0/0

إنّي أرى موتي إيابًا مِن سَفَر يَظفَر باغي الموتِ لا باغي الظَفَر ورُبَّ مغلوبٍ إذا ما ماتَ انتصَر

— الحشاشين

— I Am Not Angry! (عصبانى نيستم)

In Syria, until 2011 many communities lived side by side in the towns, cities and countryside, but there were still distinct areas in which a particular group dominated. As in Iraq, locals would always tell you, ‘We are one people, there are no divisions between us.’ However, as in Iraq, your name, place of birth or place of habitation usually meant your background could be easily identified, and, as in Iraq, it didn’t take much to pull the one people apart into many.

Many analysts say that only a strong man could unite these three areas into one country, and Iraq had one strong man after another. But in reality the people were never unified, they were only frozen with fear. In the one place which the dictators could not see, people’s minds, few bought into the propaganda of the state

As rulers of the Ottoman Empire the Turks saw a rugged, mountainous area dominated by Kurds, then, as the mountains fell away into the flatlands leading towards Baghdad, and west to what is now Syria, they saw a place where the majority of people were Sunni Arabs. Finally, after the two great rivers the Tigris and the Euphrates merged and ran down to the Shatt al-Arab waterway, the marshlands and the city of Basra, they saw more Arabs, most of whom were Shia. They ruled this space accordingly, dividing it into three administrative regions: Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. In antiquity, the regions very roughly corresponding to the above were known as Assyria, Babylonia and Sumer. When the Persians controlled the space they divided it in a similar way, as did Alexander the Great, and later the Umayyad Empire. The British looked at the same area and divided the three into one, a logical impossibility Christians can resolve through the Holy Trinity, but which in Iraq has resulted in an unholy mess.

.

How many there are who still conclude: "life could not be endured if there were no God!" (or, as it is put among the idealists: "life could not be endured if its foundation lacked an ethical significance!") — therefore there must be a God (or existence must have an ethical significance)! The truth, however, is merely that he who is accustomed to these notions does not desire a life without them: that these notions may therefore be necessary to him and for his preservation — but what presumption it is to decree that whatever is necessary for my preservation must actually exist! As if my preservation were something necessary!  — Daybreak, by Friedrich Nietzsche

Bot: السلام عليكم عادي تدعمون قناتي لبيع الكُتب؟ @mareambook وشكراً ❤️❤️

So works of art are not photocopies; they involve deliberate hyperbole and distortion of reality. But you can’t just randomly distort an image and call it art (although, here in La Jolla, California, many do). The question is, what types of distortion are effective? Are there any rules that the artist deploys, either consciously or unconsciously, to change the image in a systematic way? And if so, how universal are these rules?

For example, the bronze sculpture of Parvati, which dates back to the twelfth century A.D., is regarded in India as the very epitome of feminine sensuality, grace, poise, dignity, and charm—indeed, of all that is feminine. Yet when the Englishmen looked at this and other similar sculptures, they complained that it wasn’t art because the sculptures didn’t resemble real women. The breasts and hips were too big, the waist too narrow. Similarly, they pointed out that the miniature paintings of the Mogul or Rajasthani school often lacked the perspective found in natural scenes. In making these criticisms they were, of course, unconsciously comparing ancient Indian art with the ideals of Western art, especially classical Greek and Renaissance art in which realism is emphasized. But if art is about realism, why even create the images? Why not just walk around looking at things around you? Most people recognize that the purpose of art is not to create a realistic replica of something but the exact opposite: It is to deliberately distort, exaggerate—even transcend—realism in order to achieve certain pleasing (and sometimes disturbing) effects in the viewer. And the more effectively you do this, the bigger the aesthetic jolt.

Sculpture of the Hindu goddess Parvati, from the 12th century.

A politician first conceives an agenda or an objective, then he or she rationalizes it and makes it sound as if it is being implemented for the benefit of the people. It's not a feature of Iraqi politics, but of politics as such.

Politics is the art of after-the-fact* rationalization. *Latin: post-hoc

.

It's up to brave hearts, sir, to be patient when things are going badly, as well as being happy when they're going well.. For I've heard that what they call fortune is a flighty woman who drinks too much, and, what's more, she's blind, so she can't see what she's doing, and she doesn't know who she's knocking over or who she's raising up.