All along the past 22 months I have been following closely, and with utmost attention, the Egyptian Legislative and juridical show-down where everyone defies everybody for duel. The trials, the debates, the argumentations, the suggestions, and most of all the Constitutional issues.
I have to admit that the scenery was not pleasant at all. Apart from being superficial and bluntly driven by political concerns, in every single aspect of the term; it brought to the light before me the clearest of all conclusions: the divisions distancing us further away from identifying our urging common priorities, or agreeing on any decisive solution; are only the fruit of our ‘THINKING PATTERNS’. Let me try to explain.
The substantial difference between a Lawyer and a Judge rest in their ‘Thinking Pattern’. While a lawyer develops a ‘Linear’ thought following a plan: to display facts and argumentations in function of a precise pre-established thesis; his thinking pattern is oriented to make that thesis prevail. By contrast, a judge thinks according to a ‘Spherical’ pattern: he follows the different directions suggested by facts and presented by argumentations; his thinking pattern is oriented to make him see where such material would lead.
Both, the linear and spherical thinking patterns, do not exclusively characterise the Juridical Sector; in fact, they are the two systems by which all persons face the world. Far from any ethical, ideological or religious classifications, it remains a fact that the Linear Pattern incites individuals to favour their own beliefs, while the Spherical Pattern induce others towards the doubt.
It is obvious that the linear pattern enjoys an interior force which the spherical one lacks: it is aggressive, simplifier, and categorises persons as allies and adversaries. It needs an enemy. Thus the spherical pattern becomes ontologically incompatible, because it is not necessary to share in agreement the ‘Object Thought’ as the linear pattern; it is sufficient to analyse it without any sort of preventive enthusiast approval. Today, the Linear Pattern dominates the worlds of Politics and Information.
Ø “It is imperative to prevent Communists from seizing the country”! That explains why the votes went back to the Conservative Institution (The Military Institution’s candidate). Did anyone questioned whether communists do exist for real and – if so – how much an evil it is their participation in political life could turn into an evident demonstration of Communism?
Ø “Ezz and Talaat, have both destroyed the Steel industry and the Construction Sector by their monopoly games, thus favouring private interests; their own and those of their companies’ share-holders”! Has anybody debated such an aspect as the primary concern of any Private business Enterprise, and that the country’s politics and policies, by guaranteeing similar conditions for its industrial and economic development, have laid down an evident demonstration of Wild Capitalism?
Both these examples highlight well enough the dominance of the Linear Pattern of thinking over the Information World, where no one cares to debate the merit(s) of an issue and instead settles for its presentation. It is a lot easier justifying, enforcing and cheering; rather than the exhaustive mental process to analyse, debate, argue, chose and decide.
Newspapers and TV do not falsify facts (almost never); they only present them in accordance with their chosen thesis: for political, economic, even for Ideological reasons. Articles, comments, interviews, photographs, all become functional to prove the validity of the thesis they decide to sustain.
No matter right or wrong it might be, the thesis should never be subject to debate, discussion or doubt. There shouldn’t be voices of ‘Critic’.. The maximum allowed would be some ‘Contrary’ noises.. Linear Thought vs. Linear Thought. That’s why whomever buys a given newspaper, would anticipate its contents and share them prioress.. Who watches a televised Talk-Show, can foresee – according to chosen channel or network – what to expect.
It is called “The Editorial Line”! The one dictating an audience share or a paper circulation and a book print run! And I don’t believe that to be a good thing.
Pass On The Word.