One of the most interesting attributes of complex systems is the way they leverage noise and error. Our engineering tradition -- of which I am a part -- has fetishized precision, accuracy and correctness (which are all slightly different things), and thus stigmatized imprecision, noise and error. However, in complex, adaptive, growing and evolving systems, these nemeses of good engineering are a source of strength. Indeed, nothing illustrates the limitations of conventional engineering and explains its inability to produce truly useful complex adaptive systems (e.g., intelligent robots) better than this issue.
I will be writing much more on this in the future, but, thanks to the wonderful 3QuarksDaily blog, I happened to come upon a very nice article that gives insight into one aspect of the issue: The benefits of imprecision. The article focuses mainly on the precision and imprecision of computers, but the point applies much more broadly. Many things that we do require only low precision and have many "right" answers. And when we try to replicate them in artificial systems, e.g., getting computers to see or getting robots to act, we spend far too much on needless precision or correctness.
Consider the simple act of taking a sip from your grande cinnamon spice caramel cranberry cucumber honey chai latte. You can pick it up with either hand (or both), grip it high or low, with thumb and one finger or two, three or four, bring it to your mouth straight up, with a rightwad curve, leftward curve or any fancier trajectory of your choice, and as long as some part of the rim of the cup ends up at an appropriate part of your mouth, you'll be able to enjoy your fix. From a purely engineering point of view, implementing all this in a robot presents serious problems. First of all, there is no "right" answer, which means that the poor engineers don't know what they are looking for -- oh, the horror! Second, even if one could arbitrarily define a "right" answer (e.g., shortest path, fewest joints involved, precise middle of the lower lip target, etc.), coming up with the right control signals to get exactly the right joint movements is a monumental task. And the robot one gets after all that is doomed to drink all its lattes with the same stereotypical action.
But what if engineers welcomed the allowance for imprecision as an opportunity rather than seeing it as an impediment? After all, the second difficulty -- achieving precise control to get a desired action -- was created by trying to resolve the first difficulty -- having too many options. If the latter is no longer regarded as a difficulty at all, the second difficulty is greatly mitigated by allowing for a "sloppier" controller with less precision. As the linked article shows, this can reduce the cost of the resulting system dramatically with no real loss of performance. Why isn't this always done?
The root of the problem is that engineers insist on precision, control, predictability and efficiency. The engineering paradigm is based on these attributes (and a few others - I have written about it elsewhere). The reasons they want an optimal trajectory for the robot's arm are: a) So they know exactly what control signals to apply; b) can tell whether the robot is behaving correctly; c) correct it if it is not; d) measure its performance; and e) ensure that resources are being used efficiemtly. From the robot's viewpoint, none of these is especially important; all it cares about is enjoying its latte at not too high a cost in energy. A much simpler, less precise controller could achieve that, though the result would probably not be "optimal" and might vary from trial to trial -- just as in humans! The extra precision being required -- at great cost in terms of design difficulty and expense -- is to satisfy the gods of engineering, not to meet the actual goal.
Of course, this doesn't mean that solving the less precise engineering problem is easy, but one reason it isn't easy is that all the tools of engineering are geared towards optimization. The great Herb Simon observed a long time ago that intelligent systems do not optimize, they just "satisfice," i.e., find solutions that work "well enough." Satisficing is a lot cheaper than optimizing, but requires judgment rather than blind rules. With optimization, we can measure how far a system is from the optimum and use this knowledge systematically to improve it, i.e., just use an algorithm from the engineering toolkit. Discovering satisfactory solutions, in contrast, often requires trial-and-error, exploration, and deciding when things are acceptable -- and therein lies the problem. There are (so far) no universally applicable canonical paradigms for satisficing because it is, by definition, a messy process with uncertain goals.
One important point to remember here is that it isn't imprecision per se that is good (or harmless), but the judicious use of imprecision. Some things do need to be precise while others less so. Appropriate allocation of precision can be the difference between success and failure, or even life and death. Since we seldom have generic rules for deciding how and where to be imprecise, engineering practice has been to play it safe and always seek the maximum possible precision everywhere. Over time, this has become a fundamental part of the engineering ethos, and has led to the pursuit of precision as an end in itself -- often at great cost.
However, if one looks at living organisms -- which, we all agree, are marvels far beyond our engineering capabilities -- we see that imprecision is not only prevalent, but is actively exploited to great benefit. Imprecision is, in fact, a primary driver of evolution and adaptation in organisms. It is genetic "errors" that, when beneficial, lead to fitter organisms; and it is cognitive/behavioral "errors" (i.e., mistakes) that, when productive, lead to learning. The strategies that organisms have evolved to exploit such errors while avoiding their dangers are among the most useful lessons we can learn from life as we try to build new complex systems (e.g., intelligent robots) or manage existing ones (e.g., financial markets, social networks, economies, etc.) Systems that have been engineered to squeeze out all possibility for error are systems incapable of growth.
More to come on this.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
A Piece of History - I
History - ostensibly a simple reportage of fact - is the source of endless mystery, fascination and dispute. It shapes both individuals and societies in ways that are often beyond understanding, and ignorance of history, in one way or another, lies at the root of most problems that beset humankind. For the amateur student of history, the most accessible artifacts of vanished ages are coins - pieces of gold, silver, copper or bronze that have travelled across centuries bearing pictures of bygone kings and queens, inscriptions in dead languages, and marks of ancient events. Fascinated by the possibility of exploring history in this way, I have been collecting ancient coins for several years, focusing mainly on South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and the Mediterranean. In other words, coins from lands that were variously ruled by Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs, Indians, Turks and Mongols, Many of the coins that I have collected come from very interesting periods, and I will occasionally use these coins as a pretext to write about the events from those times. This is the first of such posts.
The coin I will discuss today comes from the seventh century CE from a time of great conflict: The second fitnah of Islamic history. It is a beautiful silver coin in remarkably good condition, as shown below.
The obverse (left) shows a bust of the Sassanian king, Khusro II, known as Parviz (the Victorious), who ruled a large empire from the deserts of Sind to Egypt and Anatolia over a 38 year reign (590 - 628 CE) (click here and here for details). The reverse (right) shows a Zoroastrian fire altar flanked by highly stylized Magian priests. Both sides follow the standard pattern used for Sassanian coins for most of the empire's duration. In addition to the main figures, the coins are replete with astral and earthly symbols - crescents, stars, the winged crown, the border of pearls, etc., all of which had specific meaning in the Sassanian culture. Most interestingly, the coin carries inscriptions in two scripts - Pahlavi and Arabic. The Pahlavi inscription is found both in front of the king's face and behind his head, as well as on either side of the fire altar, while the Arabic inscription is a "bism illah" (in the name of Allah) in the margin on the obverse side. What could possibly have prompted such a strange assembly of items on this coin? The answer comes to us from history.
Among the most interesting, consequential and turbulent times in the history of Islam was the 118 year period between the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE and the accession of the first Abbasid ruler, Al-Saffah, in 750 CE. During this period, Islam underwent three civil wars, known as the fitnahs (times of tribulation). The first fitnah began with the rebellion against the Caliph 'Uthman and his assassination on July 17, 656, and ended with the armistice between the forces of 'Ali and Mu'awiya I at Siffin in July 657. The second fitnah began with the death of Mu'awiya I in 680 and ended with the Umayyad recapture of the Hijaz and Iraq in 692 under the leadership of 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan and Hajjaj b. Yusuf. The third fitnah was the Abbasid revolt against the Umayyad caliphs in 745 CE, resulting in the accession of Al-Saffah as the first Abbasid caliph in 750 CE. The coin in question comes from the time of the second fitnah.
After the death of Mu'awiya I, many factions of Muslims refused to accept the succession of his son, Yazid I, as caliph. The most famous of these was the Prophet's grandson, Husayn ibn 'Ali, who was martyred by Umayyad forces at Karbala in October 680. However, a much more successful - and now mostly forgotten (in the popular mind) - revolt against the Umayyads was led from Mecca by 'Abdullah b. al-Zubayr (Ibn Zubayr), who was the son of a famous companion of the Prophet, Zubayr b. al-Awwam, and a well-respected figure. He declared himself caliph in 680 CE, and won the allegiance of the people in Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, Egypt and parts of Syria. In fact, he had the allegiance of a greater part of the empire than the nominal Umayyad caliph, Yazid I and his successor, Mu'awiya II. Umayyad forces under Marwan b. Al-Hakam eventually took back control of Syria, Iraq and Egypt, leaving Ibn Zubayr ruler in Hijaz even after Marwan was declared caliph in 684 CE. He died shortly thereafter, with the caliphate passing to his son, 'Abd-al Malik. Umayyad forces under Hajjaj laid siege to Mecca to defeat Ibn Zubayr, shelling the city using catapults and causing serious damage to the Ka'ba itself (which Hajjaj subsequently rebuilt). Finally, Ibn Zubayr was defeated and killed in 692 CE, making 'Abd al-Malik the sole (though hardly undisputed) caliph over all Muslim lands.
An important issue faced by Muslim rulers after they rapidly conquered Byzantine lands and completely destroyed the Sassanian empire was the issue of coinage. Through most of history, the right to issue legal tender has been seen as the primary symbol of a ruler's authority. However, the Muslim rulers had no experience with minting coins. Nor was there any established tradition or symbology related to this. As a result, they used Byzantine and Sassanian coins in the western and eastern parts of the empire, respectively. Both sets of coins needed some degree of "Islamization" to distinguish them from the Christian and Zoroastrian coinage. This was done largely by adding suitably pious Arabic inscriptions to the coins, resulting in coins termed "Arab-Byzantine" and "Arab-Sassanian". The coin at hand is an Arab-Sassanian coin.
Arab-Sassanian coins were produced both by Umayyads (through various governors in Iraq and Khurasan) and by Ibn Zubayr (see this excellent site for examples). My coin was issued in the name of Ibn Zubayr, minted in Istakhr in 63 AH. The mint is indicated by the Pahlavi signature ST:
on the right half of the reverse. Behind the bust of the king is the standard Pahlavi legend GDH afzwt (xhwarrah afzut - May his treasure grow) inherited from the coins of Khusro II,
while the legend facing the king says apdwla y zwbyran amyr y wirrwyshnikan ('Abdullah bin Zubayr, Commander of the Faithful). The date is read as 63 AH, though Album and Goodwin suggest that the correct reading should be 66 AH because Ibn Zubayr did not issue coins claiming to be "Amir-al Mo'mineen" (Commander of he Faithful) until after the death of Yazid I in 64 AH (Album and Goodwin, 2002).
The coin is interesting for several reasons. First, it is one of the earliest coins claiming anyone to be "Amir-al Mo'mineen", though there are earlier examples in the name of Mu'awiya I (see Morony, 1984 - pp 45-46) and Yazid I (Mochiri, 1982) . Even more interesting is the retention of almost all Sassanian imagery without change, including the (clearly un-Islamic) fire altar and the various astral symbols, and, of course, the picture of the king. Thus, somewhat surprisingly, the earliest coinage of Islam - issued by people who had lived in the Prophet's company - carried the symbols of a non-Islamic religion and the picture of an unbeliever king! A similar situation obtained with Arab-Byzantine coins. Clearly, the prohibition against graven images was not particularly strong in these early Islamic times, and no great threat was seen in the symbols of other religions - an instructive thought in our age of blasphemy laws and destroyed Buddhas. Similarly, these early Muslims felt no compunction in putting sacred Arabic text - in this instance, "bism illah", but in other cases "lillah" (for Allah), "bism illah rabbi" (in the name of Allah, my lord), "lillah al-hamd" (all praise is for Allah) - on such objects of common use as coins. Finally, Hajjaj b. Yusuf put "bism Allāh / lā-ilaha il- / Allāh waḥdahu Muḥammad / rasūl Allāh" (in the name of Allah; there is no God but Allah, the One; Muhammad is his messenger) on a coin. This, apparently, was a bit much for some of the more pious, who felt that such sacred inscriptions should not be put on base artifacts such as coins (see image), and the experiment was temporarily abandoned. However, when reformed Islamic coinage was issued in 84 AH, it included not only the shahadah, "lā-ilaha il-Allāh waḥdahu", but also an entire sura (chapter) from the Qur'an (al-ikhlas), as can be seen in images here. This then became the pattern of Umayyad and Abbasid coins for the next 500 years, and was adopted by many other Muslim dynasties as well. Coins with these Qur'anic inscriptions are still occasionally found in areas as far away as Scandanavia, testifying to the widespread trade links of the time.
It is also interesting to note that the king shown on the coin being discussed died more than half a century before the coin was minted, with two other kings (Kavadh II and Ardeshir III) between him and Yezdigerd III, whom the Muslim armies actually defeated. Initial Arab-Sassanian coins used Yazdigerd's image, but this was quickly replaced by the image of Khusro Perviz, widely regarded as the most magnificent, if also one of the most cruel, of the Sassanian kings. Hodgson (1977) has speculated that this indicated that Khusro, not Yezdigerd, was the dominant authority figure in the minds of the populace in these regions - still mostly Zoroastrian - and Muslim rulers were trying to exploit this feeling.
With time, the history of the second fitnah has faded from the minds of most, except for the martyrdom of Husayn b. 'Ali at Karbala. Most histories - especially in the Muslim world - have been written to show a continuous "Umayyad" caliphate following upon the four initial "rightly guided" caliphs. As Hodgson points out (Hodgson, 1977), this is wrong on several counts. The dynasty of caliphs established following the fitnah derived from Marwan, not Mu'awiya I, and is better labeled Marwanid. As for Umayyad caliphs, the first of these was 'Uthman b. 'Affan (the third rightly-guided caliph). And finally, there was an extended period (680-692) when the Muslim state was divided between two competing caliphs of commensurate strength and allegiance.
Another interesting aspect of this time was the ongoing revolt of the Kharijis - a group of fundamentalist Muslims who disagreed with the compromise at Siffin, and gradually developed into a set of interlinked fanatical groups. In many cases, these groups regarded the vast bulk of Muslims as misguided and therefore subject to execution. In this, they presaged today's jihadist groups who also feel no compunction about killing Muslims and non-Muslims with equal zeal. The Kharijis never won any major victories, but terrorized large parts of the empire for more than a century, and lingered on until much later in outer regions like Bahrain. In this, as in many other things, the history of these early Islamic times provides significant insight into the problems we face today, not least because those fostering the problems hark back to idealized versions of the history of those early times. Better understanding of this history can debunk many myths and lay bare the real complexity of the early Islamicate civilization.
References:
S. Album and T. Goodwin, Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean: The Pre-Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period. Ashmolean Museum, 2002.
M.G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization (Vol. 1). The University of Chicago Press, 1977.
M.I. Mochiri, A Sassanian-Style Coin of Yazid b. Mu'awiya. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1: 137-148, 1982.
M.G. Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest. Princeton University Press, 1984.
For anyone wishing to learn more about the ancient coinage of the Middle East, Iran Central Asia and India, there is no better site than "The Coins and History of Asia" put together by Tom Mallon-McCorgray.
The coin I will discuss today comes from the seventh century CE from a time of great conflict: The second fitnah of Islamic history. It is a beautiful silver coin in remarkably good condition, as shown below.
The obverse (left) shows a bust of the Sassanian king, Khusro II, known as Parviz (the Victorious), who ruled a large empire from the deserts of Sind to Egypt and Anatolia over a 38 year reign (590 - 628 CE) (click here and here for details). The reverse (right) shows a Zoroastrian fire altar flanked by highly stylized Magian priests. Both sides follow the standard pattern used for Sassanian coins for most of the empire's duration. In addition to the main figures, the coins are replete with astral and earthly symbols - crescents, stars, the winged crown, the border of pearls, etc., all of which had specific meaning in the Sassanian culture. Most interestingly, the coin carries inscriptions in two scripts - Pahlavi and Arabic. The Pahlavi inscription is found both in front of the king's face and behind his head, as well as on either side of the fire altar, while the Arabic inscription is a "bism illah" (in the name of Allah) in the margin on the obverse side. What could possibly have prompted such a strange assembly of items on this coin? The answer comes to us from history.
Among the most interesting, consequential and turbulent times in the history of Islam was the 118 year period between the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE and the accession of the first Abbasid ruler, Al-Saffah, in 750 CE. During this period, Islam underwent three civil wars, known as the fitnahs (times of tribulation). The first fitnah began with the rebellion against the Caliph 'Uthman and his assassination on July 17, 656, and ended with the armistice between the forces of 'Ali and Mu'awiya I at Siffin in July 657. The second fitnah began with the death of Mu'awiya I in 680 and ended with the Umayyad recapture of the Hijaz and Iraq in 692 under the leadership of 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan and Hajjaj b. Yusuf. The third fitnah was the Abbasid revolt against the Umayyad caliphs in 745 CE, resulting in the accession of Al-Saffah as the first Abbasid caliph in 750 CE. The coin in question comes from the time of the second fitnah.
After the death of Mu'awiya I, many factions of Muslims refused to accept the succession of his son, Yazid I, as caliph. The most famous of these was the Prophet's grandson, Husayn ibn 'Ali, who was martyred by Umayyad forces at Karbala in October 680. However, a much more successful - and now mostly forgotten (in the popular mind) - revolt against the Umayyads was led from Mecca by 'Abdullah b. al-Zubayr (Ibn Zubayr), who was the son of a famous companion of the Prophet, Zubayr b. al-Awwam, and a well-respected figure. He declared himself caliph in 680 CE, and won the allegiance of the people in Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, Egypt and parts of Syria. In fact, he had the allegiance of a greater part of the empire than the nominal Umayyad caliph, Yazid I and his successor, Mu'awiya II. Umayyad forces under Marwan b. Al-Hakam eventually took back control of Syria, Iraq and Egypt, leaving Ibn Zubayr ruler in Hijaz even after Marwan was declared caliph in 684 CE. He died shortly thereafter, with the caliphate passing to his son, 'Abd-al Malik. Umayyad forces under Hajjaj laid siege to Mecca to defeat Ibn Zubayr, shelling the city using catapults and causing serious damage to the Ka'ba itself (which Hajjaj subsequently rebuilt). Finally, Ibn Zubayr was defeated and killed in 692 CE, making 'Abd al-Malik the sole (though hardly undisputed) caliph over all Muslim lands.
An important issue faced by Muslim rulers after they rapidly conquered Byzantine lands and completely destroyed the Sassanian empire was the issue of coinage. Through most of history, the right to issue legal tender has been seen as the primary symbol of a ruler's authority. However, the Muslim rulers had no experience with minting coins. Nor was there any established tradition or symbology related to this. As a result, they used Byzantine and Sassanian coins in the western and eastern parts of the empire, respectively. Both sets of coins needed some degree of "Islamization" to distinguish them from the Christian and Zoroastrian coinage. This was done largely by adding suitably pious Arabic inscriptions to the coins, resulting in coins termed "Arab-Byzantine" and "Arab-Sassanian". The coin at hand is an Arab-Sassanian coin.
Arab-Sassanian coins were produced both by Umayyads (through various governors in Iraq and Khurasan) and by Ibn Zubayr (see this excellent site for examples). My coin was issued in the name of Ibn Zubayr, minted in Istakhr in 63 AH. The mint is indicated by the Pahlavi signature ST:
on the right half of the reverse. Behind the bust of the king is the standard Pahlavi legend GDH afzwt (xhwarrah afzut - May his treasure grow) inherited from the coins of Khusro II,
while the legend facing the king says apdwla y zwbyran amyr y wirrwyshnikan ('Abdullah bin Zubayr, Commander of the Faithful). The date is read as 63 AH, though Album and Goodwin suggest that the correct reading should be 66 AH because Ibn Zubayr did not issue coins claiming to be "Amir-al Mo'mineen" (Commander of he Faithful) until after the death of Yazid I in 64 AH (Album and Goodwin, 2002).
The coin is interesting for several reasons. First, it is one of the earliest coins claiming anyone to be "Amir-al Mo'mineen", though there are earlier examples in the name of Mu'awiya I (see Morony, 1984 - pp 45-46) and Yazid I (Mochiri, 1982) . Even more interesting is the retention of almost all Sassanian imagery without change, including the (clearly un-Islamic) fire altar and the various astral symbols, and, of course, the picture of the king. Thus, somewhat surprisingly, the earliest coinage of Islam - issued by people who had lived in the Prophet's company - carried the symbols of a non-Islamic religion and the picture of an unbeliever king! A similar situation obtained with Arab-Byzantine coins. Clearly, the prohibition against graven images was not particularly strong in these early Islamic times, and no great threat was seen in the symbols of other religions - an instructive thought in our age of blasphemy laws and destroyed Buddhas. Similarly, these early Muslims felt no compunction in putting sacred Arabic text - in this instance, "bism illah", but in other cases "lillah" (for Allah), "bism illah rabbi" (in the name of Allah, my lord), "lillah al-hamd" (all praise is for Allah) - on such objects of common use as coins. Finally, Hajjaj b. Yusuf put "bism Allāh / lā-ilaha il- / Allāh waḥdahu Muḥammad / rasūl Allāh" (in the name of Allah; there is no God but Allah, the One; Muhammad is his messenger) on a coin. This, apparently, was a bit much for some of the more pious, who felt that such sacred inscriptions should not be put on base artifacts such as coins (see image), and the experiment was temporarily abandoned. However, when reformed Islamic coinage was issued in 84 AH, it included not only the shahadah, "lā-ilaha il-Allāh waḥdahu", but also an entire sura (chapter) from the Qur'an (al-ikhlas), as can be seen in images here. This then became the pattern of Umayyad and Abbasid coins for the next 500 years, and was adopted by many other Muslim dynasties as well. Coins with these Qur'anic inscriptions are still occasionally found in areas as far away as Scandanavia, testifying to the widespread trade links of the time.
It is also interesting to note that the king shown on the coin being discussed died more than half a century before the coin was minted, with two other kings (Kavadh II and Ardeshir III) between him and Yezdigerd III, whom the Muslim armies actually defeated. Initial Arab-Sassanian coins used Yazdigerd's image, but this was quickly replaced by the image of Khusro Perviz, widely regarded as the most magnificent, if also one of the most cruel, of the Sassanian kings. Hodgson (1977) has speculated that this indicated that Khusro, not Yezdigerd, was the dominant authority figure in the minds of the populace in these regions - still mostly Zoroastrian - and Muslim rulers were trying to exploit this feeling.
With time, the history of the second fitnah has faded from the minds of most, except for the martyrdom of Husayn b. 'Ali at Karbala. Most histories - especially in the Muslim world - have been written to show a continuous "Umayyad" caliphate following upon the four initial "rightly guided" caliphs. As Hodgson points out (Hodgson, 1977), this is wrong on several counts. The dynasty of caliphs established following the fitnah derived from Marwan, not Mu'awiya I, and is better labeled Marwanid. As for Umayyad caliphs, the first of these was 'Uthman b. 'Affan (the third rightly-guided caliph). And finally, there was an extended period (680-692) when the Muslim state was divided between two competing caliphs of commensurate strength and allegiance.
Another interesting aspect of this time was the ongoing revolt of the Kharijis - a group of fundamentalist Muslims who disagreed with the compromise at Siffin, and gradually developed into a set of interlinked fanatical groups. In many cases, these groups regarded the vast bulk of Muslims as misguided and therefore subject to execution. In this, they presaged today's jihadist groups who also feel no compunction about killing Muslims and non-Muslims with equal zeal. The Kharijis never won any major victories, but terrorized large parts of the empire for more than a century, and lingered on until much later in outer regions like Bahrain. In this, as in many other things, the history of these early Islamic times provides significant insight into the problems we face today, not least because those fostering the problems hark back to idealized versions of the history of those early times. Better understanding of this history can debunk many myths and lay bare the real complexity of the early Islamicate civilization.
References:
S. Album and T. Goodwin, Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean: The Pre-Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period. Ashmolean Museum, 2002.
M.G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization (Vol. 1). The University of Chicago Press, 1977.
M.I. Mochiri, A Sassanian-Style Coin of Yazid b. Mu'awiya. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1: 137-148, 1982.
M.G. Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest. Princeton University Press, 1984.
For anyone wishing to learn more about the ancient coinage of the Middle East, Iran Central Asia and India, there is no better site than "The Coins and History of Asia" put together by Tom Mallon-McCorgray.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Obama's Failure - and Lift-off?
The congressional elections that just concluded with spectacular Democratic losses in both the House of Representatives and at the state level can only be regarded as a failure for Barack Obama. The question, however, is: Where did the failure lie?
Was it, as some on the Left claim, a failure to remain true to principle and to seek pristinely progressive solutions to problems like health care (e.g., single payer), terrorism (e.g., not continuing Bush’s incarceration policies), the financial meltdown (e.g., putting fat cat bankers in the dock), and social issues (e.g., unilaterally ending “don’t ask, don’t tell”)? Or was it, as the Republicans and Republicrats would have us believe, an inability to compromise even more, to adopt an even more conciliatory tone, to disarm even more unilaterally? The answer, in my opinion, is neither. To consider these interpretations is to completely misread Obama’s real challenge. He is not in a contest with the Republican Party. He is confronting an alternate reality.
In this alternate reality, many things that are known to be empirically true are nevertheless false. For example, Barack Obama has already raised taxes massively on everyone (he has actually reduced them), cut back in the war against terrorists (in fact, he has launched more attacks and killed more militants in two years than Bush did in seven), bailed out the big banks (actually, TARP was a Bush initiative, though Obama did support it as a Senator), and wasted hundreds of billions on a failed stimulus (in fact, the CBO estimates that the stimulus saved or added several million jobs even before it was fully spent). As these examples demonstrate, Obama’s challenge is not policy, but politics. His failure lies in not being able to counter the well-oiled Right-wing propaganda machine that routinely convinced millions of people that day is night and up is down (see scientific evidence for this assertion). His failure, in other words, is too much faith in Reason.
As even Aristotle understood, logic and reason are just tools – methods by which we can spin stories for ourselves and others to explain, legitimize or justify actions that our lizard brains have already committed to. Emotion, not Reason, is the fundamental basis of human behavior, just it is has been the basis of all animal behavior for millions of years. Beneath their fragile veneer of rationality, our brains are nothing but enablers for emotional control. That is why – Thomas Frank notwithstanding – it is not at all mysterious why middle class Kansans vote for Republicans against their own economic interests, nor why rich Hollywood actors vote for Democrats who are likelier to raise their taxes. No great change in human history has flowed from purely rational argument. Even Apple computers – objectively the best in the world – need to entice users with their seductive looks. This is doubly true in politics, where emotion, really, is all that matters.
Surprising as it may seem, Obama lost sight of this fact.
What, one may ask, can the Harvard-educated Leader of the Free World do against the onslaught of Fox and friends except to appeal to peoples’ rational faculties? The answer is that he should have engaged emotionally. Following on the enormous enthusiasm of his campaign, he should have tried to ignite a mass movement on the Left as Reagan did on the Right. In 2008 and early 2009, he had the opportunity, the magic, and the connections to do so. Instead, he sat back and decided to have an argument on the merits with Senators Olympia Snowe and Max Baucus!
I still believe that Obama is the one barrier we have to a complete takeover by the imagineers of the Right who are intent on creating their own reality. However, he has proved to be an ineffective barrier, and perhaps he never will be effective because of his natural inclinations. Perhaps it is too late in the process to hope that calm insistence on rational analysis will break through the haze of confusion created by the right-wing propaganda machine.
A few of weeks ago, I posted an article by Roger Cohen that, to me, captured the essence of Obama's failure so far - the disinclination to excite. He seems too taken by the "no drama" ethos of his campaign. I think that the inauguration in 2008 should have been followed by a concerted effort to build an active and long-term grassroots movement - an "Obama Revolution" like the "Reagan Revolution". Instead, they just focused on solving problems technocratically, and allowed the zeal to dissipate. The void was filled by the teabaggers who provided a home for the inchoate anger swirling about the country. That was a major failure of leadership, and will now have consequences for the whole country.
This doesn't mean that Obama himself should have continued to campaign. In fact, he should probably have been less exposed than he has been. But those under him should have built an infrastructure that could continue to keep the movement alive and churning after the election. They needed to create campus groups, meetups, think tank events, rallies, media voices, etc. The Left has traditionally had difficulty with this in America because most of the money is on the Right, and conservatives are more willing to be organized like lemmings. I think Obama and company saw that the only models to do something similar on the Left were a socialist revolution or a hippie movement, and neither appealed very much to their rational, capitalistic inclinations. However, that, in my opinion, was a failure of imagination. They failed to come up with a "fourth way" - a 21st century liberal uprising, and they're paying the price for it.
I don't see much reason to expect transformative change in the near future. The structural factors are all against Obama - a terrible economy, a dysfunctional Congress, a demoralized Democratic base, an even more difficult Senate election in 2012, an antagonistic Supreme Court (which will almost surely nullify the health care reform law), and a hostile media environment. There's a lot more pain to come.
But things are not as bleak as they seemed even two weeks ago. The last few days have seen the negotiation of a tax compromise between Obama and the Republicans, and its final passage in Congress in spite of grumbling on the Left and the Right. Then the odious “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the military was repealed with the cooperation of several Republicans. It now seems possible that the new START treaty will also be approved within this lame duck session. This duck is proving to be a champion waddler!
Many in the punditocracy are taking all this as the inception of Obama 2.0 – a President focused on triangulating away from Congressional Democrats and Republicans just as Clinton did in 1995. In fact, it is likelier that Obama is “pyramiding” – rising above all the bickering groups towards the apex of a pyramid, and moving in a direction distinct from all of them. He has already hinted that the tax compromise is a preamble to a more serious look at the deficit. Unlike other Democrats, he has not dismissed the draconian recommendations of his deficit commission. I think that he is getting ready to propose a re-orientation of American economic, fiscal and social policy so drastic that it will create mayhem in all political circles. And in this chaos, Obama will try to assemble a new coalition that can hijack the constituencies of various existing power bases like the unions, the environmentalists, small businesses and others. His recent actions suggest that he is contemplating a major political realignment just as Ronald Reagan did, but will do it in his “no drama” style. Whether he succeeds or fails depends on his ability to exploit the disruption he will cause by his proposals. He will be helped by the increased gridlock likely in the new Congress, and John Boehner may soon find new reasons to weep on camera. But it is just as likely that the Right-wing propaganda machine will continue to chew Obama up. It will certainly keep trying.
Obama supporters often claim that he is engaged in some mysterious form of 3-dimensional chess with Republicans that will, one day, suddenly leave them bereft. So far, the results are mixed, but perhaps he should be thinking less chess and more jiujitsu if he is to use the Right-wing media juggernaut against itself.
Some thing are certain: The State of the Union address in 2011 will have a lot more drama than 2010; Republican presidential candidates will shortly start assembling into a circular fring squad; Sarah Palin will keep beating up helpless halibut; and John Boehner will cry again. It will be an exciting year with much sport.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Rumi 2
Maulana Jalaluddin Balkhi, known better as Rumi or Molavi, was without doubt one of history's greatest literary figures. He is mainly famous for his didactic Masnavi (which typically runs to several volumes in most printings), but his collection of ghazals (odes) known as Divan-e Shams-e Tabrizi is an even more amazing achievement, with thousands of ghazals unmatched in their eloquence, fervor, depth and beauty. Rumi was indeed a force of Nature, and in the Divan, he is at his forceful best. The central theme of all his poetry is the celebration of love. A forceful rejection of orthodox piety and mundane conventions pervades all his work - both the Masnavi and the Divan - making him very much a poet we need today. His sufi tradition, later embodied in the Mevleviyya order (the whirling dervishes) of Turkey, is rooted in humanist ideas. As he said in one of his most famous couplets:
Yesterday, the Master went around the city with a lamp
[saying] I am sick of demons and beasts, and wish to find a human.
The great orientalist scholar, R.A. Nicholson translated several ghazals selected from the Divan, and one of them is given below - a personal favorite of mine. I have redone the translation, guided by Nicholson's but less literal. The ghazal is a great example of Rumi's exuberant style.
خنك آن دم كہ نشستيم در ايوان من و تو
بدو نقش و بدو صورت بيكي جان من و تو
رنگ باغ و دم مرغان بدہد آب حيات
آن زماني كہ در آیيم ببستان من و تو
اختران فلك آيند بنظارۂ ما
مہ خود را بنمایيم با يشان من و تو
من و تو بي من وتو جمع شويم از سر ذوق
خوش و فارغ ز خرافات پريشان من و تو
طوطيان فلكی جملہ جگر خوار شوند
در مقامي كہ بخنديم برآن سان من و تو
اين عجب تر كہ من وتو بيكی كنج اينجا
ہم در اين دم بعراقيم و خراسان من و تو
Translation
O happy time when we shall be seated in the palace, thou and I;
two forms and two figures, but with a single soul, thou and I.
The orchard's beauty and the birds' song will make us immortal
on the day when we step into the garden, thou and I.
The very stars of heaven will come around to gaze at us,
and we shall show them the bright moon of our being, thou and I.
I and thou, no longer thou or I, shall become one in ecstasy,
joyous, and with no care for frivolous things, thou and I.
All the beautiful birds of heaven will eat their hearts out,
in such a manner shall we laugh at that point, thou and I
And even stranger, that thou and I now sit together in this nook,
and at the same time, we are also in Iraq and Khorasan, thou and I.
Translated by Ali Minai (after R.A. Nicholson)
Monday, November 8, 2010
Rumi 1
I stepped out of my house and encountered one who was crazed,
and in whose every look could be glimpsed a hundred worlds.
Like a boat in a storm, he twisted this way and that,
and all who saw him were transfixed by his presence.
"Where are you from?" I asked. He laughed and said, "My friend,
I am half from Turkestan and half from Ferghaneh;
I am half earth and water; half heart and soul;
half at the ocean's shore; half the pearl (that lies hidden in it)."
I said, "Befriend me, for I am your kin."
He said, "I do not distinguish between kin and stranger.
I am heartbroken and bereft in the wine-maker's house,
all I have is a word in my heart. Shall I speak it or not?
Shall one drunk on such beauty be less eloquent than a piece of wood?
Even the pillar of Hannaneh cried out at last!"
Jalaluddin Rumi (1207 - 1273)
(Translated from Persian by Ali Minai)
The pillar of Hannaneh refers to an apocryphal story about the Prophet Muhammad. It is said that during his sermons in the mosque of Hannana, he would lean against a wooden pillar. One day, he moved his pulpit away from the pillar, and the pillar cried out in grief. For Sufis, the event symbolizes separation from the Beloved and the grief it engenders.
and in whose every look could be glimpsed a hundred worlds.
Like a boat in a storm, he twisted this way and that,
and all who saw him were transfixed by his presence.
"Where are you from?" I asked. He laughed and said, "My friend,
I am half from Turkestan and half from Ferghaneh;
I am half earth and water; half heart and soul;
half at the ocean's shore; half the pearl (that lies hidden in it)."
I said, "Befriend me, for I am your kin."
He said, "I do not distinguish between kin and stranger.
I am heartbroken and bereft in the wine-maker's house,
all I have is a word in my heart. Shall I speak it or not?
Shall one drunk on such beauty be less eloquent than a piece of wood?
Even the pillar of Hannaneh cried out at last!"
Jalaluddin Rumi (1207 - 1273)
(Translated from Persian by Ali Minai)
The pillar of Hannaneh refers to an apocryphal story about the Prophet Muhammad. It is said that during his sermons in the mosque of Hannana, he would lean against a wooden pillar. One day, he moved his pulpit away from the pillar, and the pillar cried out in grief. For Sufis, the event symbolizes separation from the Beloved and the grief it engenders.
Celebrating Complexity .....
We humans have always lived with complexity. Indeed, religion, science, philosophy, law and ethics can all be seen as human attempts to deal with the complexity of the world around us. Our greatest works of art illuminate this complexity by making unexpected connections and discovering mysterious relationships between things. All of us have an instinctive understanding of - and respect for - complexity. And yet there is an equally powerful urge that drives us towards simple explanations, pat answers and easy solutions. This desire for simplification has served us well, and human society has generally been content to leave the task of dealing with complexity to a designated few - priests and scientists, shamans and statesmen, artists and poets, and - when all else fails - lawyers. For the rest, it has been assumed that "honest common sense" suffices well enough. We try to live by simple creeds and follow simple rules, punishing deviation from these by social and legal sanctions. Indeed, most of us believe in eternal truths, unchanging values and immutable facts, seldom acknowledging that the "truths", "values" and "facts" we hold to be self-evident may trap us in rigid mindsets that are inconsistent with success in a complex world. Never has this been more true than today, as we discover much more of the world's complexity and also make it more complex by our own actions. Unlike our ancestors even a few generations ago, we live in environments whose complexity cannot be ignored or obviated by following a few simple tropes. Some among us find this disconcerting, and hanker for that simpler world of our forebears. The terrible consequences of this delusional hankering are all around us - wrought in the name of patriotism, faith, tradition or a "way of life". Life, in fact, has only one way, and it is the way of change! We may value stability as a sign of strength, but the strength of life arises from flexibility, adaptivity and mutability. Life - the most complex of all complex things - persists through movement, and if we are to deal with our complex world, we must learn from its success.
The science of complex systems has begun to explain many aspects of complexity in physical, biological and artificial systems. However, thinking in terms of complexity has not penetrated either our discourse or our worldview to the degree that it must if we are to cope with the challenges we face. Our environment still encourages us to think in "common sense" ways, and to mistrust complex ideas. Our political system, our media, and our societal norms, all reinforce the lethal message of faith and country even as the reality we inhabit no longer recognizes the boundaries of either one. We are still trapped in a discourse of simple causality, traditional ways and fixed meanings. This needs to change. We must move on to a style of thinking that acknowledges complexity and seeks to work with it, a style that is nonlinear, a style that has room for counter-intuitive ideas and complicated explanations.
The time has come to move past just common sense to a more complex sensibility.
The science of complex systems has begun to explain many aspects of complexity in physical, biological and artificial systems. However, thinking in terms of complexity has not penetrated either our discourse or our worldview to the degree that it must if we are to cope with the challenges we face. Our environment still encourages us to think in "common sense" ways, and to mistrust complex ideas. Our political system, our media, and our societal norms, all reinforce the lethal message of faith and country even as the reality we inhabit no longer recognizes the boundaries of either one. We are still trapped in a discourse of simple causality, traditional ways and fixed meanings. This needs to change. We must move on to a style of thinking that acknowledges complexity and seeks to work with it, a style that is nonlinear, a style that has room for counter-intuitive ideas and complicated explanations.
The time has come to move past just common sense to a more complex sensibility.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
What is Barbarikon?
Barbarikon was the name of an ancient seaport situated near the modern city of Karachi - probably to the southeast and further inland. It is mentioned in the 1st Century AD text "Periplus of the Erythraean Sea" as a port at the "middle" mouth of the Indus delta.The importance of the port can be judged by the following description from Periplus:
"The ships lie at anchor at Barbaricum, but all their cargoes are carried up to the metropolis by the river, to the King. There are imported into this market a great deal of thin clothing, and a little spurious; figured linens, topaz, coral, storax, frankincense, vessels of glass, silver and gold plate, and a little wine. On the other hand there are exported costus, bdellium,lycium, nard, turquoise, lapis lazuli, Seric, skins, cotton cloth, silk yarn, and indigo. And sailors set out thither with the Indian Etesian winds, about the, month of July, that is Epiphi: it is more dangerous then, but through these winds the voyage is more direct, and sooner completed."
(ref Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarikon)
The word "Barbarikon" corresponds to the Latin "Barbaricum", meaning regions beyond the pale of the established order - the land of Barbarians, so to speak. Its application to the port city on the Indus was probably just a coincidental corruption of a local name.
There has been some debate about the exact location of the city. Initial conjectures identified it with Gharo or Bhambore, but Maj. Gen. M.R. Haig, writing in his "Indus Delta Country: A Memoir Chiefly on Its Ancient Geography and History" (London: 1894), proposes that the city lay further south and east. It is interesting to note that the Indus followed a very different course 2000 years ago, and that the river's mouth was much further inland than it is today (as a result of extensive silting since that time). Indeed, the entire area around Karachi has an extremely rich history going back to pre-Alexanderian times - a fact of which almost all current inhabitants of the city are entirely unaware.
This blog has been named "Barbarikon" for two reasons: First, because I wanted to celebrate an interesting ancient link to my native city, Karachi; and second, because a lot of this blog's content will, I hope, challenge conventional wisdom - much as wild ideas (and people!) from Barbaricum challenged the settled conventions of Rome and Byzantium.
"The ships lie at anchor at Barbaricum, but all their cargoes are carried up to the metropolis by the river, to the King. There are imported into this market a great deal of thin clothing, and a little spurious; figured linens, topaz, coral, storax, frankincense, vessels of glass, silver and gold plate, and a little wine. On the other hand there are exported costus, bdellium,lycium, nard, turquoise, lapis lazuli, Seric, skins, cotton cloth, silk yarn, and indigo. And sailors set out thither with the Indian Etesian winds, about the, month of July, that is Epiphi: it is more dangerous then, but through these winds the voyage is more direct, and sooner completed."
(ref Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarikon)
The word "Barbarikon" corresponds to the Latin "Barbaricum", meaning regions beyond the pale of the established order - the land of Barbarians, so to speak. Its application to the port city on the Indus was probably just a coincidental corruption of a local name.
There has been some debate about the exact location of the city. Initial conjectures identified it with Gharo or Bhambore, but Maj. Gen. M.R. Haig, writing in his "Indus Delta Country: A Memoir Chiefly on Its Ancient Geography and History" (London: 1894), proposes that the city lay further south and east. It is interesting to note that the Indus followed a very different course 2000 years ago, and that the river's mouth was much further inland than it is today (as a result of extensive silting since that time). Indeed, the entire area around Karachi has an extremely rich history going back to pre-Alexanderian times - a fact of which almost all current inhabitants of the city are entirely unaware.
This blog has been named "Barbarikon" for two reasons: First, because I wanted to celebrate an interesting ancient link to my native city, Karachi; and second, because a lot of this blog's content will, I hope, challenge conventional wisdom - much as wild ideas (and people!) from Barbaricum challenged the settled conventions of Rome and Byzantium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)