Logological development

It is in and through language that man constitutes himself as a subject. Because language alone establishes the concept of ‘ego’ in reality, in its reality which is that of the being. (Emile Benveniste, 1971)

By Ylli Permeti

Whilst the economic crisis is a head in my mind is still the results of the previous analysis: Who gain and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power? As a result of my contemplation (that we are all loser) in the question above, there is certainly space to add a definition: loser is some one who loses some thing (tangible or intangible) that has acquired in his/her life generated by previous generation and by his/her own effort, i.e. economical, spiritual, ethical, traditional even the whole sense of human being. In this sense, ‘we’ are products of a ‘chain’ that it looks to be unbreakable. Out there, is sure, a huge gamma of issues that have to be in the first line of the discursive development that would help us to free our mind and to create a different society. But human being, is still self-chaotic and on this point I would share the Marx’s approach:


[M]en make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. (in McLellan, ed., 1977:300)


Alas, despite the fact that our brain is rational there is still irrationality. Our families, communities, states or federal states are still competitive, indiscursive, aggressive, warmongers, exploitive, miserable and over all our institutions are based on irrational instruments. These institutions try to establish a conscious unchallengeable, a conscious that derive from the common good instead of accepted by a group of people that play the role of the omnipresent. By nature, omnipresent is the free mind and free mind means free research and by its results changing our conception of our mind. Even today, we can easily understand the ancient tribal who tried to create some thing that Fernand Braudel would call, longue durrée. In his view "Civilization and Capitalism" (1955-79), Braude tried to establish a society that would resist against its enemies i.e. irrationalism. But, how can be changed a society in its institution to become rational? Where we can find the point of departure that would allow us to judge and share equality? Of course, by divine we cannot. The only mean we have is our mind. Then, let’s use it.


Let’s start then from our third question: is this development desirable? We have to think that development is not only economic, i.e. how to make more money but development in all its meaning, and its definition would be like this: Development is that think that gives to our mind making ‘free will’, and free will is the emergence of new qualities based on our mind, weighing our logic in free will. On an Aristotelian axiom this impression would be like this: what is good for my family, society and community etc., and what is bad. Marx would put this free will of ‘mind reproduction’ some think like this:


[T]he act of reproduction itself changes not only the objective conditions - e.g. transforming village into town, the wilderness into agricultural clearings, etc. - but the producers change with it, by the emergence of new qualities, by transforming and developing themselves in production, forming new powers and new conceptions, new modes of intercourse, new needs, new speech. (1964: 93)


How could one then, make free will in a society that is based in suppressed foundations? And what leads this society to be suppressed? Of course its course. Is unavoidable phenomenon being in this society and to be free of will, because this society is inherited by others that were suppressed of will. The past generation created irrational cities -- furthermore unsustainable and the result of this is: maintaining this kind of cities in free will -- is impossible. Cities, are too big to maintain life and keeping the same time the requirement balance between nature and cities. But why cities are so big? Why even today cities are bigger and bigger? There is just one reason: the commercial demand by the power. Imagine for a second a government without a big city or citizens. That government would be just non-existent. Governments need power hence citizens, tax and laws that govern the people. Bigger the city better for them. Is the same thing by driving a motorbike and a lorry. Of course a lorry is easier to drive. But why in the case of a family occurs the opposite? Why the demand for a family is to be smaller and smaller? There is again just one reason: family is governed by natural law whereas society is governed by human law. Imagine, having a big family with forty children and a family with four children. By having forty children, is impossible to show your love to each one in an equal level. But by having four children, you have the possibility to show if not in equal level at least in reasonable level -- your love. This game, goes the same even with your wives. We know that there are religious that foster the idea of having many women. How could one then, support the idea that this religion is based on rational thinking? Of course, she/he cannot. Again, the problem is not the individuals, societies or customs but the constructions of cities. Then, how would be a city for an ideal Aristotelian view? Furthermore, do cities need to be governed?


Aristotle argue that Politics is the characteristic activity of the polis, or City. What then, according to Aristotle, is a City? For Aristotle there is a clear definition:

1) The matter of the City is a particular group of human beings, separate from others, whom we call its citizens.

2) Its form is partnership in a way of life, under the regulation of laws which are directed toward justice.

3) Its power is need, for people first come together in Cities simply to live in mutual security.

4) Its end is the good, or perfection, of its members.


Where Aristotle is wrong and why? Or, why he’s right? Is that definition all we want? Is there anything else that we have to contemplate about? Of course, there is. Imagine, that at the time knowledge was possessed by a few people. Knowledge in the sense of epistemology i.e. how to observe and how to deduce from a study. Methodologies were poor. But there was sure a good eye of observation and a positive competition of mind among prudent people. Aristotle was right and appropriate according the time he lived, but time change and the time change the human being. Then, what is our definition of the city?

1) The family, all ethics that a family create by its nature, is pragmatic knowledge and is variable, context-dependent.

2) Its school, pragmatic knowledge, variable, context-dependent. Oriented toward production.

3) Its society, scientific knowledge. Universal, invariable, context-independent.


What then, cities lack today all around the world? Of course now is simple to see the development of the city: the first foundation is not part of our society. From our families we learn how to feed our selves; how to clean our selves; how to respect the member of the family; how to enjoy our birthdays; our gifts; our love toward our parents and the opposite; how to hear our grandfathers/mothers stories; how to respect the notion of family furthermore how to become this foundation the most Holy creature in the world. The reason is simple: whenever we go we need our family; after work we go there; after a visit to our relatives we go back to our family. Family is the first lesson and the last home we need for our life.


But, how to intertwine this foundation into the last two? Is it possible to create development taking into account our natural laws? Of course, there is. But, how? The way is logologic. Logology appears throughout our inventory of reflection, is that science that we call phronesis. Such a science is reflection of truth, is to show -- how to go from school to society. And the opposite. Today we live in a society that spend more money for the army than for our education (see bellow; worldwide expenditures on education are $741 billion). If the functionality of the polis was based on phronesis there would not be the necessity of creating enemies. Because phronesis is that part of our mind that leads us to weigh the possibilities of what is good and what is bad for our lives. In the next chapter is the most powerful discussion and we will contemplate on the last question of this essay: What, if anything, should we do about it?

Reflection on reflections...

Democratic contrivances are quarantine measures against that ancient plague, the lust for power: as such they are very necessary and very boring.
Friedrich Nietzsche

By Ylli Permeti


In the previous reflection I emphasized my deliberation in the mind and morality of the politicians. I took as example a superpower in the international scacchiera and a superpower in the regional periphery. America as we know, is a superpower, and Israel, is as well a superpower in its region. They give to each other power with the only aim to conquer the world. Some times by fighting and some times by helping. They ‘help’ other countries to democratize their established culture. America for instance, with the reliance of Britain has a way very successful to achieve its goal: destroy and democratize. This is simple to understand: first we show off our paradigm of the established democracy, second, we prepare our media to transmit this achievement to the demoi, third, we create some scholars from our knowledge and we put them on the top of those societies or we encourage them to become dissident of their culture and forth, they will be the future star of their society. This equation is well-known and these stars are our governments.

What I laid down in the previous text, was a fact of events i.e., interventions that both these countries continue to violate international law, which unfortunately has been created for the small powers, i.e. inferior countries. No politician today has been convicted for his/her actions, for his/her corrupt policies or incompetent planning and administration. No court has been created for their actions which violate every single right of natural law. On these tracks, some of the questions of the previous introduction -- remain unanswered. One of those is: Who gain and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power?


My first tool then, is the constitution of Britain, a country with long tradition and which try to transcend this tradition to other countries.

As we know from British established democracy, the state has a constitution, which has as principal to govern the state. By constitution, there are three powers: the legislature (parliament); the executive (the government) and the judiciary (judges). I’ll pose some simple questions on this track: if legislature is majoritarian how could one separate the two powers, i.e. legislature and executive which again is majoritarian, and by constitution are presumed to be separate powers? Judiciary as its name imply, is an institution constituting by judges and are by constitution the mentors of the reforms that parliament has in its disposition and they discusses these reforms and finally approve toward execution. How could one, then, can advocate that the three those powers are separate from each other? In my view, they are merely one power. Is merely a closed circle. These institution serve the interest of their power, furthermore, they intertwine in a manner that looks to be very unsuccessful to implement the notion of democracy. Democracy as its name imply, means governing the polity by its demotes, i.e. by its constitutive population. This form of pseudo-democracy rise too many questions and cannot implement this notion in its generic and organic nature. Finally, there is not in the rang of the government the implementation of logon didonai as Plato following Socrates tried to establish in the Athenian democracy, i.e. to give an account to others of what you are doing, the so called: transparency.

Now, the above power/government has an instrument to achieve its goal: money. The only instrument, that government has in its possession and can do whatever they think, about their policies, is the economy, i.e. fiscal policies. Their reforms are based on money which by its nature is false and create corruption. In this sense, citizens, are dependent on money. Without this instrument they cannot live. Then, citizens are results of corruption. On this track, arises the need of laws which try to control the money possessed by the population and to prevent crimes. How could one, then, control the population by using corruption, i.e. pseudo-economy. The core of capitalism is the exchange of goods, i.e. bread against service and so on. Pursuing this corollary, the education is pre-filtered by the time to time governments and this leads us to final result: development is the discretion of power, in its quantitive and qualitive rationality. How can then, one, preserve rationality by using wrong instrument? Of course, he/she cannot. It is impossible to produce positive knowledge in the way that governments are formed. Take, say, the money that governments are using to spend for their army: World wide military expenditures (see bollow) are more than $1100 billion in 2008. Why? Because the governments work under-mentality of war. They live in a continuous war between each other, because they compete each other, for one reason: to be more powerful than the others, i.e. co-human.


Don’t forget, the goal is profit not positive knowledge: profit is never taking into account values that human being inherit by its organic nature; by its family; culture or community. Human mind is constituted mainly by rational thinking than by profit. On this track: why we spend for army; is this decision made by our rational mind i.e. in the form of assemblies, by using our vote or our direct participation into taking such a decision? No! every single decision is made by others to our detriment. The ‘others’ are usually our representatives in the parliament. They think that they preserve their rationality when they are in power and do the good and their duty. But in reality, they don’t. They lose everything, even their values. This phenomenon is unavoidable. They cannot control their feelings when they are in power and they make mistakes. Fatal mistakes. Because even they are victims of the past knowledge/mistakes that is transmitted by one generation to the other. They are just in a ‘trap’ of their mind. Consequently, they cannot change this trap of their mind. And this corollary leads us to the fundamental conclusion: we are all loser. Even if one believes that he’s got wealth or opulence against the others. The only thing that unify all of us is common interest which is our earth and how to apply wisely our knowledge. But, to apply our knowledge in a better way we have to change our knowledge of democracy, we have to change the present regime, giving to it its natural capacity. Democracy can never be implemented in a global version: it is local and context-dependent. Because as Flyvbjerg pointed out: rationality is context-dependent and the more the power the less the rationality. In the next chapter we will discuss the thired question: Is this development desirable?

Politicians: their mind & their morality

The case of Israeli’s politicians and their ‘mind foundation’.

What we ought to do depends largely on what we ought to believe, and in all matters other than the basic needs of our nature our opinions govern our actions.
(Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1979:49)

By Ylli Përmeti

One of the questions that comes in our mind is: what politicians think about their actions? Furthermore, why they are so indifferent for the atrocities in the Middle East and elsewhere? What they think about their power that we give to them? Do they preserve their rationality when they are in power? With what and how they implement their policies? And finally, do we need them?

The questions above, reflects the social tensions which are manifested in the recent political crisis. Tensions that spreads either in domestic issues or in international issues. Citizens across the planet feel unsecured and without future. How then, can one explain the above diachronic questions? Being on this contextualization, I’ll borrow the fundamental questions by Bent Flyvbjerg who reasonably insist to explain the social sciences by using phronesis: (1) Where are we going with this politicians? (2) Who gain and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power? (3) Is this kind of development desirable? (4) What, if anything, should we do about it?

I'll try to witness some of the major investigations from the most prominient writers in foreign issues regarding the recent development in the Middle East.

[1]Jane Hunter wrote two decades ago on her book about Israeli’s Foreign Policy and detected the problems at the time: [F]or varying reasons, Israel was largely shut out of the Eastern Bloc, the Arab world and NATO countries. That left its potential clientele to be found on the peripheries: pariahs such as South Africa and Guatemala, the strong-man regimes of Taiwan, Zaire, and Chile, and the occasional government wary of strings-attached arms purchases from the superpowers (emphasis added).

The next paragraph reflects their dichotomy in their policies:

[A]s time went on an additional problem arose: arms sales became the motor driving of Israel's Foreign Policy. In times of economic crisis it became the supreme exigency. In September 1986, the Israeli defence minister explained to a press conference what was behind a raft of scandals involving Israeli arms exports and technology thefts (these last, most frequently from the U.S., have been an inevitable hallmark of a small country attempting to sustain a full-scale armaments industry). "...We cut our orders in our military industries..." he said, "and I told them quite frankly: 'Either you'll fire people or find export markets (emphasis added)."

As it is clear from the above paragraph the same ideology exist nowadays by the U.S. policies: [2]the Bush administration requested on February 2006, and Congress later approved, roughly $463 billion in funding for the Defence Department. That would be enough to spend in any high school in America to a four year college and to explore our knowledge in geoenerery/green energy. On the other hand, both these countries have created enemies just to keep the population in a continuously obscurantism. Exactly the same, is doing Berisha’s government in Albania: their enemy is corruption. Who, then, create the corruption in this country? Who else, government planning. Is the same mindness gubernatorial consultation in every government that underestimate the notion of polity its self. They will create enemies all the time for the reason that , they have to keep the population under control in a total repression.

Back to Israel: [3]Noam Chomsky in his book, Interventions --point out that the problem is not the Palestine but the will of U.S. since, United States impede the progression of the conflict. As it looks, the opportunity was lost at the time (1973) and Chomsky quotes:

…[U].N Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) added a provision for a Palestinian state in occupied territories, which Israel would evacuate. But the U.S. has unilaterally blocked that resolution for the last thirty years (emphasis added). [4] Then, do Israel (with the supporting of Bush's administration) feel threat as they pretend in their commitment to the war? Thus, their plan goes beyond threats: Iran commitment to the war. They need Iran to 'bite the bait', and after that using their weapons. This view might look iconoclastic but is the most relevant view (!). Their mind is full in excretion. They’re doing just what they call free market: big corporation that serve the interest of big bosses. For them, the way of neolebaralism is the only way that have to be teached to the demoi. Then, the first question is already answered: with these policies we are going undoubtedly from bad to worse.

Furthermore, just to strengthen the above argument -- whilst the war continue in the Middle East there are efforts to ease the situation: [5]The U.N. Security Council has approved a resolution by a 14-0 vote, with the United States abstaining. The resolution "stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza."

And U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: the U.S. "fully supports" the resolution but abstained "to see the outcomes of the Egyptian mediation" with Israel and Hamas, also aimed at achieving a cease-fire. This action is called in an international jargon derogating from the fundamental rights of human being and leads us to the conclusion of a zero sum game.

Wilst the European leaders support the immediate cease-fire the American policy DO NOT [...] Rousseau would put this moral fluxion as: Tous est dans un flux continuel sur la terre, i.e. everything is in constant flux on this earth (1969: 88).

In the next analysis I’ll emphasise my deliberation on the second question, i.e. Who gain and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power?

[1] Israeli Foreign Policy by Jane Hunter South End Press, 1987
[2] Here's What America Really Spends on Security by Christopher Hellman Published on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 by MinutemanMedia.org.
[3] The rules of disengagement in Israel-Palestine May 10, 2004 Interventions.
[4] Why Israel feels threatened By Benny Morris Published: December 30, 2008 New York Times. [5]Israeli government says Gaza offensive to continue Associated Press on o9 Juanuary.