers niveaux et prouvé dans leurs décisions et leurs actions dans les affaires nationales et internationales.   

Le régime islamique a passé beaucoup de soudoyer les grandes puissances comme la Russie et la Chine pour attirer leur soutien sur la question nucléaire. Mais, jusqu'à présent cet effort n'a pas produit de résultats satisfaisants. En effet, le soutien politique des entités comme la Syrie, le Hamas et le Hezbollah au Moyen-Orient, et un certain nombre d’États sud-américains sur la liste de solde iranienne ne peut produire aucun résultat substantiel dans une communauté internationale quasi hostile composé de plus de 200 États souverains.

Dans les affaires intérieures, de nombreux projets lucratifs dans off-shore du pétrole et du gaz, des routes et la construction des barrages, les télécommunications, l'industrie lourde ont été remis aux officiers de haut rang de  gardiens de la révolution en vue d'acquérir leur soutien. Toutefois, il n'est pas sûr que ce soit en temps de crise et d'urgence, ils répondent à l'attente de ceux qui comptent sur ​​leur soutien.

Le système politique en Iran souffre d'un malaise structurel qui inhibe ses agents de décisions rationnelles -et pas forcément idéologiques- et agir en conséquence. Il est donc en désaccord constant avec ses éléments et les composants qui rendent le système vulnérable à l'environnement politique hostile dans les affaires intérieures et étrangères. En raison de ce manque de    la cohérence, le système a de consommer toute son énergie et la capacité réelle à faire face aux problèmes ainsi créés sur son chemin. Ce processus pousse inévitablement le système vers une impasse autodestructrice qui pourrait compromettre sa survie et la stabilité.

Ce sujet doit être élaboré dans les commentaires à venir. /

---

---

[1][1] Barker, Chris. 2005. Cultural Studies: théorie et pratique. Londres: Sage. P448

[2][2] Ibid

[3][3] la sociologie contemporaine a généralement pour but vers une réconciliation de la structure et l'agence en tant que concepts. Anthony Giddens a développé «théorie de la structuration» dans des œuvres telles que La Constitution de la Société (1984). Il présente une tentative développé pour aller au-delà du dualisme de la structure et l'agence et plaide en faveur de la «dualité de structure» - où la structure sociale est à la fois le moyen et le résultat de l'action sociale. Pour Giddens, une des agents d'interaction commune avec la structure, comme un système de normes, est décrit comme «structuration». Le terme «réflexivité» est utilisé pour faire référence à la capacité d'un agent de modifier consciemment sa place dans la structure sociale; ainsi la mondialisation et l'émergence de la «post-traditionnelle» de la société pourrait être déclaré pour permettre la «réflexivité sociale accrue ». Sciences sociales et politiques sont donc importants parce que la connaissance sociale, comme la connaissance de soi, est potentiellement émancipateur. Wikipédia

* Ali Asghar Kazemi is professor of Law and -International Relations in Tehran-Iran. Students, researchers, academic institutions, media or any party interested in using all or parts ‎of this article are welcomed to do so with the condition of giving full attribution to the author and the ‎Middle East Academic Forum. ©All Copy Rights Reserved.‎

In the Shadow of a Self-defeating System

‎

In the Shadow of a Self-defeating System

 

Ali Asghar Kazemi

June 2011                                   

__________________  

A system is a set of interacting or interdependent elements and components forming an integrated whole. These elements continually influence one another in a direct or indirect manner in order to maintain their activity, stability and survivability (existence), for the purpose of achieving the projected goals of the system.

In order to remain stable, a system must consume a certain amount of energy which is called entropy of the system. Entropy is associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a system.  The efficiency of a system relates to the ratio of its input to output.  When this ratio is too low or negative, the system is said to be self-defeating.

Systems can be “open” with continuous interaction with their environment, or “closed” without such relations. Closed systems have a tendency to self-deteriorate because they have no means to receive feedbacks from the environment in order to correct their path, structure or behavior.

Political systems have the same characteristics and follow the same set of laws and pattern of behavior. Isolated systems cannot reproduce their values and principles and in the long run tend to go into seclusion from the main international environment. The costs of such isolation are usually too high to afford. Many countries in the past have willfully gone through this experience and have finally decided to enter in the mainstream of global interaction. Cases of China and Japan in the past centuries are good examples.

In the case of Iran, isolation has been imposed on the Islamic regime because of its defying conduct with respect to great powers on many issues including the nuclear project. Indeed, the political system governing in Iran is no exception of the general rule that in the long run isolation will cause serious damages to the nation as a whole. The problem is where the blame should be put for this aggravating situation?

A partially closed political system with a rigid ideological structure in constant phobia of being threatened by the environment, the political system in Iran has been consuming all its moral and material energy to cope with its alleged internal and external enemies during the past three decades.   

From the first elected president of the Islamic Republic, Banisadr, to the present incumbent Ahmadinejad, almost all important office-holders in Iran  have been one way or another accused of deviating from path of Islam and Imam, during or after leaving the office. The list is too long, but two important figures Moussavi (former Prime Minister) and Karrubi, former Speaker of the Parliament, are now among the opposition groups under house arrest. Former Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami are also in the same black list and are being harassed here and there for their political views and positions. At present time many high ranking former officials, professors, lawyers and journalists are in jail for various reasons.

One is really baffled why so many important personalities, in the Islamic regime’s standard, have turned their back to the regime? Is there anything wrong with the “structure” of the system, or the problem lies on the attitude and performance of the political “agents?” In political terms, the quandary can be limited to an “agency-structure” dilemma.

The debate concerning the primacy of either structure or agency with regard to human behavior is a central ontological issue in sociology, political science, and the other social sciences. In this context, "agency" refers to the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.[1] "Structure", by contrast, refers to the recurrent patterned arrangements which seem to influence or limit the choices and opportunities that individuals possess.[2] The structure versus agency debate may therefore be understood simply as the issue of democratization versus dictatorship and socialization against autonomy. [3] 

In the case of present Iran, it seems that both structure and agency are in permanent interaction to limit the influence and impact of each other. That is, structure, under rigorous and rigid ideological tenets, inhibits the sphere of choices and actions of the agency and reciprocally, the agency must put into action all its power and capacity to evade from the structural impediments.

This process indeed leaves no more strength for the agent to perform his duties and obligation vis-à-vis the people and the nation as a whole. In other words, the entropy of the system is so much high that it should consume all its effort to merely survive in a fragile situation and in a hostile environment.

This methodological reasoning can be verified in the daily business of governmental agencies at various levels and proven in their decisions and actions in domestic and international affairs. 

The Islamic regime has been spending very much to bribe great powers such as Russia and China to attract their support on the nuclear issue. But, so far this effort has not produced satisfactory results. Indeed, political support of entities such as Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East, and a number of South American states on the Iranian payroll cannot produce any substantial result in a quasi hostile international community composed of more than 200 sovereign states.

In domestic affairs, many lucrative projects in off-shore oil and gas, roads and dams construction, telecommunication, heavy industry and the likes have been handed over to the Revolutionary Guards’ high ranking officers  with a view to acquire their backing. However, it is not quite sure whether in time of crisis and emergency they will respond to the expectation of those who count on their support.

Political system in Iran suffers from a structural malaise that inhibits its agents from making rational -and not forcibly ideological- decisions and acting accordingly. It is therefore in constant discord with its human elements and components making the system vulnerable to the hostile political environment in domestic and foreign affairs. Due to this lack of   coherence, the system has to consume all its energy and actual capacity to cope with problems thus created on its way. This process unavoidably pushes the system to a self-defeating dead-end that may compromise its very survival and stability.

This topic needs to be elaborated in future comments. /

---

[1] Barker, Chris. 2005. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage. p448

[2] Ibid

[3] Contemporary sociology has generally aimed toward a reconciliation of structure and agency as concepts. Anthony Giddens's developed "Structuration Theory" in such works as The Constitution of Society (1984). He presents a developed attempt to move beyond the dualism of structure and agency and argues for the "duality of structure" - where social structure is both the medium and the outcome of social action. For Giddens, an agents' common interaction with structure, as a system of norms, is described as "structuration". The term "reflexivity" is used to refer to the ability of an agent to consciously alter his or her place in the social structure; thus globalization and the emergence of the 'post-traditional' society might be said to allow for "greater social reflexivity". Social and political sciences are therefore important because social knowledge, as self-knowledge, is potentially emancipator. Wikipedia

* Ali Asghar Kazemi is professor of Law and -International Relations in Tehran-Iran. Students, researchers, academic institutions, media or any party interested in using all or parts ‎of this article are welcomed to do so with the condition of giving full attribution to the author and the ‎Middle East Academic Forum. ©All Copy Rights Reserved.‎