TRAVELS IN EUROPE
Traditions exist
in time and place. They are resolutely Euclidean and whatever they say about
ancient ruins they are landmarks in time. In his travels over the Anatolian
plateau and the Mediterranean shore, Forbes reels off exciting landmarks like
there’s no tomorrow, but there sure are a lot of yesterdays.
Cover of Forbes’s book, The Book Guild (1978)
It has been said
Turkey is the hub of everything – Europe and Asia, Middle-East and West, Black
sea and Mediterranean – and that predetermines its politics. If it weren’t for
Kemal Ataturk it would have been divided between all those. Patriotism runs
deep, now with Erdogan.
If you then say,
is Europe patriotic? the pregnant pause might speak for itself. Europe and the
Ottomans may have been antagonists since Suleyman camped at the gates of Vienna
(The Shadow of the Vulture), but the difference is Turkey has not changed that
much. Thanks to Ataturk, the demise of the Ottoman Empire turned into not a non
future but a fight back. The wealth of the Bosporus and the glories of Istanbul
were retrieved with much blood.
Turkey, from the
point of view of epistemology – knowledge of what’s there – is quite dramatic
and picturesque. Europe, by contrast, is a fantastical mess of utter
contradictions. The closest it gets to Turkey is Spain’s Andalucian Moorish
splendour. Europe is essentially national cultures, so if you ask, What is
Europe? there is no ready answer. That might be ok politically or economically,
but it’s not ok epistemologically. The first thing a ruler has to know is what
they’re ruling over.
The simple fact
is that Europe doesn’t exist epistemologically, but does exist as a logical
maze. That’s the difference not just with Turkey but with America, which exists
in the mind as an idea of rugged independence. This brings forth images of
cowboys and steers, plucky Indians, the High Chaparral and so on. We’re again
in scenic space, the vistas of John Ford’s Westerns. We all know these images,
and it’s also apparent the images must have an ontological basis in the land.
So, this type of knowledge is not just rational, it is the type that involves
irresolvable qualities of line. It’s the type of knowledge you also get from a
view from the theatre at Pergamum (post 3).
Europe has to
start from that type of knowledge because otherwise everything is Machiavellian.
It doesn’t matter if the intentions are good or bad; they are just travelling
round a logical maze. There is a problem with understanding; the assumption is
a rational world is good, which is like saying if you live in a logical maze
all you need is logic. In fact, that’s a recipe for madness. You always start
with simple, dramatic vistas, the view from the hill.
Elric Vol 1, page 75
(Thomas/Russell/Gilbert adaptation of Moorcock): logic is always useful,
particularly on a land-ship
Logic is useful,
indispensable, but it’s not knowledge of things. So, actually, logic is only useful
in an illogical world. The world is only logical if you don’t bother about
epistemology – knowledge of things – or ontology. As far as the latter goes,
people are impressed with the infinite complexity of computer algorithms and
theorems whereas I’m impressed by Greek temples. The latter are a product of
balance and restraint, expression and the irresolvable qualities of line.
Europe, much
more than its historical neighbour Turkey, has lost its ontological identity.
There is a big problem of understanding. We don’t want politics, we want a
revival of rebellion. Rebellion by its nature is less rational and so more open
to the experience of ontology. Politicians like to think they are dealing with
problems; I was speaking to a Scottish street guy the other day who was hanging
around the harbour. He happened to be anti immigration and struck me as a
weatherbeaten cove. Immigration may be a problem but there are other problems.
If this guy
comes from Glasgow, the majority of the Highlanders in Glasgow were “cleared”
from the land in the 19th century. The land, because it’s a scenic
habitat, is an ontological problem. It’s not political. You have to preserve
the land and you do that by living on it, making a life of crofting or
fish-farming.
That doesn’t
worry politicians because it’s an ontological problem to do with the dramatic
vistas and picturesque locales of the Highlands. But, that is Scotland. It’s a
product of light and the nature of the land. Therefore, to get into that area
we need to get out of politics. That, of course, is just a subset of economics,
so how do we get out of that? It has to be done ontologically. It can only be a
riposte to the ultimate logical maze of transhumanism.
Transhumanism
accepts everything from E=MC² down and doesn’t accept the opposite – subtly
balanced expression and the grand simplicity of time-lost vistas. This sounds
pretty abstract, so put it in the shape of a question; how irresolvable is in
fact the “real world”? Are there alternatives?
I think there is
an alternative to the one envisaged by Google&Co and this will come into
the next post. In the meantime, a good way to counter this is to go back into
history. I’m no expert so a few observations will have to suffice. In Shadow of
the Vulture (post 2), about the siege of Vienna by Suleyman and his advance
guard under Mikal Oglu (the Vulture), REH says a lot about Europe’s inclement
weather, fortuitous thunderstorms and shipwrecks, and uses phrases like “The
infidel invaders”.
This surprises
us, but is just a product of civilized Christian values of the 14th
century. REH is quite even handed, and makes a point of saying the hated
Janizaries are not Mohammedans but Westerners, a ragtag of mercenaries loyal
only to their paypacket. Here’s a long quote towards the end of the story.
About the
vast arena stalked trained elephants, almost covered with housings of
gold-worked leather, and from the jewelled towers on their backs, fanfares of
trumpets vied with the roar of the throngs and the bellowing of lions. The
tiers of the Hippodrome were a sea of faces, all turning toward the jewelled
figure on the shining throne, while thousands of tongues wildly thundered his
acclaim.
As he
impressed the Venetian envoys, Suleyman knew he impressed the world. In the
blaze of his magnificence, men would forget that a handful of desperate Caphars
behind rotting walls had closed his road to empire. Suleyman accepted a goblet
of the forbidden wine, and spoke aside to the Grand Vizier, who stepped forth
and raised his arms.
“Oh, guests
of my masters, the Padishah forgets not the humblest in the hour of rejoicing.
To the officers who led his hosts against the infidels, he has made rare
gifts. Now he gives two hundred and forty thousand ducats to be distributed
among the common soldiers, and likewise to each Janizary he gives a thousand
aspers.” (page 421)
Turkish Mehter
Traditional
Macedonian
I’m no expert in
medieval history and have only a passing familiarity with Byzantium, so will
have to confine this to a general observation about the Ottoman, Christian
conflict.
This is that
history was made “on-the-hoof”. Representatives from the Venetian Empire, from
the vassals of Byzantium and from the Ottomans had a free hand to make deals
and basically deal with the situation as they saw fit. In the end, Byzantium
fell, but there was a long history of trade and civilized discourse with the
Ottomans. What that means is that history was largely a result of day-to-day
action; discourse in the market; trade in the harbour; time-lapse diplomacy. It
is quite filmic because it is action in-the-moment.
Basically, there
were very few preconceptions, and there is a lot of flow and movement of
people. This is what history was; movement of people and things. This is what
we see in paintings.
People in
motion
There’s a
whole generation
With a new
explanation
“San Francisco”,
Mamas and Papas
It’s a
happening, because a happening is when things “happen”. Now, a happening
happens when things are different; it’s a type of uncertainty. It can’t happen
when things are the same because then they are planned.
In the medieval
world, you could plan things to a certain extent, but you were operating in quite
an uncertain world. That sort of world is actually a product of opposites; of
order and disorder. The problem with envisaging something like a uniformly
governed Europe is that it assumes the world is ordered, but it’s not. It
consists of night and day. It consists of ancient geometry.
I quoted REH in
full as he gives a telling picture of oriental grandeur. The drama and
fascination are almost out of a Delacroix painting, but this is quite true to
the ceremonial world of the Ottomans. Now, this is not a political point; it’s
not a comment on decadence and luxury. I’m just saying that politics is to do
with order – the world isn’t ordered.
This is an
ontological point, not a political one. The only sort of order that can work is
an attempt to create order in something that’s disordered. Then we find that
really pleasing, like one of Capability Brown’s gardens.
A garden is not
a bad metaphor as it is also fertile and enclosed. It’s what I would call a
Euclidean area. There is a sense of drama, a frisson of buds ripening in
spring. What I would say is that sense of exciting frisson is mirrored in the
quote by REH of the ceremonial orient. In other words, it can be governed, but
you can’t govern order; that is madness (see Alphaville). You can only
govern disorder.
Grace Slick’s
song “Garden of Man” contains a mirror in the lyrics; I’m assuming it’s a magic
mirror.
