— Introduction de la JIK —

Un autre texte de Abdullah Öcalan. Le sujet de la « recherche de la verité » a toujours été au centre de l’intérêt du fondateur du PKK.

— Le texte —

A- An Introduction to the Problematic of Methodology and Truth

Method, as a concept, refers to the shortest possible path, habit or conscious approach utilised in arriving at a predetermined target, or targets. A method is found, if and when a path is deemed to be the most shortcut route in satisfying the predetermined target. The method is successful when it has been tried and is judged to be fruitful. It is vital for those concerned that this process of approval be a long and rigorous one.

When we try and comprehend the depths of history, we see that the first method utilised in understanding mentalities and phenomena is the mythological approach. Mythology, in the narrow sense, is a method; a method in decoding reality. Behind mythology is an understanding of the universe. Mythology’s tendency in taking nature to be a live organism full of spirits is today taken to be somewhat childish. However, when we consider modern science’s current condition we can see that this tendency – and the method deployed – is not as off the mark as previously thought. On the contrary, methods that have thought of nature as lifeless, inanimate and lacking in dynamism are comparatively devoid of meaning.

In connection to life, the mythological approach is definitely environmentally friendly, distant from fatalism and determinism, and is consequently open to freedom. This seemingly naturalist understanding of life had, in its time, ardently accompanied communities into the era of the major religions. Mythologies containing sacredness, legends and epics were the Neolithic era’s fundamental mentality of life. The apparent contradiction between myths and the objective world, however, does not mean that meaningful analyses cannot be construed. It is by all means possible to make substantial commentaries on myths, packed with coherent meaning. In fact, without such commentaries only a limited conception of history can be achieved. Mythology, as a fundamental method, is a vital apparatus in the conceiving of human groupings that have – for the longest period of time – made use of mythical explanation. The scientific method – which is attentively presented as the opposite of the mythological method – has been proven to have occupied itself with the construction of its very own myths.

Preceding religions draped in dogma, and their scientific continuatives claiming to work on universally absolute laws, have seamlessly attempted to discredit the mythological method. It is time for this to be reversed, and thus the mythological method’s eminence be restored. Mythologies, as relatives of utopic thought, are an indispensable form of humankind’s spectrum of meaning and mentality. To exclude utopia and mythology from the human mind is like confiscating water from the body. It should be further understood that, the riches of the human mind – the aggregation of all animate minds – cannot be reduced to a mere mathematically literate analytical organism. This is incongruent with life itself. Just as millions of animate minds are unknowable to mathematics, their aggregation, the human mind, cannot be condemned to mere numeric. Moreover, the very invention of mathematics by the Sumerians was for the calculation of surplus products on the surge at the time. In our day, human logic has almost completely been reduced to function like a calculator. So then, how are we supposed to apprehend the minds of millions of living organisms, the movements of sub-atomic particles or immeasurable astronomic phenomena? It is abundantly clear that mathematics does not contain the ability to make sense of both the universe’s micro and macro domains. At the very least, we must remain susceptible to new methods of meaning so that we do not preliminarily drown ourselves in dogmas.

Animate intuitions cannot be underestimated. All things animate are encoded in these intuitions. It cannot be said that these intuitions are independent of the universe’s micro and macro domains. Instead, what seems closer to the truth is that these intuitions are a fundamental feature of the universe. It is for this reason that the mythological method cannot be deemed worthless in attempts to comprehend the universe. The mythological method may be as valuable, if not more valuable, as the scientific method in contributing to an understanding of the universe.

The transition from the mythological approach to the dogmatic religious approach is a significant phase. This transition is closely linked to the fact that it occupies the mental arena that partnered the hierarchical transition of society. Exploitative and hierarchical social relations require unquestionable dogmas. The ascertaining of dogmas with taboo values such as sacredness, God’s word or immunity are in correlation with the purpose of hiding and/or justifying the hierarchical and exploitative organisation of society and the class interests of the elite strata. Where there is a rigid set of absolute judgements, there is no doubt extensive exploitation and tyranny.

After the mythological era, the religious era constitutes the second longest timeframe of human history. It could be paralleled with written history, or just before or just after. What needs to be contextualised is why religious dogma was a requirement. It is fairly explicit that this approach was a purposefully adopted method. The aim of life and the path to reality, as promoted by religious methodology, can only be fulfilled through the appropriation of – and consequently to live by – the sacred word of an external holiness, existing beyond societal and worldly realms. To avert from the sacred word would result in drudgery and slavery while alive, and then burning in hell in the afterlife. This is the era in which masked gods were constructed. It is easily construable that this constructed god was a synonym for the despot of the time, practicing command and relentless exploitation over society. The extravagant masking of these gods is closely linked to the efforts of distortion applied to the human mind. The very fact that the first despots claimed to be god-kings seems to efficiently prove this point. The subsequent application of the despot’s word as legislation, and the presentation of these words as absolute truths is a widespread feature deployed throughout history. As suppression and exploitation deepened, the dogmatic religious method was made to become the dominant path taken by the human mind; to be more precise, it was to be a constructed social reality. The people’s compliance to the god masked despots’ suffocating enslaving rule was ensured through the application of this method.

The most important aspect of the religious method as a mental habit was its ability to justify the acceptance of enslavement by the masses and to install a rigid fatalism in the mass psyche. Great barbarous wars motivated by deeper exploitation were made possible as a result of this method: To live by the sacred word, in abeyance to god’s command! Without a doubt, this method ensures a major convenience for the administrating elite. Simply put, a herd-shepherd dialectic was formed. Slavery was to be presented as a necessary stage of social development; or a static, inanimate understanding of nature was to make it possible to freeze social reality in order to maintain the status quo. A very passive and objectified understanding of nature and society, coupled with a ruling strata presented as the divine creator of all things was forcibly shown to be the dialectic of life. It will not be an exaggeration to say that this was the mentality and method used in governing the people of the middle ages and in antiquity.

The dogmatic method’s most erroneous aspect is rather than the adoption of an animate, self-evolving view of nature, it forcibly insisted on a passive, objectified view of nature in need of a peremptory to determine its future. The most important impact this then has on society is a natural acceptance of its very pacification and an Internalisation of a herd-like administration. This excessively subjective ancient method was to peak in the Middle Ages. The objective world was taken to be incomprehensible, thus deemed non-existent. The world was reduced to a mere temporary station, where eternal and perpetual ideals were the only acceptable way of life. Those who had a good grasp of the existing dogmas and clichés were recognised as scholars and rewarded with the highest titles. This anti-mythological mode of thought has subsequently shaped the course of history, and therefore, is primarily responsible for the currently captive and bridled way of life.

A positive aspect of the religious method is its impact on the development of ethics in society. At this stage, and under the influence of this method, the notions of good and bad have come under significant scrutiny and as a result have been inflexibly categorised in accordance with absolute judgements. The fundamental perception behind this method is its realisation of the flexibility of the human mind, and therefore, its openness to remoulding. This characteristic of the mind, as opposed to other living organisms, is the fundamental basis of ethical development.

Without an application of ethics, socialisation or administration is out of the question. An ethical method is indispensible for the becoming of, and the administration of society. Without dwelling into the pros and cons of ethics, the indispensability of this development for societal comprehension must be clarified. Undoubtedly, ethics is a metaphysical phenomenon, but this in no way makes ethics non-existent or any less significant. We will not be exaggerating too much by saying that metaphysical ethics has the upper hand on the ethics of the mythological period. To think of human sociality without ethics, is enough to bring about the end of the human species along with its ecological environment, just as the dinosaurs did by not leaving themselves a single weed to chew on. Indeed it is due to an ethical demolition that environmental problems have come to such a disastrous threshold.

The dogmatic method is not only evident in the major religions; this method weighs heavily in on classical Greek thought too. The dialectical method, not to mention an objective approach, is seriously lacking in Greek classical thought. The supremacy of Aristotle’s and Plato’s idealism had become a strong foundation for religious dogmatism in the Middle Ages. Plato’s recognition as the greatest philosopher of idealism, or even its creator, had made him a favourite of the prophetical tradition.

The prophetic traditions of the three major religions are well stabilised constituent versions of the dogmatic method. In Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius and Socrates ethics peaks. Especially in the philosophy of Zoroaster, the duality of good and bad is mirrored by the duality of light and dark. On behalf of humanity, these wise men have introduced higher levels of morality.

The ‘scientific method’ has played a significant role in capitalism becoming a world system. In this approach, led by Descartes, Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon, a clear cut distinction between subject and object is carefully made. In the dogmatic method of the Middle Ages there was not much room for a distinction between subject and object.

The Renaissance led rise of Western Europe, through the Reformation in Christianity and the Enlightenment in philosophy, had opened a new era under the imagery of subjectivity and objectivity. The subjectivity of humanity and the objectivity of the world become the two main factors of life. The dogmatic method, the word of God, along with ethics critically loses significance. To be more precise, the covered kings and the masked gods of the old are replaced by the naked kings and the unmasked gods of the new. The capitalistic mode of exploitation is the main motivator of this transition. The increasing exploitation fuelled by the drive of profit requires the transformation of societal perception through a restructuring of the dimensions of thought. This requirement and necessity is the driving force behind the new ‘scientific method’. Humanity and nature is facing a new era of deepened exploitation and abuse. The societal conscience that was unwilling to accept such abuse was about to undergo reconstruction in parallel with the newly formed dimensions of thought. It is for this reason that ‘method’, as the fundamental route to righteousness, was about to gain a significant functionality. It is well documented that Descartes, in order for a deep transformation, dwells into a major illness of scepticism and eventually seeks asylum in the judgement “I think, therefore I am”. It is also well known that Roger and Francis Bacon work really hard on ‘objectivism’. Descartes opens the door to the individual’s ability to think independently, while the Bacons clear the path for the individual to dispose of the ‘object’ as he wishes.

The concept of ‘objectivism’ in the scientific method is in need of profound reanalysis. Excluding analytic thought, the objectification of the animate and inanimate world, including the human body, plays a significant role in the capitalist exploitation and domination of society and nature. Without the deepening and justification of the segregation between subject and object, the mental transformation required as a basis of modern thought could not have been achieved.

While analytic thought is justified as the subject, object is the material element on which all sorts of speculative efforts can be made upon; in other words, represents ‘objectivity’. Great struggles have been given for the sake of this distinction. The struggle between the church and science should not be seen as one of righteousness. The underlying current is a major social struggle. In a sense, on the one side you have the morally sensitive old society, as opposed to the new naked capitalism wishing to rid itself of the ethical burden on its shoulders. In all honesty, The church and science are not the main units of this quarrel either. More generally, it is a quarrel between the historically consistent social values that hinder exploitation and deem it to be sin, against the new capitalist project wishing to remove the ethical bonds of society in order to make it susceptible to exploitation and tyranny. The ‘objective approach’ is the key concept of this project.

Under the ‘objective’ conceptualisation of ‘analytical thought’ no value is free from going under the surgical knife. It is not only human labour, but all animate and inanimate organisms that can be proprietary, and therefore, disposable to the full extent. They can be subjected to all sorts of research and examination and then, accordingly exploited. Apart from distinguished subjects, everything can be mechanised, and so mercilessly exploited and dictated upon. The subjectification of the individual as opposed to the objectified community, citizenship and the nation-state – in other words the unmasked gods – are ‘new inventions’ that are able to create havoc and make life unbearable through the organisation of genocides and the destruction of the environment. The old ‘Leviathan’ has become rabid; it seems as if there is not a single object it is unwilling to suppress or break into pieces. It should be well understood that to perceive of the objective approach as an innocent concept of the scientific method does not only lead to credulous digressions, but also to great disasters and even bigger massacres then that of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. It must be clearly stated that the objective approach is in no way an innocent scientific term.

Until the ‘scientific method’ itself is not perceived as a tool for the classified division of society, the dysfunctional and bankrupt state of sociology cannot be explained. I must openly state that, the ‘objective scientific method’ is also the underlying reason behind the bankruptcy of the onetime assertive ‘scientific socialism’.

The fact that scientific socialism’s – and all its derivatives – constructed long term social systems were all abolished from within, and the rapidity of the transformation from state capitalism to private capitalism, both grew out of the systemic adoption of the ‘scientific method’ and the notion of ‘objectification’. Otherwise, no one can doubt for a single second the integrity of those who struggled for socialism with great belief and effort.

Scientific structures that attribute a central role to the subject-object distinction are very passionate for their own independence. So much so that they claim to be over and above society’s values. Maybe the greatest deviation in the name of science is hidden in this claim. it may be right to say that that the integration and unification of science and the system of rule in the capitalist era, is incomparable to that of any other previous era. From its methodology to its contents, the world of science is the system’s biggest constructive power, its protective force and its justifier. The scientific method of the capitalist era – and all sciences deriving from it – is the actual provider and pathfinder of the profitable machine along with great wars, crises, suffering, starvation, unemployment, environmental meltdown and population instabilities that come with it. The saying “knowledge is power” is none other than a proud confession of this truth.

Maybe some will say “what is wrong with this?” These types of judgements, draped in innocence, are nothing other than the system’s outspoken natural defence mechanism.

If in our day capitalist modernity is crying out with signs of unsustainability from every parameter of the system, the biggest responsible party for this is the ‘scientific method’ it relies upon. Therefore, it is of vital importance for a criticism of the system to initially be developed against the method the system is founded upon and the ‘scientific disciplines’ deriving from it. A fundamental weakness of all criticisms of the system, including the socialist criticism, is that they too have adopted the very method used in the creation and sustenance of the system. An anti-system movement aiming to criticise a social reality that has been founded upon a specific method, no matter how hard it is criticised using the same method, will eventually be faced with the same fate. It is well known that a used road will always pass through the same villages and towns. This has been the fate of all anti-system movements, including scientific socialism.

I pay specific attention in taking the societal character of the subject-object distinction to be a central concept of my evaluations. This is because these innocent looking concepts are the ontological reasons behind the unsustainability of modernity. Contrary to popular belief, these are not nominal concepts, and they also have nothing to do with scientific development. They possess fixed misconceptions on the understandings of nature and subjectivity, no less than that of the dogmatic method of the Middle Ages. The frank distinction between subjectivity and objectivity has suffocated the ability to comprehend the meaning of life and has taken human life into a more backward state than that of the Middle Ages. The dogmatic method’s efforts in suffocating and depriving human life of freedom, has been taken over by capitalist modernity’s efforts in smashing social life to pieces on intellectual grounds provided by the distinction of subjectivity and objectivity. A deep segregation is being constructed in all areas of life. As a result of the crystallisation of the whole applied by the so called ‘scientific disciplines’, the biggest value lost is the integral and indivisible entirety of societal time and space. There is no bigger tragedy than the exclusion of time and space from societal life, hence the ‘jamming of life’ experienced in our day. We are faced with the worst of fates. Societal cancer is not an allegoric approach; it is a most meaningful systems analysis.

I am not proposing a new method. This however, does not mean I am proposing to get rid of methodology. I am well aware of human tendencies, not to mention the animate and inanimate nature’s accordance to certain laws and methodical movements. I highly value means and methods. But I am also aware of the fact, and therefore must clearly state, that the insistence on deterministic aspects of methods and laws have greatly hindered developments and denied freedoms. I do not believe in the existence of a lawless universe lacking in method. However, I also do not believe that the universe is based on a mathematic equation as the mechanism of Descartes seems to suggest. I have deep suspicions regarding mathematic logic and nomothetic laws. I am able to draw many comparisons between the Sumerian clergy – the inventors of this logic – and the scientific mentality of our day. My belief is that both represent the same civilisation.

B- Primary Methods of Truth in History

1- The Mythological Method

When we try and comprehend the depths of history, we see that the first method utilised in understanding mentalities and phenomena is the mythological approach. Mythology, in the narrow sense, is a method; a method in decoding reality. Behind mythology is an understanding of the universe. Mythology’s tendency in taking nature to be a live organism full of spirits is today taken to be somewhat childish. However, when we consider modern science’s current condition we can see that this tendency – and the method deployed – is not as off the mark as previously thought. On the contrary, methods that have thought of nature as lifeless, inanimate and lacking in dynamism are comparatively devoid of meaning.

In connection to life, the mythological approach is definitely environmentally friendly, distant from fatalism and determinism, and is consequently open to freedom. This seemingly naturalist understanding of life had, in its time, ardently accompanied communities into the era of the major religions. Mythologies containing sacredness, legends and epics were the Neolithic era’s fundamental mentality of life. The apparent contradiction between myths and the objective world, however, does not mean that meaningful analyses cannot be construed. It is by all means possible to make substantial commentaries on myths, packed with coherent meaning. In fact, without such commentaries only a limited conception of history can be achieved. Mythology, as a fundamental method, is a vital apparatus in the conceiving of human groupings that have – for the longest period of time – made use of mythical explanation. The scientific method – which is attentively presented as the opposite of the mythological method – has been proven to have occupied itself with the construction of its very own myths.

Preceding religions draped in dogma, and their scientific continuatives claiming to work on universally absolute laws, have seamlessly attempted to discredit the mythological method. It is time for this to be reversed, and thus the mythological method’s eminence be restored. Mythologies, as relatives of utopic thought, are an indispensable form of humankind’s spectrum of meaning and mentality. To exclude utopia and mythology from the human mind is like confiscating water from the body. It should be further understood that, the riches of the human mind – the aggregation of all animate minds – cannot be reduced to a mere mathematically literate analytical organism. This is incongruent with life itself. Just as millions of animate minds are unknowable to mathematics, their aggregation, the human mind, cannot be condemned to mere numeric. Moreover, the very invention of mathematics by the Sumerians was for the calculation of surplus products on the surge at the time. In our day, human logic has almost completely been reduced to function like a calculator. So then, how are we supposed to apprehend the minds of millions of living organisms, the movements of sub-atomic particles or immeasurable astronomic phenomena? It is abundantly clear that mathematics does not contain the ability to make sense of both the universe’s micro and macro domains. At the very least, we must remain susceptible to new methods of meaning so that we do not preliminarily drown ourselves in dogmas.

Animate intuitions cannot be underestimated. All things animate are encoded in these intuitions. It cannot be said that these intuitions are independent of the universe’s micro and macro domains. Instead, what seems closer to the truth is that these intuitions are a fundamental feature of the universe. It is for this reason that the mythological method cannot be deemed worthless in attempts to comprehend the universe. The mythological method may be as valuable, if not more valuable, as the scientific method in contributing to an understanding of the universe.

Mythology is the art of idealistic expression of inexplicable phenomena through the use of stories, widely utilised in the ancient era. Mythological exposition is a concealed expression of the truth.

We cannot relinquish mythological discourse. Firstly, the majority discourse of prehistory, the Neolithic era, the ancient era and democratic civilisation is mythological. Legends and scholarly expositions are expressions of the time. If successful sociological depictions of them can be made, they will, without a doubt, enrich our historical narratives.

2- The Religious Method

Dogmatic mythology creates religion. Religion requires dogmas and forms of worship; this is why mythology and religion differ from one another. Religion is completely speculative. To believe in speculation is fundamental for religion. A specifically positive aspect of religion however, is its role in the promotion of abstractive thought in society and, independent of its will, its constitution of an environment for the development of scientific and philosophical thinking. The development of scientific and philosophical thinking is in a dialectical relationship with religious thought. They both carry deep traces of religion.

The transition from the mythological approach to the dogmatic religious approach is a significant phase. This transition is closely linked to the fact that it occupies the mental arena that partnered the hierarchical transition of society. Exploitative and hierarchical social relations require unquestionable dogmas. The ascertaining of dogmas with taboo values such as sacredness, God’s word or immunity are in correlation with the purpose of hiding and/or justifying the hierarchical and exploitative organisation of society and the class interests of the elite strata. Where there is a rigid set of absolute judgements, there is no doubt extensive exploitation and tyranny.

After the mythological era, the religious era constitutes the second longest timeframe of human history. It could be paralleled with written history, or just before or just after. What needs to be contextualised is why religious dogma was a requirement. It is fairly explicit that this approach was a purposefully adopted method. The aim of life and the path to reality, as promoted by religious methodology, can only be fulfilled through the appropriation of – and consequently to live by – the sacred word of an external holiness, existing beyond societal and worldly realms. To avert from the sacred word would result in drudgery and slavery while alive, and then burning in hell in the afterlife. This is the era in which masked gods were constructed. It is easily construable that this constructed god was a synonym for the despot of the time, practicing command and relentless exploitation over society. The extravagant masking of these gods is closely linked to the efforts of distortion applied to the human mind. The very fact that the first despots claimed to be god-kings seems to efficiently prove this point. The subsequent application of the despot’s word as legislation, and the presentation of these words as absolute truths is a widespread feature deployed throughout history. As suppression and exploitation deepened, the dogmatic religious method was made to become the dominant path taken by the human mind; to be more precise, it was to be a constructed social reality. The people’s compliance to the god masked despots’ suffocating enslaving rule was ensured through the application of this method.

The most important aspect of the religious method as a mental habit was its ability to justify the acceptance of enslavement by the masses and to install a rigid fatalism in the mass psyche. Great barbarous wars motivated by deeper exploitation were made possible as a result of this method: To live by the sacred word, in abeyance to god’s command! Without a doubt, this method ensures a major convenience for the administrating elite. Simply put, a herd-shepherd dialectic was formed. Slavery was to be presented as a necessary stage of social development; or a static, inanimate understanding of nature was to make it possible to freeze social reality in order to maintain the status quo. A very passive and objectified understanding of nature and society, coupled with a ruling strata presented as the divine creator of all things was forcibly shown to be the dialectic of life. It will not be an exaggeration to say that this was the mentality and method used in governing the people of the middle ages and in antiquity.

The dogmatic method’s most erroneous aspect is rather than the adoption of an animate, self-evolving view of nature, it forcibly insisted on a passive, objectified view of nature in need of a peremptory to determine its future. The most important impact this then has on society is a natural acceptance of its very pacification and an Internalisation of a herd-like administration. This excessively subjective ancient method was to peak in the Middle Ages. The objective world was taken to be incomprehensible, thus deemed non-existent. The world was reduced to a mere temporary station, where eternal and perpetual ideals were the only acceptable way of life. Those who had a good grasp of the existing dogmas and clichés were recognised as scholars and rewarded with the highest titles. This anti-mythological mode of thought has subsequently shaped the course of history, and therefore, is primarily responsible for the currently captive and bridled way of life.

A positive aspect of the religious method is its impact on the development of ethics in society. At this stage, and under the influence of this method, the notions of good and bad have come under significant scrutiny and as a result have been inflexibly categorised in accordance with absolute judgements. The fundamental perception behind this method is its realisation of the flexibility of the human mind, and therefore, its openness to remoulding. This characteristic of the mind, as opposed to other living organisms, is the fundamental basis of ethical development.

Without an application of ethics, socialisation or administration is out of the question. An ethical method is indispensible for the becoming of, and the administration of society. Without dwelling into the pros and cons of ethics, the indispensability of this development for societal comprehension must be clarified. Undoubtedly, ethics is a metaphysical phenomenon, but this in no way makes ethics non-existent or any less significant. We will not be exaggerating too much by saying that metaphysical ethics has the upper hand on the ethics of the mythological period. To think of human sociality without ethics, is enough to bring about the end of the human species along with its ecological environment, just as the dinosaurs did by not leaving themselves a single weed to chew on. Indeed it is due to an ethical demolition that environmental problems have come to such a disastrous threshold.

The dogmatic method is not only evident in the major religions; this method weighs heavily in on classical Greek thought too. The dialectical method, not to mention an objective approach, is seriously lacking in Greek classical thought. The supremacy of Aristotle’s and Plato’s idealism had become a strong foundation for religious dogmatism in the Middle Ages. Plato’s recognition as the greatest philosopher of idealism, or even its creator, had made him a favourite of the prophetical tradition.

The prophetic traditions of the three major religions are well stabilised constituent versions of the dogmatic method. In Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius and Socrates ethics peaks. Especially in the philosophy of Zoroaster, the duality of good and bad is mirrored by the duality of light and dark. On behalf of humanity, these wise men have introduced higher levels of morality.

3- The philosophical Method

Although compared to religion philosophy constitutes a smaller component of civilizational history, it is nonetheless very important. Wisdom, as the inception of philosophy, is as old as religion. The wise man (the original Turkish word used by Ocalan is gender neutral, however, the closest English translation is wise man) – a representative of the thinking human – supplies a separate source of meaning from theology. Their thoughts are as valuable as that of the spokespersons of the gods. In general, wise men are not very reconciled with the state and civilisation. They are more in connection with communities external to official society. They have played a significant role in the development of ethics and science. Although it is not reflected in written documents, the culture of the goddesses of the Neolithic era and the undegenerated fragments of hierarchy are linked to scholarly wisdom. We can see strong traces of this in Sumerian society. Prophetic outbursts are full of wisdom. The tradition of wisdom and philosophy in the Middle East is yet to be satisfactorily explored. The existence of philosophy before the Greek civilisation is not even open to discussion. The good fortune of the Greek philosophers derives from a combination of their geographic situation and the fact that they levelled-up in civilizational progression. Just as the Sumerian clergy combined the construction of religion and the gods with the construction of new society and the state, the Greek philosophers played a significant role in embedding a half religious half philosophical mind-set in the construction and maintenance of higher civilisation. The missions are the same: the employment of conceptual art. The first plays its role through the construction of religion, while the other plays the same role but with the use of philosophical concepts. By this time masked gods are slowly being replaced by unmasked gods and naked kings. There is a correlation between this development and the development of philosophy and human abstraction.

Philosophy’s comparatively limited effectiveness in Greek and Roman societies was to undergo a major revolution in European capitalist societies, where religious unrest left its place to philosophical unrest. This unrest is directly linked to the dominance of national and class interests in this new stage of civilisation. Once it was understood that religious conflicts were not solving anything, philosophy undertook the responsibility. The religious wars that took place between the years of 1618-1649 were to be the last. The same century saw the rise of the philosophical revolution. While playing a responsible role in Greek and Roman societies, philosophy becomes the ideological form of the new civilisation. Major philosophical schools are born. On the one side the “death of god” was being announced, on the other side kings were being beheaded. The stage is being prepared for the introduction of the god-like nation state, and, what can only be described as naked kings, the capitalist state.

Philosophy’s main characteristic in comparison with the pagan religions, was its extensive ideological appropriation. Philosophy brought about an explosion in meaning. The seeds of all philosophical tendencies were sowed at this time: Idealism, materialism, metaphysics and dialectical forms of thought all found opportunities of birth and debate at this time. Before Socrates the “philosophy of nature” was at the forefront, however, Socrates’ emphasis on the “philosophy of society” subsequently rearranged priorities. The growth of “social problems” (exploitation and oppression) was a significant catalyst for this. Here I must reiterate that to speak of “social problem” is to speak of the establishment of the chain of city-trade-state-administrator. The city itself is effectual in making philosophical thought an imperative development. The city also brings about a break off from organic society. Therefore, mentalities that are unaccommodating of nature are easily formable in the city. The city, as a civilizational phase formed on the basis of the betrayal of the environment, is the womb in which all abstract, extreme metaphysical and materialistic mentalities are conceived.

We see that philosophy on the one hand is a breakthrough in thought, but on the other hand, it is also a mentality estranged from the environment. The Sophists, who were engaged in the diffusion of philosophical knowledge, were the intellectuals of the time. They were paid to teach the children of wealthy families. Just as the clergy constructed religions and claimed to be the attendants of the places of worship, philosophers formed their own schools. In a sense, they were forming their own temples. Just as there were polytheist religions, there were many schools of philosophy. Every school is like a religion or a sect. Religions, in the final analysis, can be thought of as institutionalised and traditionalised philosophies that have taken the form of faiths. The differences between the two should not be understood to be conversely related. While religion is more the ideological nourishment of ruled peoples, philosophy is the nourishment of the elite class’ youths and intellectuals. In a sense, Plato and Aristotle undertook the mission of the clergy in constructing and protecting the city with a philosophical approach. The philosopher’s primary concern was the question of how better the city states could be administered and protected, but firstly, how it was to be constructed.

Although philosophy is a heavily abstractive thought system, it is always connected to an observation of the concrete. It does not completely disconnect itself from intuitive thought. It is the deepest abstractive thought system. Compared to religion, its contribution to science is even more vital.

4- The Scientific Method

Science does not differ drastically from philosophy. Science can be understood as philosophy but with a better developed experimental basis. Its biggest drawback, however, as opposed to religion, is its negligence of the question of why. Answering the how of nature is not sufficient for a definition of life. The assumption that the universe is causeless and purposeless is not a very attractive proposition. A science that is unable to answer the why of life can only be a tool for the power elites. I must put forward the notion that the distinction of science from philosophy and religion (or at least the questions that they concern themselves with: cause and purpose) is directly linked to the capitalistic mentality.

Religion and philosophy, actually mythology too, are the memory, identity and mental defence force of society. Despite being heavily distorted, they are sociological realities. The science of a society that has been broken off from its history and memory can only serve the power elites; this we call capitalism. In capitalism mythology, religion and philosophy are all reduced to worthless metaphysics. Why? The answer is clear. For thousands of years, religion, philosophy and mythology all ostracised capitalist elements, and stripped them of any sort of justification for their existence. Therefore, while religion, philosophy and mythology constituted a primary part of the social psyche, capitalism was unable to flourish. No power elite could justify capitalism in this sort of mental – and therefore ethical – atmosphere; especially as its very own adopted socio-economic organisation.

The ‘scientific method’ has played a significant role in capitalism becoming a world system. In this approach, led by Descartes, Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon, a clear cut distinction between subject and object is carefully made. In the dogmatic method of the Middle Ages there was not much room for a distinction between subject and object.

The Renaissance led rise of Western Europe, through the Reformation in Christianity and the Enlightenment in philosophy, had opened a new era under the imagery of subjectivity and objectivity. The subjectivity of humanity and the objectivity of the world became the two main factors of life. The dogmatic method, the word of God, along with ethics critically loses significance. To be more precise, the covered kings and the masked gods of the old are replaced by the naked kings and the unmasked gods of the new. The capitalistic mode of exploitation is the main motivator of this transition. The increasing exploitation fuelled by the drive of profit requires the transformation of societal perception through a restructuring of the dimensions of thought. This requirement and necessity is the driving force behind the new ‘scientific method’. Humanity and nature is facing a new era of deepened exploitation and abuse. The societal conscience that was unwilling to accept such abuse was about to undergo reconstruction in parallel with the newly formed dimensions of thought. It is for this reason that ‘method’, as the fundamental route to righteousness, was about to gain a significant functionality. It is well documented that Descartes, in order for a deep transformation, dwells into a major illness of scepticism and eventually seeks asylum in the judgement “I think, therefore I am”. It is also well known that Roger and Francis Bacon work really hard on ‘objectivism’. Descartes opens the door to the individual’s ability to think independently, while the Bacons clear the path for the individual to dispose of the ‘object’ as he wishes.

The subject-object distinction is the heart of mental hegemony. Although it seems as if the principle of objectivity is deemed indispensible for the scientific method, the reality of it is that it is a prerequisite for the hegemony of subjectivism. To be a ruler you must be a subject. Therefore, naturally the ruled become the objects. An object becomes that which is administered like a commodity. This is the methodological expression of the subject administering the object (nature/ commodity) as it wishes. This occurs under the credence of science. The object-subject distinction can be traced back to Plato. Plato’s renowned duality of the world of ‘idea’s and the world of ‘reflection’s is the root of all such distinctions. The mythological basis of these can be observed in Sumerian and Ancient Egyptian societies. The inception of this distinction originates from the celestial rise and sublimation of the upper hierarchy and the enslavement of the lower strata. Dualities such as creator-created, ruler-ruled, god-servant and great ideas-simple reflections gradually evolve into the subject-object distinction. The distinction of body and mind can be put into the same bracket. The political meaning of all of this is the negligence of democracy and the development of monarchy and oligarchy.

The concept of ‘objectivism’ in the scientific method is in need of profound reanalysis. Excluding analytic thought, the objectification of the animate and inanimate world, including the human body, plays a significant role in the capitalist exploitation and domination of society and nature. Without the deepening and justification of the segregation between subject and object, the mental transformation required as a basis of modern thought could not have been achieved.

While analytic thought is justified as the subject, object is the material element on which all sorts of speculative efforts can be made upon; in other words, it represents ‘objectivity’. Great struggles have been given for the sake of this distinction. The struggle between the church and science should not be seen as one of righteousness. The underlying current is a major social struggle. In a sense, on the one side you have the morally sensitive old society, as opposed to the new naked capitalism wishing to rid itself of the ethical burden on its shoulders. In all honesty, the church and science are not the main units of this quarrel either. More generally, it is a quarrel between the historically consistent social values that hinder exploitation and deem it to be sin, against the new capitalist project wishing to remove the ethical bonds of society in order to make it susceptible to exploitation and tyranny. The ‘objective approach’ is the key concept of this project.

Under the ‘objective’ conceptualisation of ‘analytical thought’ no value is free from going under the surgical knife. It is not only human labour, but all animate and inanimate organisms that can be proprietary, and therefore, disposable to the full extent. They can be subjected to all sorts of research and examination and then, accordingly exploited. Apart from distinguished subjects, everything can be mechanised, and so mercilessly exploited and dictated upon. The subjectification of the individual as opposed to the objectified community, citizenship and the nation-state – in other words the unmasked gods – are ‘new inventions’ that are able to create havoc and make life unbearable through the organisation of genocides and the destruction of the environment. The old ‘Leviathan’ has become rabid; it seems as if there is not a single object it is unwilling to suppress or break into pieces. It should be well understood that to perceive of the objective approach as an innocent concept of the scientific method does not only lead to credulous digressions, but also to great disasters and even bigger massacres then that of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. It must be clearly stated that the objective approach is in no way an innocent scientific term.

Until the ‘scientific method’ itself is not perceived as a tool for the classified division of society, the dysfunctional and bankrupt state of sociology cannot be explained. I must openly state that, the ‘objective scientific method’ is also the underlying reason behind the bankruptcy of the onetime assertive ‘scientific socialism’.

The fact that scientific socialism’s – and all its derivatives – constructed long term social systems were all abolished from within, and the rapidity of the transformation from state capitalism to private capitalism, both grew out of the systemic adoption of the ‘scientific method’ and the notion of ‘objectification’. Otherwise, no one can doubt for a single second the integrity of those who struggled for socialism with great belief and effort.

Scientific structures that attribute a central role to the subject-object distinction are very passionate for their own independence. So much so that they claim to be over and above society’s values. Maybe the greatest deviation in the name of science is hidden in this claim. it may be right to say that that the integration and unification of science and the system of rule in the capitalist era, is incomparable to that of any other previous era. From its methodology to its contents, the world of science is the system’s biggest constructive power, its protective force and its justifier. The scientific method of the capitalist era – and all sciences deriving from it – is the actual provider and pathfinder of the profitable machine along with great wars, crises, suffering, starvation, unemployment, environmental meltdown and population instabilities that come with it. The saying “knowledge is power” is none other than a proud confession of this truth.

Maybe some will say “what is wrong with this?” These types of judgements, draped in innocence, are nothing other than the system’s outspoken natural defence mechanism.

If in our day capitalist modernity is crying out with signs of unsustainability from every parameter of the system, the biggest responsible party for this is the ‘scientific method’ it relies upon. Therefore, it is of vital importance for a criticism of the system to initially be developed against the method the system is founded upon and the ‘scientific disciplines’ deriving from it. A fundamental weakness of all criticisms of the system, including the socialist criticism, is that they too have adopted the very method used in the creation and sustenance of the system. An anti-system movement aiming to criticise a social reality that has been founded upon a specific method, no matter how hard it is criticised using the same method, will eventually be faced with the same fate. It is well known that a used road will always pass through the same villages and towns. This has been the fate of all anti-system movements, including scientific socialism.

I pay specific attention in taking the societal character of the subject-object distinction to be a central concept of my evaluations. This is because these innocent looking concepts are the ontological reasons behind the unsustainability of modernity. Contrary to popular belief, these are not nominal concepts, and they also have nothing to do with scientific development. They possess fixed misconceptions on the understandings of nature and subjectivity, no less than that of the dogmatic method of the Middle Ages. The frank distinction between subjectivity and objectivity has suffocated the ability to comprehend the meaning of life and has taken human life into a more backward state than that of the Middle Ages. The dogmatic method’s efforts in suffocating and depriving human life of freedom, has been taken over by capitalist modernity’s efforts in smashing social life to pieces on intellectual grounds provided by the distinction of subjectivity and objectivity. A deep segregation is being constructed in all areas of life. As a result of the crystallisation of the whole applied by the so called ‘scientific disciplines’, the biggest value lost is the integral and indivisible entirety of societal time and space. There is no bigger tragedy than the exclusion of time and space from societal life, hence the ‘jamming of life’ experienced in our day. We are faced with the worst of fates. Societal cancer is not an allegoric approach; it is a most meaningful systems analysis.

C- The Historical Meaning of the Search for Truth and Methodology

I am not proposing a new method. This however, does not mean I am proposing to get rid of methodology. I am well aware of human tendencies, not to mention the animate and inanimate nature’s accordance to certain laws and methodical movements. I highly value means and methods. But I am also aware of the fact, and therefore must clearly state, that the insistence on deterministic aspects of methods and laws have greatly hindered developments and denied freedoms. I do not believe in the existence of a lawless universe lacking in method. However, I also do not believe that the universe is based on a mathematic equation as the mechanism of Descartes seems to suggest. I have deep suspicions regarding mathematical logic and nomothetic laws. I am able to draw many comparisons between the Sumerian clergy – the inventors of this logic – and the scientific mentality of our day. My belief is that both represent the same civilisation.

To criticise methodology does not necessarily imply opposition to methodology as a whole, nor does it imply an alternative methodological proposal. It must be stated that openness to analytical interpretations of free life are more meaningful. If the ultimate ambition is the understanding of life, then the methodology deployed should be an intermediary for this ambition. On their own, mass industrial production and powerful state structures have brought humanity more wars and destruction than it has happiness. Where power and production meet, meaning becomes secluded. The owners of surplus goods have always maintained an inconsiderate stance against life. Society itself has always remained suspicious of surplus accumulation. To overcome the problem of methodology is meaningful on many levels; it requires a scrutinising judgement of the age and civilisation we currently live in. Without a thorough criticism of capitalism and the methodology and scientific disciplines intrinsic in all of its models and institutions, and also without restructuring the social sciences to the extent of making it a means for free life, any effort to overcome the system will be in vein. I do not want to add to the dilemma that is modernity and postmodernity. Although I respect certain approaches to this issue, I nonetheless believe that they miss the crux of the discussion. It is often said that postmodernity is the continuation of modernity under a different guise.

I want to present my interpretation under the conceptualisation of the REGIME OF TRUTH. Rather than an alternative methodology, I want to offer a route out of the swamp of problems that are full of misjudgements and ultimately have nothing to do with the values of freedom. A search for the truth has always existed in human sociality. From mythology to religion, from philosophy to the sciences of our day this search has persisted. Life is inconceivable without these options, but how ironic is it that many of humanity’s problems also take source from them. It seems as if we are neither able to live without them or with them. However, this has come to an unbearable stage. Modernity has come to the limits of its viability. In one breath we can list population growth, the exhaustion of resources, environmental destruction, ethical degeneration, the distinction of life from time and space and enough nuclear arsenal to turn the world into a desert are only a few of the problems seriously threatening the viability of the current system. These problems are enough to show that are current regimes of truth are bankrupt. I do not want to paint a negative picture, but we can no longer remain silent. There is no need to feel hopeless, what is required is an alternative.

I am certain that capitalist modernity gets its strength from the manipulative social structures that it so professionally constructs. Throughout history great struggles have taken place against these structures. Is the current system then, as it so ardently tries to present itself, an eternal existence? Is another world not possible? I am aware that these are pre-existing questions. However, these questions are very rarely questioned outside of the current structures of knowledge and what goes down as scientific methodology. I feel that I am prepared to try this. My belief is that any such attempt is an obligation towards the values of freedom.

Divisions such as subject-object, idealist-materialist, dialectic-metaphysic, philosophical-scientific, mythological-religious have weakened understanding and manipulated meaning. The deepening of these dilemmas were the methodological mistakes that paved the way to capitalist modernity. Throughout the history of civilisation power elites have actively promoted and developed these dualistic thoughts and beliefs as justifiers of their authoritarian systems; this has ultimately peaked with the establishment of capitalist modernity. The presentation of these dilemmas as abstract history has only served the power elites and the status quo. No authoritarian system of exploitation could have justified itself without firstly preoccupying the domain of societal intellect with these divisive dilemmas. An insistence on the entrapment of intellectual struggles within the above mentioned dualities can only lead to more power and exploitation. Successful searchers of knowledge have often been able to attain prestigious awards and titles insofar as they remained devoted to these dualities. Thus the phrase “power is knowledge” has become a reflection of a fundamental truth. The structures of knowledge referred to here are the firmest allies of the system of exploitation. This alliance can only bring about more exploitation and oppression; ultimately eradicating the possibility of a free and meaningful life.

At this stage, the first thing we must do is abandon these thought systems and structures of knowledge. Essentially, a negative approach must be adopted; a totally opposite frontier to the system’s current structures of knowledge. What I mean is the development of an alternative stance based on a detailed evaluation of the current system. Not just against the networks of power, this stance must be developed against all points of exploitation, only then will the system be dealt a blow that it will be unable to recover from. All social structures are products of thought and mentality. Despite popular belief, it is not hands and feet that organise society. If this was the case, the world before us would have been completely different. The most important developments in history have come about as a result of effective thoughts and mentalities. One of the biggest mistakes of Marxist methodology was that rather than preliminarily concentrating the revolution in the sphere of thought and mentality, it expected the exploited proletariat to reorganise society. Along with other mistakes, the results of this attempt are widely known.

Then, in conjunction with the scientific gains of humanity, what kind of mentality must we adopt?

To give this question a clear and concise answer we must further decode these two seemingly opposite thought systems: subjectivism and objectivism.

Firstly, objectivism is not the pure expression of natural laws, despite its insistence on being so. If studied carefully, it is easily noticeable that objectivist rhetoric is a modern replacement for “the word of god”. It always seems as if the voices of extra-natural forces are echoed in objectivist rhetoric. If we dig deeper, we will see that these voices are the voices of the despots and exploiters. The objectivist mind and its system of thought are closely tied with civilizational systems. Objectivism has been seasoned by these systems and has subsequently been familiarised with intent. Even if knowledge is gained from objects, this is quickly adapted and internalised by the system. If anything else is insisted upon, then just as historical examples like Adam, Abraham, Mani, Hallac-I Mansur, Saint Paul and Giordano Bruno have shown us, the full wrath of the system’s gods will be felt. If objectivity really is what the eye sees then it can be really valuable, especially if guided with the values of free life. However, for this to happen, just like Hallac-I Mansur and Giordano Bruno we must firstly become unrelenting warriors of thought.

We must understand that two separate sorts of scientific laws can be formulated through objectivism. It requires great effort and resistance to distinguish between which formulation belongs to the ruling system and which is a formulation of actuality. If objectivist thought – a reflection of analytical thinking – cannot be placed in cooperation with emotional thought, then it will inevitably lead humanity towards the same destiny as the dinosaurs. The atom bomb is what this type of thought coupled with capitalist modernity’s structures can conjure. When we take a closer look at the nation-state we will see the extent of the destructive capabilities of objectivist analytical thought.

On the other side of the scale is subjectivism. This approach claims that the truth can only be reached through internal insight and objectless speculation. This is some sort of Aristotelian thought. If left on its own, it is as fallible as objectivism hence “actuality is as much as it can be humanly sensed”. This can lead all the way to existentialism and although many schools of thought have adopted this approach, it does not change the fact that subjectivism has been internalised by the system just as much as objectivism has. Subjectivism, due to its conception of nature and society, was a strong foundation in the development of individualism. The modernist individual’s egoism is a by-product of subjectivist thought. Rather than a healthy ‘self’, this has developed a consumer society of ‘selfish’ individuals.

In our day, or to be more precise, in capitalist modernity objectivism is dominant in schools and universities while subjectivism dominates spiritual and religious institutions; in which both induce their justifications. Rather than being methodologies in the quest of actuality, they play a mere lubricant role for the system. As justifiers of power and exploitation, these institutions are as functional as those institutions that are directly involved in coercion and exploitation. Once again we are faced with the reality “knowledge is power”. The search for the truth is turned into the name of the game played in the triangle of capital-knowledge-politics. Every search for the truth outside of this triangle is either declared an enemy, or is internalised and nullified. In a time where meaning has almost disappeared, we find ourselves besieged by the most developed stage of material civilisation. How can liberation from the siege of this triangle be achieved? This is no easy question to answer. Many philosophers of freedom like Nietzsche and Foucault have sought answers to this question. We must understand these philosophers when they claim that “society has been castrated” or when declaring the “death of humanity”. Concentration camps, the atom bomb, ethnic cleansing, ecological destruction, mass unemployment and increase in cancer and AIDS all seem to support these claims; however, it must be stated that they also raise the urgency for an alternative search for truth and actuality.

— source —

http://pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=176

http://pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=178

http://pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=189