Yabancılaştırmanın İyileştirici Gücü

Kişisel gelişim kitaplarıyla yıllardır dalga geçerim. Fakat akıl sağlığı korumada işe yaradığını düşündüğüm bir yoldan bahsedeceğim. Üzen, yıpratan, derinden yaralayan fakat bütün bunlara rağmen bağımlısı olduğunuz hayat parçalarından sizi o sakin mağaranıza ve avatarıza götürecek olan kurtarıcı; analiz.

Ursula K. Le Guin'in Yerdeniz Büyücüsü evreninde büyü yapmanın tek yolu büyü yapacağınız varlığın Gerçek Dil'deki adını bilmekten ve söylemekten geçiyordu. İnsan doğasını aslında gerçekten kavrayan büyük bir fikrin sembolü bu aslında. Karşına çıkan zorluğu ona adını söyleyerek hükmetmek. Onu anlayarak ondan kurtulmak. Neden insan psikolojisi iyileşmeyi kavramakta buluyor diye sorarsak, epik tiyatrodaki yabancılaştırmanın gülümseyen çehresi  bizi selamlıyor olacak. "Kendisinin bir aktör olduğu bir evrende insan niçin düşmanını tanımladığı an onu yenebilecek konuma gelir" sorusu, bu tanımlama(*) kendisini o an oyun yazarına dönüştüreceği fikri anlaşıldığı anda cevaplanır. Alman bir dünya barışçı filozofun yıllar önce Copernican Revolution diye tarif ettiği bu fikrle de bağdaştırabileceğimiz yabancılaştırmayı insan değil yalnızca sigarayı bırakmak için uğradığı haksızlıklara sakin bir şekilde tebessüm etme gücünü bulmak için de kullanabilir.

Özellikle genelleyerek konuşuyorum, çünkü eğer ki her akşam yatmadan ballı yeşil çay için deseydim beş dakikada googlelayarak yazılmamış olsa bile o hissi veren sağlık yaşam köşelerinden farkım kalmazdı. Demek istediğim bu konularda ne kadar spesifik yazılırsa sonuç o kadar komik olacaktır.

Son olarak; felsefenin uygulanması yalnızca insanın şu anki doğadan uzak baskıcı sistemlerin yaratıcısı olmaktan yine humanist arkaplanına geri çekebileceği ölçüde yararlı. Çünkü şunu hatırlamalı ki bu yabancılaştırma pek çokları tarafından kendi ruhlarını günahlarından arındırmak için 2. Dünya Savaşı'nda da kullanılmıştı. Dolayısıyla bu yazılanın insanı insancıllıktan çıkarabilme özelliğine sahip olduğu hatırlatılmalı.

* Elbette ki nesnel yapılan bir tanımlama. Genellikle kağıda dökmek bunu kolaylaştırır, yazdığınızı okuduğunuz anda 5 saniye önceki sizle bir diyaloga girersiniz belli belirsiz. İşte o anda saniyeler önceki benliklerinizle yapacağınız paralel söz düelloları sizi doğru tanımlamaya ulaştırabilir.

Of the unpredictable player and its indeterminable desire to change the game

Uncertainty had always been a tension creating device in the lands of humanity. There are sayings about it as; "I'd prefer an intelligent opponent to an ally, who is a fool", meaning the opponent would be predictable in terms of logic, that is one may see the choices and the conditions which he can see as well. However an unpredictable ally would simply be dangerous, while it's purpose to act takes different shapes every day. When it comes to an unpredictable opponent there will be something interesting to discuss, as his actions will be indeterminable as well. In that sense he would be intelligent, however in terms of not being predictable, he lacks logic and named as a fool. Here lies the paradox of an unpredictable opponent, which was found while measuring his intelligence.

Let us see more about the dangers of unpredictability to identify the unpredictable player in a game (*). First there are inner conflicts in one's mind that disturbs the integrity of it. That could be mostly about the identity. Therefore the person who is unpredictable may not know who he is in the dimensions which affect his decision making. This results the choices made much more improvising. Second the person will not know how long the game will last. That is obviously how long he will be a player. In this context IF his being a player depends heavily on his identity (that is if second depends on the identity) then the identity problem (first) may arise. This will relate to the third aspect of identifying an unpredictable player.

The third aspect would be about the question of "Would he wish to change the rules of the game?". It may be considered as cheating, however let us consider again what conditions our unpredictable player is in. First the game has some rules which makes one's identity to remain at certain conditions. If he really has a strong identity disturbed by the very game itself, he would change the game. Second he doesn't know how long the game will last, however he wants to remain as a player, how will he do that? By changing the rules of the game, of course that would mean the end of the game. And end of its very existence turning into the new game itself.

However on the other hand since he's the player now and he knows how to remain a player and he knows his changing the game will be the end of it and end of his being a player; then the second reason is refuted. When it comes to the first reason; identity, let us remember he is in a game now and the identity gets lost as the game proceeds. To remain a player he should stay in certain shape, however this isn't enough to refute the first reason like we did for the second. Therefore the conclusion to this analysis would be the following. The only unpredictability of this player to change the game lies on its identity. If it's strong he will have the desire to change the core of the game. If it gets assimilated  in the game then he won't have the desire. Yet we cannot know which one it will be. And there its dangers lie, and our fear of the unknown. One thing for sure the predictable other player should be supported at all costs.

* I must admit, I haven't studied much about game theory however in explaining unpredictability of a player one might ask for the terms used in this subdiscipline.

**Secret Note**

Change "it" and "the upredictable player" with Justice and Development Party and "game" with Republic of  Turkey, there you'll see today's portrait.

Of the many personalities that we have and the differentiation of thought and space

There are for sure many personalities one might possess, I can only think about two right now, as this is the part that I'd like to emphasize. These are individual and national personalities. I'd like to think that these two should be separated as a man should be understood separately from the nation he belongs to. This is not a denial to the existence of nation states that is but one of the many dimensions that defines our system today. However this is an effort to make one realize that a person is actually composed of many different persons. Especially when we're in an international realm, we are left with nothing but our national identities, which shows itself as the simplest labeling process. It is not an attempt to understand the person in front of you, but it is a very creation of a self relief by a differentiation, which tries to establish unequal grounds.

Especially by the impact of globalization a lot of academicians suggest that the idea of nationalism is fading away. In the higher grounds one might propose that it is so, as the new differentiation is not made by the nations, however they are created by the backgrounds one is from, that would be mostly about lifestyle and experience, for now we can simplify it as urban and rural. Obviously that would be which part of the urban or which part of the rural one is "from" (*). What is emphasized here is mostly that there might be two individuals living in the opposite sides of the Earth, and in terms of thinking they are the closest. That is obviously about a disembedding mechanism, which doesn't alter the space and time, but thought and space. If an example should be given to that; a 21 year old girl from Afghanistan living in a metropolitan coming from an educational background, which allows her to think critically; might listen the similar kind of music with a 22 year old guy who studies law at Oxford let's say. Therefore in this example thought and space are on different grounds regardless to what nation they belong to. (**) 

However in the lower grounds(***) how nationalism fades away is not totally discovered by most of the people. It would be amazing to many that example given above would actually exist. Still our national personality becomes dominant in our everyday conversations especially in an international stage. The idea that is suggested here is that human being is a complex creature and simplifying it would harm the relationships we have with our real individual personalities. Altering this is mostly about questioning the values that are given to us when we were experiencing our childhood, and realizing that the history we learned is not the real one, it is a reflection of the real one, which had been filtered by the nation state ideologies. 

*Of course by from, do we mean the place he lived most of his life or something different?

**Nation is obviously a broader concept which is unluckily locked in the territory of a nation state, and because it is so by space we mean the national territory one comes "from" (physically or ideally)

***Higher grounds would be what is real, as the lower grounds would be what is perceived by this reality.