Never meeting in the Middle

G'day mates,

Here I am in the West looking East - and at the same time those in the East look West. It seems this is the nature of things all over the globe. Today's news is no different.

What do you all think of the Israeli withdrawl from Gaza? Should they, would you, if you were them - any of them what would you be hoping for next, could you - would you - should you trust your neighbors - friends - allies - enemies? These are the perennial quesitons we get to see enacted by looking to the Middle, neither West nor East as they are traditionally thought about in geopolitical terms the Middle East has a long, long history of being a bed of controversy and conflict. What is it about this land that breeds such intense relations between people?

On the world stage the Middle East has been referred to as "the cradle of civilization" as well as a "hot-bed of conflict" usually in the same report. This is a perfect laboratory for the study of social ontology, be it historical or immediate. For instance one of my fascinations has been Alexander the Great and his crusades into Persia to the borders of India. A review of the "Alexandrias" spread about the Middle East give proof to his influence in the region. Yet what was it that called to him in his endless, restless desire to conquer to go south and east from Greece (Macedonia to be more precise)? Why not north and west? To some extent it is the simplest of things - what we now call the Middle East was the richest area in the world that surrounded him.

It was the richest in terms of material wealth, but also in terms of learning, civilization, education, politics, government. He became "civilized" as he conquered and occupied the Middle East. This is the quality that drew him forth from his homeland to die in the midst of his adopted countryland. The desire to be "civilized" in a way that was unknown or possible in his birthplace was beckoning to him from the vastness of the Middle East - Persia, Egypt ... and there he became a god!

So now what do the players in the Middle East most desire? Do they wish to play god or placate their gods? What do they see when they look into the eyes of others who call their god by a different name? Do they see the god in themselvees reflected or the devil in disguise? These are the stories that are played out on the stage of social ontology ... the creation of the reality that doesn't exist.

There are no Israelis as there are no Palestinians - except by agreement to call these people such and for them to call themselves such. And the drive to be this and not that is so strong, so prevalant in the way of things human that many will die for the right to be called this and not that. It's interesting to me that these things can and do occur - and have since the dawn of humantime. That people born into a structure, something called a culture, defined by "family" and "clan" then "tribe" and "people" forming "country" and "culture' begin to differentiate themselves so much so by agreement that the agreement becomes "real" to them as though it's "Real" for them.

This is just the example of course and I've already agreed not to go metaphysical on you. So I'm not proposing not opposing the idea that G-d may have in fact chosen these people and named them - or that one set of people are those of G-d and the other is not. Yet at the geopolitical level this is not necessary to the discussion. The Jews to their credit have never proposed to be people of peace - which of course unto itself may not be a thing to be credited for being. But, the lunacy of any people of the world claiming to be from a "peaceful people" when there's so much evidence to the contrary is amazing.

What may be true is that at a moment in time it becomes fashionable to agree not to do harm unto others. Taking that from being a fashionable thing to "say" and making it the thing that you "do" is another thing entirely. Yet what's at the base of this thing is the movement from one to the other. From the declaration to the action.

So I've opened some ideas for your consideration and I'd love some feedback. Where I'd like to go from here will be to discuss the different forms of going from thought to action and thought in action, as opposed to inaction. And I'll suggest at the outset that a component of power is the language that is used to form the impetus to action that precedes it.

Best regards and hopes for peace - for a change,

Joseph