Reflections from the Periphery
âPerhaps, you should accept this reality: There is no room in this world for a kind of perfection you pursue. Perfection exists only in an ideal. All ideals are dreams. And dreams are for boys.â
Looking out the window, I was parsing her words. Her sentences broke into individual words, and those words were swinging like multiple individual pendulums in different paces and directions â but never colliding into each other â in my head.
January in Istanbul is a brutal place for emotions. Everything is frozen. And movements are minimal. Only the waves of Bosphorus, the blades of the gushing sea wind, the traces of the ferryboats, and the feet of the bundled-up passersby maintain their calculated paces, cutting through the familiar scenery. A conglomerate of blurry lines. A still cut of a photograph taken by trembling hands. An ambivalent sight.
Oneâs emotions derive from the perceived certainty of a specifically designated paradigm in which oneâs memory is being contextualised. When ambivalence sneaks into this absolute equation, a certain uncertainty presides over oneâs memory. It leads one to doubt and to consider oneâs memory unreliable. A fracture forms. A dangerous preposition.
No longer can one trust oneâs own memory at this point, and the notion of certainty that all the events that weave oneâs memory into an existence had taken place as one remembers. Was it really raining when I was walking on the Galata Bridge or was it just extremely foggy and damp so that I felt as though it was raining at the time? Was the sky dark blue because the sun had just set or because it was cloudy and the fluorescent street lamps were lit up under it? Was she really gazing into my eyes affectionately or was she simply politely attentive? Was she in love with me or was she just being curious about me? Was I in love with her?
Once a doubt settles in, a certain meaning the time and the space has held up up to that point uneasily begins to shift its position, and the validity of oneâs emotions associated with them comes into question. And when one begins to question oneâs emotions attached to them, one is no longer capable of living in the same time and space experience oneâs memory had once allowed. The paradigm of oneâs existence shifts. Then someone like Maria, a character in Albert Camusâs Le Malentendu, can no longer say in certainty, J'ai toujours tout aimĂŠ en toi, mĂŞme ce que je ne comprenais pas et je vois bien qu'au fond, je ne te voudrais pas diffĂŠrent.
  A revisionist approach to the past may be a survival instinct. The more sensitive oneâs soul is, the stronger an appeal it exudes. One edits, revises, redacts, or even rewrites the past. One instructs oneâs own emotions to adapt to a revision of the past. Literary mediums are being called into to play a certain role. One discredits what one had once felt and adopts a new set of emotions based on a new revision of what had happened. One repeats this process as one expresses more on these new emotions. One begins to â and wants to â believe in them. This interpretation becomes the narrative, which eventually become the truth. The truth based on facts â only redacted.
The recorded history of mankind has been nothing but a perpetual war of comparative self-justification. From the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Code of Hammurabi, from the Egyptian hieroglyphs to the Sumerian cuneiform, from the Hebraic writings of the Pentateuch to the early Christian epistles and the Qurâan, from the Greek and Roman mythologies to the sagas of the Nordic deities, from Beowulf to the Canterbury Tales, from the Decameron to the Shakespearean theatres to the Chehovian dramas, from One Thousand One Nights to the Journey to the West, from La Chanson de Roland to the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, from the Shahnameh to the Matnawiye Manawi, from the Saharawi poems to the Kangyur, from the Dine prayers to the Aztec and Mayan codices, from Magna Carta Libertatum to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from the Declaration of Independence to La DĂŠclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen to the Communist Manifesto, from Inferno to Paradise Lost, from Richard Lovelace to Guillaume Apollinaire, from Leo Tolstoy to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, from Virginia Woolf to Simone de Beauvoir, from Anna Akhmatova to Nelly Sachs to WisĹawa Szymborska, from Vahan Tekeyan to Constantine Cavafy to Nazim Hikmet, from Elie Wiesel to Edward W. Said, the list goes on. All these writings and writers reflect and point out the tainted appearance of the collective delusional self that humanity has adamantly and obsessively held up even to the point of blinding itself. It is not a good or evil debate. Neither is it necessarily sickening nor is it essentially healthy. To some, self-justification hinges on an irreversible confrontation against a certain formidable evil, of which they consider it as posing a credible threat to the collective existence and meaning of humanity, yet to others, it is but an unquenchable pursuit for their egoistical thirst, only in which they find the sole purpose of humanityâs existence and meaning. And facts meet their precarious fates with the latter.
To them, the latter, division is a vital element of cohesiveness. They draw the maps, apply metrics down to millimetres, dabble colours, and cling on to titles. In order to make sure that the certain desired emotions are being applied, they are willing to go extra miles to make sure their memories â not only theirs, but even the collective memories of a people â will maintain the restricted frame of a certain image that they desire. It is the only narrative to be accepted. There cannot be alternatives. For them, feeling more righteous than other side is more important than being righteous, feeling stronger has more value than being strong, feeling more praised by people stirs a greater passion in them than being praiseworthy in their own eyes. They judge the value of the truth by the measurement of convenience and profits. Principles for them are but moveable miles posts. And they always seek and find justifiable scapegoats on whom they blame all the miseries, tragedies, and pains they themselves have created.
All societies driven by the latter exhibit some common symptomatic signs of human mind in its delusional state â both individual and collective.
âIn the nightmare of the dark / All the dogs of Europe bark, / And the living nations wait, / Each sequestered in its hate; / Intellectual disgrace / Stares from every human face, / And the seas of pity lie / Locked and frozen in each eye.â W. H. Audenâs âIn Memory of W. B. Yeatsâ.
"But as it is, from morning to night, on holiday and workday, the whole people and the senators too all alike bustle about in the forum and on no occasion leave it. To one and the same pursuit and artifice all devote themselves: to be able to cheat cunning, to fight cleverly, to struggle charmingly, to pretend to be a good man, to lay a trap, as if everyone is everyone's enemies." Lucilius, 2 CE.













