>17th August 2005


My dearest Agha,                                     August 17, 2005 23:00:55

(Received in Monrovia, Liberia)

Thanks for every appreciative factor inclusive of your friends Grossman and Raza. Criticism is least corny and to feel worthy of criticism is important again. Exponentially all important in the arsenal of appreciation. To remain audible of audience and audit their every criticism. I have emphasized its importance but it is the second time someone has suggested to pursue literature. About a year ago, Abrar and I were discussing study options for Deutschland and he had advised the same course. I was fixated on philosophy then and now your friend on literature again. Strange. My awareness and writing matters can be contentious and difficult to comprehend because I like to explore every level of magnanimity in levels of learning. From what I have discovered is that to expound on discourse of present people and their immediate subsequent convolutions is easier because of an exaggerated free hand whereas to delineate on clique of demagogue in books scrupulous. I guess because you try to deal with facts of history and try to avoid tangential or less factual factors. Anyhow the latter manifests more prudence than former. It is the inference or either pragmatically incorrect. I will start both books of Edward Said tomorrow and try to coincide reading and writing. I wish someday reading a book will take me a day and before nightfall, written thousands of words. I have also felt that poetry on paper is more easily tractable whereas reviews are expedient on computer. It helps me to maintain and improve my 60 WPM. Let’s levitate to Phase 3.


I think republicans have been moribund on intellectual spheres after Nixon. He was undoubtedly a very astute politician with visionary leadership. By principle, I have now a blurry notion of Watergate invasion of democrat privacy but cannot comment on it because his side of the story has only concise pointers. Nixon claims that writing never came to him easily yet he has written well with a visionary leadership.


I wrote his few among many goals “To achieve great goals a leader must find ways to persuade others to reinterpret and even sometimes to go against their interests and principles. But at times he must go against his own interests and principles to achieve those same goals”.


He is now being pragmatist and idealist at the same time “Those who practice pragmatism as an end in itself and those who oppose it as unmitigated evil are both wrong. Pragmatism can be justified but only as means to achieve great ideals”.


He gets even ensconced on a cliché “Politics is the art of making the possible. But leadership is the art of making the impossible possible”.


Nixon goes further unlike politburo or samurai “There is a profound difference between campaigning for office and governing in office. A campaign’s goal is popularity. In governing, popularity is only means to an end. It should never be hoarded but used to achieve greater goals”.


He is melancholic and missing Presidency “A president’s success is measured by his domestic and international achievements but not by his popularity in polls”.


Richard finally persecutes IMF “Be generous in sharing credit with subordinates when initiative succeeds, and be prepared to take the blame if it fails”.


Interestingly, his Geopolitical views of idealist polarity is quite a lodestar because he reckons that US either preferred to remain isolationist after World War II or went too far becoming the idealistic crusader on international disputes in abstract moral principles. The philosophy is very informative with Locke, Montesquieu, Hobbes and Marxism-Leninism. First he describes that founders who drafted the Constitution called it “novus ordo seclorum that meant a new order for the ages. These vigilantes vividly understood that democracy existed among ancient Greeks but government was not run by the masses rather most educated, wealthiest and powerful segment of society. They had studied Hobbes thoroughly who believed that avarice existed in every man and authoritarian form will be a viable government. Hobbes was actually from England and wrote the legendary Leviathan and took exile in France in the 16th century probably when his country was in political chaos and anarchy. He also traveled to Italy and took language classes for six months. He was also known for his works on optics, geometry, psychology and so forth. In the Ethics of George W. Bush, Peter Singer who is a philosopher on Bioethics in US also honored Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes regarded three reasons among causing disposition to fight. Diffidence, competition and glory. Additionally, I have observed in many books the word Marxism-Leninism with not even blurry interpretation of Bolshevism. Lenin adamantly scrutinized Machiavelli who believed in a titanic government of tyranny. So the word Leninism actually manifests amoral Florence of Machiavelli. Rousseau was the author of Laissez faire and Social Contract who unequivocally held men equal from standpoint of Nature. Nixon mentioned that the English philosopher Locke and French Montesquieu actually are the people whose philosophy stands behind the pioneered Revolution which defines the relationship between individual, state and society. Locke and Montesquieu went one step further from Rousseau that in state of nature men lived a happy life before formation of society or state and felt self sufficient with all solitude and free existence. They possessed whatever they could acquire and were contended in exerted or acquitted labor with definitive freedom from any ruler. But their “Inconveniences” to protect their equal rights and attain goals emancipated the requirement of a society and state. Let alone that no government or society can mend that declaration of equal human rights. If only the rest of world was included right then. Anyhow, I don’t mind delaying Edward for a day and write further on this warp pace.


I also thought to understand Max Weber and Herbert Spencer’s rationalistic school I should refer to Bertie’s History of Western Philosophy on description of forming Modern Europe and America. It is ideologically divided in to three divisions. The first is Liberal following Locke and Bentham. The Second is the Marxist communists. The first two are both rationalistic. The third are Fascists and Nazis who though fall in the same category but differ greatly from each other and are anti-rational and anti-scientific.


I spent few minutes writing a poem for Bilal on his white board so that perhaps I can persuade him to write verses on letters of Physics and Math. I chose chemistry and factorized:


C = Candid molecules liquidating in buoyant tubes

H = Hymns of H20 dissoluble if CO2

E = Echelons of lab rooms boiling in colors

M = Mercury or Mars burns faster in car

I  = Intense or tranquil mystery so steep

S = Small flasks and my tutor’s major task

T = Tests in December to Cambridge I undertake

R = Reinvigor I score when ready to appear

Y = Yesterday study was steam but 2day chemistry is my esteem






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s