A Eulogy for Mr Spock?

What made Star Trek so popular? For the people of my generation, it represented hope for humanity, the ultimate victory of science, logic and reason over mysticism, vampires, werewolves and other ephemera, not to mention the fact that the series with Leonard Nimoy's unforgettable character Mr Spock inspired many to go into sciences and engineering. But the times, they are a-changing. As Leigh Phillips observes:

These debates aside, with the passing of Nimoy, it is worthwhile — as it was at the time of the death of Neil Armstrong two and a half years ago — to take note of the slow and mysterious demise of the Space Age alongside the contemporary turn against rationality, science, and the Enlightenment.

The cover story of this month’s National Geographic speaks to how widespread this anti-modernist phenomenon is, focusing as it does on the growing popular opposition to science in both its right and left varieties, from climate change deniers, creationists, and anti-fluoridation warriors to vaccine refuseniks, alternative-medicine charlatans, and those who oppose all GMO technology in the abstract, rather than just the corporate malfeasance of agribusiness.

Two episodes of Star Trek deeply affected me. In "The City on the Edge of Forever," I learned that defending or speaking the truth, doing the right thing can not be independent of time, it is a function of it. Naively hoping the right will prevail is too much to ask for (In the episode, Edith Keeler had two alternate timelines: She survives, USA joins WWII too late; Nazis win. She dies; without a peace movement Americans engage Nazis and war is won), as Spock gently reminds his friend and captain.

The second one is "The Paradise Syndrome," where we see Kirk stranded on a planet with amnesia. Again we see Nimoy's character showing us the good human qualities: perseverance, odds-on decision making and prioritizing, as he tackles the problem of asteroid deflection.

As science-fiction fades into fantasy, reason into superstition, a eulogy is indeed in order: Not for Spock, though; but for us all, the humans, unless we once again make peace with reason, embrace logic with an ever critical mind.

Long live and prosper Leonard Nimoy, wherever you are!

Theodicy and Jihad

Ziya Meral tackles tough issues in his latest article The Question of Theodicy and Jihad, which tries to make sense out of Islamic violence and terror. I will reproduce a few of his core paragraphs (call them bullets if you must) here and try to analyze each separately later. Regardless, it is a good read.

When a state fails, when its promise to deliver a fair society does not actualize, and all other offers of a solution remain too feeble, religious networks, imaginations, solidarities, and mobilizations emerge as the most powerful, and often the only alternative, to address the question of theodicy and recreate a moral order.

Although this is not entirely wrong, from where I stand, I see a tendency towards violence, a lack of tolerance for others equally in affluent societies and prospering zones as well. Also, in some cases, the so called failure of the state is closely related to the actions and/or non-actions of the West.

In a context where violence is already present indiscriminately, it is easily seen as a regular and legitimate political option. Deployment of violence becomes a radical attempt to tame, control and re-order a universe that seems to be in decay and evil. Thus, it is not nihilistic as it is often thought, but a Nietzschean attempt to move ‘beyond good and evil’, to establish a new moral order as an answer to the question of theodicy.

Again, I beg to differ, at least partially. Deployment of violence is common in the Muslim world, but I agree that it is seen as an attempt to correct the wrong and the evil. Plus, Meral simply ignores the role of education and indoctrination of children.

An understanding of religious violence deployed by Muslim extremism through the question of theodicy rather than jihad has countless direct implications: from our aid and development programs to long-term counter-terror strategies at home and in theaters of conflict.

Most obviously, this means that we should stop efforts to have other Muslims “condemn violence in the name of Islam” or push for programs that promote theologies that challenge the use of violence. Such programs help to a certain extent, but often lead to a lot of counter-productive pressure on Muslims.

We agree. Creating a platonic Islam that is beautiful and ever good and condemning the problematic one as a fake does not take us anywhere, nor has it created a desired reaction from moderate Muslims (sic) so far.

The main theological challenge that lies before us is not whether or not a Muslim can commit acts of terror, but rather, how can there be theologies of hope and social change that channel deep grievances and deprivations into non-destructive activism. This means that our efforts to offer counter-narratives and break cycles of radicalization should not go through arguments on jihad and violence, but projects and messaging that offers a hopeful reading of the world and how deeply religious believers can work to improve, heal and restore a broken world.

Although this part nails it, in most areas of the world it is simply not possible and I cannot shake the feeling it addresses one problem only: keeping the violence away!

t.b.c.

From Super-Friend to Super-Foe

It is difficult to look inside the head of a probable schizophrenic like Mr Erdogan, and almost impossible to track his thought process vis-a-vis his political alliances. Not so many years ago he was best buddies with Bashar Assad, the president of Syria. You would not believe if I translated his discourse about Assad, his greatness, etc but maybe this photograph will:

Assad and Erdogan with wives

Assad has not changed; he was a dictator then, he is a dictator now.

Not so long ago, Erdogan had no trouble aligning himself with politicians and neo-cons like Graham Fuller, Morton Abramowitz, Paul Wolfowitz nor with institutions like AJC and ADL with obvious ties to Israel. He was eager enough to push several military projects like UAV's and modernization of fighter jets with the Jewish state. Now he is delusional enough to claim Israel set up the coup that ended Morsi regime in Egypt.

Foxman and Erdogan

I have not seen any change in Israel's or USA's policy in Middle East. Right or wrong, it is roughly the same. Yet, Israeli-Turkish relations deteriorated to a record low or outright hostile if I may say.

Obviously, there is something wrong with Mr Erdogan. Yesterday you could be his super-friend, tomorrow he can declare you the most evil person in the world.

A New United Nations Coming

In a recent (Aug 22) TV interview, Prime Minister Erdogan has called for a new United Nations. Claiming UN is not working the way it is meant to be, "We told them so many times but they either did the opposite (of what we said) or nothing," citing UN's policies in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Israel, Egypt and Palestine as examples.

If we really say that the world is bigger than five [permanent members of the Security Council], then the other countries could establish their own United Nations. Such a move could be made. Such a move would prompt them [the United Nations] to reform. What will the U.N do when they (other nations) would pull?

I am appalled. First preciously alone, then magnificent defeat and now a new UN. Heading full speed but where?

Magnificent Defeat of Preciously Lone Ranger

Poetic, is it not? This is how Turkish Foreign Office describes the results of international policy of Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Ahmet Davutoglu (Minister of Foreign Affairs). Seriously, they had first come up with "preciously alone" and then they coined the "magnificent defeat" (I really doubt if either of them read Frederick Buechner [wikipedia]) phrase.

Apparently something changed in the ministry's rank and file. When I once had some interest, they were recruiting from international relations, political sciences, public administration or similar fields of colleges. When did they switch to literature and/or drama and how did I miss it? The Guardian did do justice with Shakespearean tragedy after all.