Goethe on Iran - گوته درباره ایران

زمانی که ما به مردمی صلح طلب و متمدن ، پارس ها ، می نگریم ، باید (چون شعرهای آن ها بوده که انگیزه این کتاب را فراهم کرده) به کهن ترین زمان ها برگردیم تا بتوانیم وضع آن ها را در زمان های اخیر درک کنیم همیشه به نظر یک تاریخدان این شگفت انگیز می نماید که هرچند بارکه یک کشور مورد حمله ، اشغال و حتی نابودی از طرف دشمنانش قرار بگیرد همواره یک هسته مرکزی ملی در درون شخصیتش حفظ شده است که در مدت زمان کوتاهی پس از نابودی و اشغالش دوباره خودش را نشان می دهد و ما میتوانیم دوباره یک پدیده آشنای درازمدت و باستانی را ببینیم. گوته

When we now turn our attention to a peaceful, civilized people, the Persians, we must - since it was actually their poetry that inspired this work - go back to the earliest period to be able to understand more recent times. It will always seem strange to the historian that no matter how many times a country has been conquered and subjugated and even destroyed by enemies, there is always a certain national core preserved in its character and before you know it, there re-emerges a long familiar native phenomenon. -- Goethe, Noten and Abhandlungen zu besserem Verstandnis

محمد مصدق

Plutarch talks about Artaxerxes II, پلوتارک از اردشیر دوم می گوید

از کتاب پارسیان باستان نوشته جوزف فرانهوفر برگردان به انگلیسی از آلمانی از عزیزه آزادی

Ancient Persia, Joseph Wiesehofer, I.B. Tauris, (2001) page 39.

پلوتارک در زندگینامه ای که از اردشیر دوم پادشاه هخامنشی نوشته مینویسد

این داستان نیز در پارس روی داد. گفته شده که یک پارسی بنام سینات به شاه اردشیر دوم در مکانی بسیار دور تر از بارگاه شاه برخورد کرد. او از این برخورد بسیار شرمنده شد و از ترس قانون و به خاطر احترام به شاه بسیار نگران گشت چون در آن لحظه نمیدانست چه کند چرا که او هدیه و پیشکشی در خور شاه نداشت و نمیخواست از پارسیان دیگر کمتر باشد و آبرویش پیش دیگران بریزد. او آغاز به دویدن کرد و تا آنجایی که میتوانست به تندی خود را به رودی در نزدیکی آنجا که نامش کوروش بود رساند. سپس خم شد و با دو دست خود از آب رودخانه برداشت و رو به شاه کرده گفت: « شاه اردشیر ، فرمانروایی تو جاودان باد ، در این آن ، من تو را گرامی می دارم به بهترین توانم ، با آب رودخانه کوروش ، من گرامیداشت خودم را به تو نشان میدهم ، پس بدون یک پیشکش گران از پیش من برو؛ اما زمانی که به اردوی خود رسیدی من تو را با بهترین چیزی که در خانه خود دارم گرامی خواهم داشت و من البته به هیچ روی از کسان دیگری که تو را با پیشکش های خود گرامی داشته اند کمتر نخواهم بود» زمانی که پادشاه به اردوگاه خود میرسد برای آن پارسی یک جامه پارسی ، یک جام زرین ، و هزار دریک می فرستد و به پیک میگوید که به آن پارسی این پیام را برساند «پادشاه میخواهد که تو از داشتن این جام زرین بهره مند شوی و از داشتن این خشنود گردی ، چرا که تو پادشاه را با این کار خود که نخواستی شاه بدون پیشکش و دست تهی برگردد ، خشنود کردی و به پادشاه بهترین چیزی که در آن لحظه در توانت بود
پیشکش کردی. این خواست پادشاه هست که تو با این جام زرین از همان آب که به پادشاه پیشکش کردی برداری و بنوشی»ی

Isa 41:2-4

Thus says Yahweh to his anointed, Cyrus whom he has taken by his right hand to subdue nations before him and strip the loins of kings, to force gateways before him that their gates be closed no more:

پس یهوه به کوروش ، برگزیده اش که او را با دست راست خود برانگیخته بود تا بر ملت ها برتری یابد ، و کمر شاهان را بشکند و دروازه ها را در پیش او بگشاید تا هیچ دری بروی او بسته نباشد گفت

I will go before you the leveling their heights. I will shatter the bronze gateways, smash iron bars. I will give you the hidden treasures, the secret hoards, that you may know that I am Yahweh.

من پیشاپیش تو میروم و بلندی های آن ها را هموار میکنم ، من دروازه های برنجی آن ها را در هم میشکنم ، من میله های آهنین را خرد می کنم. من به تو گنجینه های پنهان را نشان می دهم تا بدانی و باور کنی که من یهوه هستم

My Freedom, Your Freedom, Our Freedom

Who could argue against Freedom? It is such a beautiful concept and every one wants more of it.
That's usually where the problem starts to show itself.

People have discussed this in various contexts, mostly economic and social stuff.

I like to make some remarks about what it means in societies where a certain or several religions are being devoutly practiced to various degrees.

Consider Iran, always a religious country since thousands of years ago. In the pre-Islamic revolutionary times, I hear that, people were relatively free. A large fraction of people were practicing religion. A quite considerable fraction were not. The society especially in Tehran, was quite similar to European cities.

The Revolution was mostly about democracy and social justice, and political independence from west. As far as you can study the currents of the day and the slogans and speeches, no body was crying loud about the signs of religious depravity. Well there were some but it wasn't the main theme of the revolution.

So the question is, What was the opinion of Iranians about how much Islamic they want their society to be ?

well, we don't know, we know that a significant fraction of people truly did not like the overt exhibition of un-islamic behavior. Now how significant I do not know, but it definitely was and still is significant.

Here a question of freedom naturally arises. The question is to achieve a semi-ideal situation what needs to be done ?

We have two groups inside the society. One group is obviously bothered by a woman walking around in her mini-skirt, the other group is obviously bothered by having to wear the islamic hejab all the time. One group is bothered by having bars and night clubs, the other group wouldn't mind having a couple of them around.

I am talking about genuine grievances. I can understand that a religious person would see a rising tide of anti-religious behavior as an assault on his way of life.
I can also understand that imposing religious life style on a person who doesn't believe in it, would most certainly cause undue discomfort.

Obviously we can't solve this problem by totally ignoring one group to the advantage of another. It's unjust, all members of a humane society are entitled to pursue their own way of life, as long as it does not cause harm and injury to another.

Each group uses Freedom as an argument in its righteousness. Sure, you would say, the person who doesn't believe that a certain behavior is wrong, and that behavior is not harming himself or herself or any one else, should be free to engage in that behavior. On the other hands, the other group claims to be offended and harmed by the behavior of the former group.

So what needs to be done ?

I have thought about this conundrum. The best solution I can think of, is to bring the two group together, and make them understand that both have to give up something.

The religious side can no longer ignore the basic humane freedoms. The non-religuous side can not ignore that certain behaviors would irritate the religious. Both have to give up some of what they want.

How much they should give up can only be resolved if the two groups, sit together and discuss, and negotiate.

A social contract would surely emerge, It could be something pretty innocuous that would not offend and inflame the average tendencies of either group, and allow each one to have a modicum of basic freedoms to which their believes is considered rational, normal and acceptable by vast majority of reasonable people.

The most important thing is that people's reasonable sensitivities should be respected to within rational and reasonable norms and extents. People's beliefs and feelings should never be exploited to amass power, authority and/or wealth.

Freedom is precious, but so is justice. We can find a balance. We have to. for the sake of the future generations.

تحول «نافرجام» موسيقي ايران زمين

اين عکس فرضيه بنده رو توضيح ميدهد که اگر سازهاي موسيقي ايران بيشتر رشد و توسعه پيدا ميکردند به سازهايي شبيه همتاهاي باختري خود تبديل ميشدند . به ويژه شکل ابتدايي تمام سازهاي يک ارکستر سمفوني در تمدن هاي خاور نزديک وجود داشته پرسش من اين هست چرا کسي به فکر تنظيم آهنگ براي ۳۰ کمانچه يا بيشتر نيافتاد ؟ يا کسي به اين فکر نيافتاد که با بيشتر از دو چکش و بکاربردن هر ده انگشت براي نواختن آنها سنتور آهنگ هاي بيشتر و پر محتوا تري را مي تواند بنوازد؟
توضيح : نگارنده این جمله ها کارشناس موسیقی نیست این ها تنها برآمده از کنجکاوي نگارنده هست

The Importance of Language

There are certain concepts that are enormously and startlingly important, but no one seems to pay attention.
One of those things is language. And by language I don't mean french or dutch, although human natural languages can be included but what I mean when I say language is any arrangement of other primitive concepts that would enable you to communicate another concept and draw conclusions.

For example, numbers, difference civilizations adopted different ways to express numbers.
But only one of these "languages" prove to be powerful enough to meet the needs of humanity.

Sure you can express numbers by Roman Numerals, or by Indian Numerals, Let's consider Roman Numerals, since, we have been told Romans had such a great "empire".

Try to multiply two Roman numerals, say MCMIIX, MMCXV, , the rules of a the game is you can not use any thing but Roman numerals to carry out the calculation.

It's very difficult to carry out this task.

Now let's do the same thing using Indian Numerals, (Notice, there is no such a thing as Arabic Numerals, Indians came up with it, and Iranians communicated it and expanded on it)

The rules are straight forward, and there are even ways to do speed calculations.

Another example, find the root of a quadratic equation, two languages, Algorithmic, and Algebraic. Needless to say, Algebraic formula is much more powerful, its power is revealed when you consider how you can simplify it, how you can use it to find sum and product of the roots.

While the Algebraic language is more powerful in expressing simple functional dependencies, there are other areas that it reveals its limitations. Suppose you want to explain the intricacies of chaotic systems, cellular automata, game of life or things of that nature. The Algebraic language falls short and the Algorithmic language shows its strength and flexibility.

Is there another language there ready to be discovered ? We look at the nature around us, and we see things, and we understand its beauty and universality but we can't find, express or use the universal principle behind them. Machine vision provides examples, so does the field of human natural languages.

There might be a new language needed to describe non-locality, the entire mathematics is based on the principle of locality. That what happens here and now, only depends on what is happening at that point or in some point in the past and some far place.

Do we need a new language to describe things that happen simultaneously and quite possibly affect each other at the same time ?

Some of our most difficult problems of science and technology could be simply hard to solve, because we are using an incorrect language to describe or to approach them. Just like we are trying to multiply two numbers that are described with Roman Numerals, rather than properly by Indian-Iranian numerals.

Mathematics is described by symbols, and by relations between those symbols. Is this the right language for every thing ? Is it possible to describe Mathematics by a totally different language ?
Could that language accelerate understanding and reasoning, concluding and producing new concepts, faster, easier and deeper ?

How about organization of ideas ? Is there a new language that allows you to describe the "totality of this situation" without attempting to look at parts to combine and get the "whole" ?

به ایرانیان زار وگریان شدم

وبلاگ های ایرانیان را که می خوانی دلت ریش ریش میشود. یک ژرفایی دارد اندوه انگیز.

دل من پر از خون شد و روی زرد
دهن خشک و لبها شده لاژورد

آنها که این سوی آب هستند . وبلاگ هایشان پر از اندوه دوری از میهن مادری هست و خاطره هایشان از آن میهن و مقایسه ها یشان میان این جا و آن جا و می نالند از این که میهن شان می تواند به این جا برسد و نمی رسد

کز نیستان تا مرا ببریده اند
از نفیرم مرد و زن نالیده اند

و آنهایی که در میهن خود نشسته اند
همه سرگردانند و همه نالان. مشتی هستند در آب فتاده ، هر یکی بر دیگری آویخته تا از پایین کشیدن او خود را به کرانه رهایی برساند
و نمیرسد چون کس دیگری نیز بر او می آویزد

زندگی شان به بیهودگی میگذرد و این را می بینند و درمی یابند و از این دانستن می سوزند و با این می سازند. از دورویی و از دروغ به ستوه آمده اند و برخی از آنها برای آنکه نانی بخورند جز دروغ و دورویی راهی برای خود نمی یابند و به آن تن در داده اند و از این هم در در رنجند

پیشرفت های دیگران را که می بینند در درون می سوزند و پسرفت های جامعه خود را که می بینند نمک به زخمهایشان پاشیده میشود
همه یک چیز را می خواهند همه یک آهنگ میخوانند ، همه یک مقصد دارند و با این همه از همکاری و هم اندیشی ناتوانند

ترس ، دودلی ، ناچاری ، بی چیزی ، بی اعتمادی ، نابکاری ، پستی ، بیهودگی ، پوچی همه را گرفته و همه را می رنجاند
مینای همه واژه ها دگر شده - دانشجو ، دانشمند ، سیاستمدار ، کارگردان ، کارگر ، اوباش ، اراذل ، مذهب ، دین ، فداکاری ، دلیری ، سادگی ، زرنگی ، دارایی ، نداری ، ندانم کاری ، مهارت ، تاریخ ، جغرافیا

بد ، خوب شده ، خوب بد همه چیز واژگون شده و وارونه

ستم دیده ، ستم کار شده و ستم کار ستم دیده

یا ناامید از فردا هستند یا امیدوار به دیروز . یا دلخوش از گذشته ، یا هراسان از آینده

به کجا چنین شتابان ؟

ترسم نرسی به کعبه ای ایرانی

تو پری بودی و پردیس برین جایت بود
پس چه کسی آوردت به این خراب آباد ؟

Re-enforcing Rigidity

Suppose there are two points of view, Opposite each other. You can take your pick. More government intervention in the economy, Less government intervention in the economy. More personal freedom, Less personal freedom. More consumption less consumption. etc. etc.

When the discussion is framed under a one dimensional basis, and the only thing that is being considered is less or more of something, A strange thing happens.

Two groups, one asking for more and one for less (or more of the opposite) forget the reason behind why they want any of it at all. The extent to which the scale is pushed toward each end, becomes a winning score. At that point, the two groups no longer think or care about the underlying effect, all that matters is to get the upper hand.

Suppose one group wins and an equilibrium emerges, in which for the time being each group is satisfied with its share. Suppose the ideal situation for one is 100, and that's the worst situation for the opposite group say, being 0. Suppose a status of equilibrium has been achieved in which one group has settled on 70% of what he wants, and the other group is happy with 30%.

The plot now thickens !!!

The group that already has the upper hand, after a while forgets the struggle through which it achieved the 70% ration, and says to itself, now that we are only 30% away from complete victory why not go further.

The mere fact that they have gotten the higher hand, re-enforces their belief in their righteousness and they become more rigid and more entrenched. It then becomes harder to convince them that they have to accept the status quo or even give up a little bit.

This dynamic is at work in the US now and in many other places. In the US, the right managed to push the scale in its own favor, having abolished high marginal taxes on the upper bracket and bringing the high earner tax to its lowest level since WWII, they are re-strengthened in their belief and want to shift more of the tax burden to low income groups.

In Iran, after the conservative groups pushed through a major victory in 1979, imposing a massive conservative agenda, they have now gone back to the drawing board, pushing for more of the same. The minute amount of freedom observable in the society has become even less intolerable than the high level of freedom, they were content to live with before.

what was acceptable in the 1960s, and 1970s, has impossible, and what's available now, has become intolerable.

It must be understood, that at this point, it does not matter if higher taxes is good for the economy or not, or if more rigidity is good for the country or not. It does not matter how many women are allowed to participate, or how many women are allowed to show what fraction of their hairs. Any number bigger than zero is considered a loss, a give away to your competitors, a surrender to the enemy. Thus a minuscule amount of move to left, on the count of Obama, makes him Hitler. A tiny amount of smile and a tad bit of make up on TV, turns the entire TV into a whorehouse of lust and intolerable sin.

The bloodhounds are barking and they want total victory for themselves and total defeat for their enemies. NO the rich should never be bothered with taxes or any regulation whatsoever. NO the women should live in rooms with no window all day long. NO, they should never come in any proximity of another man, old or young.

This is not about an ideology, it's not about an economic or social doctrine. This is not about the future of country, or the society, this is not about God, or heaven or hell.

This is about winning and loosing. One group wants to win and have every thing and force complete and utter defeat on its opponents.

Any thing less than that, is unacceptable and any cost to achieve this victory is worth it.

The Selfishness Trap

When you look at societies and nations, you can see patterns. You can see that certain nations rise to greatness in a short time. Certain nations stagnate for centuries. One can ask oneself, what are the circumstances under which a nation rises and another keeps spinning its wheels going nowhere ?

One thing that one notices is that, in the nations that rise to greatness, there is a sense of togetherness, there is a sense of sacrifice. People let go of their selfish, near terms needs and wants, and do things not for themselves only, but for the good of country. They may not brag about it. They may even complain of the hardship. Nevertheless, at the core of their progress is this collective sense that we are all in this together.

In the nations that work and work and can't seem to make any progress, you can see, every body is struggling to get his own share. Every one is trying for himself it is always about me. "my job", "my son", "my money".

These nations are trapped in their own selfishness. They remain incapable of group and collaborative work. Every one says, "You want ME to work, so that HE benefits" "You want me to PAY, so that HE gets to eat" "Why do I have to do this? Let somebody else do the hard part" "Don't make ME pay for HIS well being !! "

And when the selfish and un-sympathetic people combine their lack of sympathy with aggresiveness more often than not they get to control the levers of power in the government. When that happens this country falls deeper and deeper, into the selfishness trap.
The government is the place for people who care for their country and their nation.

Under no circumstances, a person who does not care for his or her people should get any where near any position of power and authority in the government apparatus. Such people would destroy every thing and every one. Both long term and short term future of a country is at great peril when the upper echelon of the government of that nation is occupied by selfishness, greed and ignorance.

Extreme selfishness is contagious. When one person sees that another person has gotten ahead by trying to look after his or her own interest to the exclusion of others, that person decides to forget about any cooperation and to take care of his own interest.

So what to do ? How do we get out of this trap ?

It is incumbent on selfless people to take on this challenge. They must find each other and learn to trust each other. The government and the education system must be first and foremost cleansed and purified. The education system is of great importance.

Unfortunately when selfishness is widespread and chronic, families learn to teach selfishness to their children. That's when the future generation is contaminated. That's where education comes in.

Pupils must be thought, that this is a ship. We are all in this together. If I take care of you, and you take care of me, we will all benefit, we will all be better off. If I help you realize your idea and your dream, and you return the favor by helping me, we will all realize our dreams. Selfish behavior must be punished, selfless sacrifice must be rewarded. Individuals can be praised for their talents, BUT they should not be promoted to the level of heroism and divinity.

These must not be slogans, the society must internalize them. This will take a while, but it's necessary.

Also, we have to notice that our planet is actually a space ship. In addition there is no shore and no life boat. If we the inhabitants of this ship make it uninhabitable, there is no place to go. Currently It seems that the entire planet is in selfishness trap.
The developed countries are moving their polluting industries to the poor countries, the poor countries trying to raise money for their impoverished nations can't get enough of these industries. Every one is trying to have it all, and no one is prepared to give up on even the slight amount of convenience.

This problem will not be solved only through educating the public. The entire socio-economic order must change. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, a system that considers amassing material wealth at all costs, a virtue, even praiseworthy, will destroy itself in time. The technological underpinning of this economic system must change radically.

Nevertheless if your scope is a country and its people, the goal of creating a nation with solidarity, justice, improved well being and hopeful future, is feasible.

This goal is worth living for. It is even worth dying for. at least, I think so.